John McCain has a YouTube problem.

The Republican candidate who is hailed by the press as a "maverick" has benefited greatly from the media's adoration (Chris Matthews once famously said "The press loves McCain. We're his base, I think.").  Wooed with BBQs and bus trips, members of the press have largely given "St. McCain" a free ride (as an aside: see SusanG's excellent book review of "Free Ride" here).

With a handful of exceptions, many members of the press refuse to hold McCain to the standards against which the Democratic candidates are being measured.  Accordingly, McCain has galloped by stumbles that may have doomed any other candidate: confusing Shiite (Iran) and Sunni (al Qaeda), not knowing whether contraceptives prevent the spread of HIV ("you've stumped me"), etc.  

But this is 2008, not 2000, and while McCain's oh-so-cozy relationship with the press means he can continue to avoid the glaring scrutiny which other candidates must endure, today's voters need not rely on the well-fed and well-pandered press corp to know the real John McCain.

From blogs to YouTube to every nook and cranny of the internet between, voters today are more skeptical of the press and more likely to rely on the internet for information than ever before.  We've seen how the tools of the new digital era can augment media narratives (see Clinton, Bosnia, & YouTube) and how they can provide context to other narratives (see Obama, Wright, and a speech on race with 4.4 million views).

Will these modern digital tools be able to affect -- or counteract against -- the St. McCain narrative?

McCain's Achilles' heel has always been his policy oscillations.  His limber "principles" allow him to sweep from one side of an issue to another; they are generally lauded as badges of maverickness in the press and recognized by the reality-based community  largely as panderiffic moments of Washington as usual. And until now, because the traditional media has refused to properly cover these flip-flops and distortions, McCain has been able to get away with saying one thing and doing another, or voting one way and soon thereafter voting another. But how will the real McCain -- whiplash policy McCain -- play out in 2008, where video and blogs will be able to juxtapose his stances and statements in such a manner that shatters the myth of McCain as an "honest broker"?

In this modern election era, for example, how will the following play out?

On how safe it is in Iraq:

Yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told CNN that that President Bush’s escalation in Iraq is going so well, "General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed humvee." On Monday, he told radio host Bill Bennett that there "are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today."

This morning, during an interview with McCain, CNN’s John Roberts rebutted McCain’s assertions, stating, "I checked with General Petraeus’s people overnight and they said he never goes out in anything less than an up-armored humvee." He added that a new report by retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey "said no Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat reporter could walk the streets of Baghdad without heavily armed protection."

Faced with overwhelming evidence that he was wrong, McCain denied he’d ever said it: "Well, I’m not saying they could go without protection. The President goes around America with protection. So, certainly I didn’t say that."

On the possibility of tearing down the Ninth Ward:

McCain said he didn’t know what his plans would be. "That’s why we need to go back," he said, "to have a conversation about what to do about it. Rebuild it? Tear it down? Ya know, whatever it is."

From North Carolina, Clinton seized the opportunity to attack. "Sen. McCain said he might want to tear down the Ninth Ward instead of rebuilding it," she said. "But I went to the Ninth Ward after Katrina and met with people there and saw the destruction and I saw the resilience in their eyes and they deserve our help to rebuild and regain their lives and their homes."

Steve Schmidt, a senior McCain aide, said Clinton’s attack was "inaccurate." "Sen. McCain has said the levees must be strengthened on time so people can make a decision on whether to return based on safety," he said, adding that he would like to see a "safe, vibrant community emerge" after the appropriate flood plan.

Even before Clinton made her comments, McCain had been asked to clarify. "I don’t remember ever saying it," he said Thursday afternoon on his way from Xavier University to the New Orleans airport.

On economics:

   RUSSERT: Senator McCain, you have said repeatedly, "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." Is it a problem for your campaign that the economy is now the most important issue, one that, by your own acknowledgement, you're not well-versed on?

   McCAIN: Actually, I don't know where you got that quote from. I'm very well-versed in economics.

On Saddam Hussein:

ROUND 1: Do you think Saddam is a threat?

"I believe that Saddam Hussein presents clear and present danger to the United States of America with his continued pursuit of...to acquire weapons of mass destruction." [CNN Late Edition, 3/3/02]

"I never said that it was a, quote, clear and present danger because of weapons of mass destruction." [Hardball, 9/17/03]

On Samuel Alito:

As John McCain neared his momentous primary election victory in Florida after a ferocious campaign questioning his conservative credentials, right-wingers buzzed over word that he had privately suggested that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was too conservative. In response, McCain said he recalled saying no such thing and added that Alito was a "magnificent" choice. In fact, multiple sources confirm that the senator made negative comments about Alito nine months ago [...]

In a conference call with bloggers that day, McCain said, "I don't recall a conversation where I would have said that." He was "astonished" by the Alito quote, he said, and he repeatedly says at town meetings, "We're going to have justices like Roberts and Alito."

The above is just a smattering of the materials available online which expose the real McCain -- the McCain who takes a position, then forgets taking said position, or denies taking said position, creating his own convenient reality along the way.  And when McCain's words are set against McCain's words online -- as they are, for example, in this YouTube video, or this one, or this one -- the effect is devastating.

McCain has enjoyed success thus far by courting the traditional media.  It is a tried and true model for him.  But the new media tools of 2008 pose a minefield for journalists' favorite "maverick." After all, unlike with members of the press, it's hard to get millions of YouTube viewers or thousands of blog readers to eat out of your hands.  

For over a decade, McCain has been able to craft the image of a moderate, independent guy by controlling the media environment around him.  When that control is non-existent online, when ordinary citizens are each armed with their own tools to tarnish McCain's shining armor, that's when the real McCain will be exposed.  

It remains to be seen whether truth ferreted out online will be able to impact the way an adoring press covers McCain's candidacy.  Will McCain's candidacy -- which thrives because of an obedient traditional media -- will be able to survive the rigors of campaigning in the digital era?

Great news in the effort to build a lasting Democratic majority.  Pew Research on the youth vote:

Trends in the opinions of America's youngest voters are often a barometer of shifting political winds. And that appears to be the case in 2008. The current generation of young voters, who came of age during the George W. Bush years, is leading the way in giving the Democrats a wide advantage in party identification, just as the previous generation of young people who grew up in the Reagan years -- Generation X -- fueled the Republican surge of the mid-1990's.

In surveys conducted between October 2007 and March 2008, 58% of voters under age 30 identified or leaned toward the Democratic Party, compared with 33% who identified or leaned toward the GOP. The Democratic Party's current lead in party identification among young voters has more than doubled since the 2004 campaign, from 11 points to 25 points.

In fact, the Democrats' advantage among the young is now so broad-based that younger men as well as younger women favor the Democrats over the GOP -- making their age category the only one in the electorate in which men are significantly more inclined to self-identify as Democrats rather than as Republicans.

As Ezra Klein notes:

Political scientists argue that the more often someone votes for a party, the more that preference gets locked in. Each vote marginally increases your personal identification with the party you pulled the lever for. Three election cycles, and you're probably a partisan for life, or something near to it. Which means an advantage like this, though potentially temporary, also opens the door to a more enduring electoral edge with this generation.

John "McSame" McCain - running like it's 2004.

(CNN) — John McCain said Friday that "it’s clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States" — the second time in as many weeks that his campaign has referenced positive remarks by Ahmed Yousef, a member of that group, about Barack Obama.

On Friday, the presumptive Republican nominee was asked about the Hamas leader’s comments on a campaign conference call with bloggers.

"...I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States," said McCain. "So apparently has [Sandanista leader] Danny Ortega and several others. I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas's worst nightmare...If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas I think people can make judgments accordingly."

A week ago, the Arizona senator’s campaign sent supporters a fundraising e-mail that said Hamas approved of Obama’s foreign policy vision, and is hoping for his victory this fall.

We saw the same tactic used by Bush-Cheney '04 against John Kerry, when the right-wing noise machine claimed that al-Qaeda wanted Kerry to win the White House.

McCain claimed last week that he wanted to run a campaign "that is worthy of the people we seek to serve."  It's apparent from McCain's cheap fear-mongering and distortions that he doesn't think much of the people he seeks to serve at all.

• No surprise that Edwards supporters are flocking to Obama:

  Since Edwards dropped out of the presidential race, Obama’s campaign has received contributions of $200 or more from 1,089  donors who had supported Edwards, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) records.

  Only 393 Edwards donors have given to Clinton since the primary became a two-candidate race. Since Edwards withdrew on Jan. 30, Obama has raised nearly $1 million from Edwards donors, compared to the $427,000 that has flowed to Clinton.

• In a feat of deflection that would make the White House Press Secretary proud, John McCain tap-danced around questions about his votes against Katrina aid on the Today show.
• Michael Connery breaks down the youth vote in Pennsylvannia.
• For a guy who's already sealed up his party's nomination, John McCain is sure missing a lot of votes in the Senate while he chooses to campaign instead:

  As of today, Obama has missed slightly fewer than 40 percent of his Senate votes since the beginning of 2007, while Clinton’s absentee rate is just under 30 percent.

  But McCain has topped both candidates, missing a staggering 58 percent of his votes during the 110th Congress, according to the Washington Post’s congressional votes database.

  To put this in perspective, McCain has now missed more votes than Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota, who suffered a brain hemorrhage in December 2006 and was unable to return to the Senate until fall of last year. McCain has now missed nine votes more than Johnson.

• The death rate in Iraq for American soldiers is now the highest it's been since September of 2007 (1.6 per day).

The centerpiece of John McCain's campaign is that "the surge is working" in Iraq.  He has repeated this lie  hundreds of times on the trail, and in doing so, he has rarely been challenged.  The press has largely reported his contention as fact, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The surge, the president's "New Way Forward," was supposed to provide stability, promote political progress, and otherwise assist the Iraqi government in meeting certain benchmarks.  As to those expressed goals, the surge has, by any measure, failed.

Yet John McCain, this administration, and members of the press who dutifully repeated their spin as fact maintain that the surge "worked" because of there has been, in the last several months, a sharp decline in violence.  The reality presents a much more complex situation.  Ilan Goldberg summarizes:

The drop in violence in Iraq has generally been attributed to four elements 1) More American forces and the change in tactics to counterinsurgency; 2) The Awakening movement; 3) The Sadr ceasefire; and 4) The ethnic cleansing and physical separation of the various sides.

Goldberg goes on to explain that which the media and McCain refuse to acknowledge:  the drop in violence is more attributable to the Sadr ceasefire than the escalation.

It's hard to say for sure, which of these factors was the most important. The Bush administration will tell you it's all about the troop levels. I've tended to believe it's more of a mix and was most inclined towards the Anbar Awakening and the sectarian cleansing as the important factors. But when you look at the data it really seems to indicate that the Sadr ceasefire may have been the key.

If you look at the graph that the military has been using on civilian casualties it looks to tell a pretty clear story. The first major drop in violence came in early 2007 before the troop surge. It looks like it was mostly based on the fact that the worst of the sectarian cleansing in Baghdad had been completed (I outlined this argument more thoroughly a few months back).

The second drop in violence came in September. By that time the full surge had already been in effect for 2-3 months and the Awakening had been going on for a year. The Sadr ceasefire occurred on August 28 and suddenly boom a big drop in violence. That could be a coincidence and it could be that all four factors came together. But the data seems to point to the fact that the Sadr Ceasefire more then anything else is what caused the drop in violence in the early fall.

That fragile ceasefire may be on the verge of being broken:

Iraq's leaders faced their gravest challenge in months Tuesday as Shiite militiamen loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr battled government forces for control of the southern oil capital, fought U.S. and Iraqi troops in Baghdad and unleashed rockets on the Green Zone.

Armed Mahdi Army militiamen appeared on some Baghdad streets for the first time in more than six months, as al-Sadr's followers announced a nationwide campaign of strikes and demonstrations to protest a government crackdown on their movement. Merchants shuttered their shops in commercial districts in several Baghdad neighborhoods. [...]

The burgeoning crisis — part of an intense power struggle among Shiite political factions — has major implications for the United States. An escalation could unravel the cease-fire which al-Sadr proclaimed last August. A resumption of fighting by his militia could kill more U.S. soldiers and threaten — at least in the short run — the security gains Washington has hailed as a sign that Iraq is on the road to recovery.

Measured against the goals established by both the president when he sent more troops into Iraq and by McCain when he vociferously argued for escalation of that conflict, the surge has failed.  But even when measured against the post-hoc and truncated "goal" of only reducing violence -- which is what McCain and others point to when they claim the surge is "working" -- the surge has failed.  

Simply put, if the surge had worked, Iraq would not find itself in today's precarious situation, relying upon a radical cleric's fragile ceasefire for relatively stability.

If what we wish never happens occurs -- that is, if the violence in Iraq continues to rise after such a positive downtrend -- will the media finally report that the surge has failed?  Regardless of the level of violence, will the press admit that the escalation has failed to bring about the promised political progress? Or will they, in typical, stenographic fashion, allow John McCain to repeat the lie that has become the cornerstone of his candidacy?

They were wrong:

At the outset of the Iraq war, the Bush administration predicted that it would cost $50 billion to $60 billion to oust Saddam Hussein, restore order and install a new government.

Five years in, the Pentagon tags the cost of the Iraq war at roughly $600 billion and counting. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and critic of the war, pegs the long-term cost at more than $4 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office and other analysts say that $1 trillion to $2 trillion is more realistic, depending on troop levels and on how long the American occupation continues.

And wrong again:

On CBS's "Face the Nation" on March 16, Cheney said the fight would be "weeks rather than months. There's always the possibility of complications that you can't anticipate, but I have great confidence in our troops." Cheney also predicted the fight would "go relatively quickly, but we can't count on that." That same day on NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney said, "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." It was then he predicted that the regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle," and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside." Asked if Americans are prepared for a "long, costly and bloody battle," Cheney replied: "Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way. . . . The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein, and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that." Cheney has spoken that way for months.

But we should totally believe that now, after five years, they're totally correct, right?

Today, we  mark the five year anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom.  Despite the protest of millions in the streets in the U.S. and around the world, on March 19, 2003, Americans learned that the military had begun its "shock and awe" campaign against Baghdad.

It is on markers such as these that the nation turns its eyes to the grim tab of war.  Numbers are rattled off by anchors and in articles:  since 2004, 3,990 American troops have been killed in Iraq.  Some 30,000 have been wounded in action.  About 145 others have died of self-inflicted wounds, while 308 foreign troops have also been killed. The number of Iraqis dead? Literally incalculable.

Where some look upon these numbers with horror and disgust, others look at the tragic tab and say "thank you, may I have another."

One such ambitious soul is John McCain, who does not bat an eye calling for another 100 years of war, another trillion dollars in taxpayer money, and another term of Bush's failed foreign policy.

While the vast majority of Americans have now joined the chorus of those who were prescient enough to recognize that this war would be an ill-conceived and ill-fated failure, John McCain, President Bush, and other members of the Republican Party (yes, I include our old friend Joe in the mix as well) remain staunch members of that miserable minority which refuses to recognize that, after five years, we are no closer to stabilizing or securing Iraq than we were after the first tanks rolled into Baghdad.

Against the weight of the evidence, against the knowledge of futility, and against the fact that our continued presence in Iraq has only made this nation and its people less secure, this band of individuals continue to insist that "progress" is being made.  Even though Iraqis continue to be blown up in the streets, they maintain that "success" is around the corner. Even though last year was the deadliest year for American troops since this war began, they claim that a "turning point" has been reached.

We are witnessing today the same misdirection and manipulation that led up to that invasion in March of 2003.  The lie that is being sold to the American people today however is not that Iraq is a direct threat to the United States, but that our continued presence in Iraq does not threaten our security.

That is why John McCain and others never mention that terrorism has increased ever year since the invasion.   Tht is why they never remind the American people that our gains in Afghanistan have been nearly reversed as the Taliban reconstitutes itself and thrives in the region. That is why they never mention that last year was the deadliest year for American troops in that county.

We will never hear them refer to the fact that five years of war have resulted in just three of eighteen benchmarks of progress being met.  We will never see them acknowledge that, as Congress continues to appropriate blank checks, untold billions have been stolen or lost in Iraq.  No, we will never hear these facts escape the lips of McCain and company.

Instead, we are treated to myth after lie after misrepresentation.  The facts, just like in 2003, are still being fixed to fit the policy.  Numbers are crunched and presented in such a way as to give a false indicator or "success."  Goalposts are shifted, endgame is ignored, and all that they offer is "more."  More excuses, more war.

And more troops.  Part of John McCain's platform is that "there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq."  His entire Iraq strategy is a carbon-copy of the president's "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq."  The only difference?  McCain promises that somehow, someway, he'll implement it better.  With more troops, more money, and more force.

Where the American people yearn to dig out of Iraq, McCain offers to dig our heels in, to invest more of our heroes and our money in a conflict that, simply put, does not have an American solution.

This cabal is invested in Iraq.  But is not invested in the idea of success or safety but solely in the idea of absolving itself of the incalculable and tragic consequences of its own misaction.  

For them, there is no limit to the amount of blood or billions to be spent chasing the validation of pre-emptive war.  For them, there is no public opinion poll dire enough to run away from the rancid concept of permanent occupation.  For them, there is no conscience loud enough to drown out the voice which calls on them to continue this greatest foreign policy mistake in American history.  Because for these people, for these individuals who have built themselves around the idea of war and who have heralded the concept of war as the solution and not the problem, for them, this war cannot be a mistake.

And so, they call for more.  They use dips in violence to promise progress.  In paradoxical fashion, we are told that the less death is the Iraq, the longer we have to stay.  

Yet, as evidenced by the chart below from icasualties.org, there will always be dips in violence.  Escalations have been tried in the past, and while they offer a temporary respite from the record-breaking number of deaths, the gains are just that -- temporary -- in the absence of political stability.

In March of 2003, there were 208 wounded in Iraq.  Last month, 215 were wounded. In the six months following the invasion, there were an average of 42.5 deaths per month. In the last six months, the death rate in Iraq for our troops has been 38.7 per month.

We have endured five years of war to find ourselves full circle.  And rather than offer an exit, McCain offers more of the same.  The same strategy -- literally -- as has failed in Iraq driven by the same outdated and false choice of "victory vs. defeat."

We are a nation trapped in a tragic cycle of this stubborn  and erroneous "leadership," a cycle which promises not "success" or "victory," but the continued sacrifice of American lives at the alter of a war which has already claimed too many and too much of us as a nation.

Many if not most of those dead are from my generation.  They were twenty-somethings who, like me, have lived with this war for 20% of their lifetimes.  

We have lived this war, as a nation, as a family, long enough.

The Iraqis have lived with our hollow promises of "victory" long enough.

We find ourselves on this anniversary, just like on four others, weighing the sharp realization that we have years of war are at our back and on our conscience and that all that lies ahead are years more.  Do we continue futilely trying to escape this five-year cycle of failure?  Or do we simply choose not to?  Do we choose to dig our heels into the quicksands of this foreign policy, or do we step forward towards a more responsible and wise path?

This year, the American people will be able to choose which path to take in the voting booth.  The choice they make will dictate whether we will have this same debate presented to us at the next presidential election.  November's decision will determine whether, on future anniversaries, we mark a grimmer tab of casualties and chaos, or whether we will mark this day as the day a mistake began that was righted by a nation which chose to take the moral, responsible, and yes, necessary path to end this conflict.  

The American people have the opportunity to make next year's anniversary like no other, an anniversary where hugs at the airport are greeting soldiers home rather than wishing them well off to war.  

Let us hope that such an opportunity is not squandered.

When I was a kid in the 1980s, I remember watching Gremlins for the first time.  It was one of those gloriously campy 80s movies.  The basic premise was this:  a guy received a "mogwai" as a gift.  A "mogwai" is an adorable, fluffy, and mysterious animal.  He is also given three instructions:  never expose it to bright light (sunlight can kill it), never get water on it, and whatever you do, do not ever, ever feed it after midnight.  He names the creature Gizmo.

 As you would expect, each of one those rules is broken during the course of the movie.  Gizmo is exposed to water, which we learn causes him to "multiply" -- other mogwais burst of his body.  Those mogwais are fed after midnight and turn into gremlins (thus the title of the film) who wreak havoc until the end of the movie, when Gizmo (who always played by the rules and is still a fuzzy little angel) helps destroy the last gremlin by exposing him the sunlight.

This primary season has brought out a little bit of gremlin in some of our most admired gizmos. Some of our fellow progressives throughout the blogosphere (this site being no exception) have been transformed from friendly to ferocious, from being helpful and enlightening to hindering a full debate on the issues.

If there were three rules for the delicate creature that is the modern day political junkie, they would be (1) never expose said junkies to a contested primary after Super Tuesday; (2) never feed said junkies shitty and inevitably warped 24/7 cable news coverage; and (3) never give these junkies candidates that they can actually like and be inspired by.

This primary season, of course, has broken all the rules.  I've seen progressives that I respect and admire, Clinton and Obama supporters alike, turn into fact-averse, logic-impaired, sensationalistic and reactive "yes" men and women for their respective candidate.  Others have changed into members who do not hesitate to be rude or insulting, even in reaction to the most benign of comments or the most novice of users here.

As to the how of this ugliness, it's simple:  this high-pressure, endless primary in which two mammoth campaigns are pitted against each other, coupled with a steady stream of shallow and often provocative press coverage results in short fuses all around.  It has all been, in a single word, exhausting, even for those of us who are not involved in the campaigns but merely watch from the sidelines.

But the why, that is most complex. It cannot be traced back to the simple explanation of being a supporter of a given candidate.  It can't be linked to merely to dislike of a given a candidate.

As we wonder how the most beautiful minds on this site and others can take such an ugly turn sometimes, context matters.

Nearly eight years of Bush corruption, nearly five years of painful war, and over a year of a frustrating legislative defeats have left all of clamoring for an exit.  Whether it's Clinton or Obama, for many, that candidate represents that exit, that change from the nightmare we've experienced as a nation over Bush's last two terms to the dream of better tomorrow.

It is the tragedy of eight years and the frenzied need for change that has raised the stakes in this election, that has caused so many to become so invested in their candidate, and that has brought all of our fears and hopes and angers to a boil.

This is not an excuse for the horrible behavior I've seen, nor it is an attempt to wave away the insults and ignorance as a byproduct of some excited soul.  It is, however, context, and it is that context which gives me hope that logic, reason and, yes, common sense and courtesy courtesy will return to these people soon enough.

And even if they don't, even if a few people remain gremlins well into the general election, there's thousands of reasonable and logical and productive people out there who will keep these communities vibrant and resourceful.  Until then, it may be chaotic a bit and it may be frustrating, but take it from me -- a girl who practically lives on this site and reads far too much of it for my own good --- the gizmos far outnumber the gremlins, even in the craziness of Silly Season.

Except they're not as cute as the original Gizmo.  Or as furry.  And they have a much larger vocabulary. Which is good, because one-syllable diaries wouldn't be that interesting at all, now would they?

Dear members of the press,

Please stop repeating the administration's lies about domestic spying as fact.  

AP:

Bush says the House version "would cause us to lose vital intelligence on terrorist threats" and would not give liability protection against lawsuits to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the government after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

NYT:

Some 40 lawsuits are pending in federal courts, charging that by cooperating with the eavesdropping program put in place after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the phone companies violated their responsibilities to customers and federal privacy laws.

AP:

Bush opposes it in part because it doesn't provide full, retroactive legal protection to telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on their customers without court permission after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

That bold part -- that part of the "reporting" that doesn't have quotation marks around it and doesn't have any correcting remarks after it and doesn't have a bullshit flag preceding it -- is a lie. How is it a lie? Let us count the ways.

Former chief executive Joseph P. Nacchio, convicted in April of 19 counts of insider trading, said the NSA approached Qwest more than six months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to court documents unsealed in Denver this week. [link]

The U.S. National Security Agency asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, lawyers claimed June 23 in court papers filed in New York federal court. [link]

Everytime you repeat the lie that domestic spying began "after the Sept. 11th attacks,"  a data miner in some basement at the NSA gets his wings.  

Really, though. You would think that whole WMD in Iraq thing would have taught you guys a lesson about repeating administration lies as fact.  Try harder to stick to the truth next time, not the spin.  Thanks!

hugs and kisses,
georgia

Yesterday, the Senate Appropriations Committee held a hearing on contractor waste, fraud and corruption in Iraq.  The testimony demonstrated not only that incompetence and greed have resulted in the wide scale theft of taxpayer money, but also that the lack of accountability and corruption is directly tied to the instability in that country:

Judge Al-Radhi Said Corruption Keeps Millions of Iraqis in Poverty and Funds Violence. "Corruption in Iraq today is rampant across the government, costing tens of billions of dollars, and has infected virtually every agency and ministries, including some of the most powerful officials. Corruption has been part of the failure of the government of Iraq to control the militia that control parts of government. Unfortunately, today in Iraq, corruption has infected our biggest source of money:  oil. Corruption has infected those who have the guns to restore law and order.  And corruption has infected the very government officials who promise a new, better Iraq. Corruption keeps millions of Iraqis in inhumane living conditions and it funds the killing of U.S. and Iraqi forces." [Judge Al-Radhi’s Testimony to the Senate Appropriations Committee, 3/11/08]

Corruption and wasted taxpayer money in Iraq is certainly not limited to American contractors.  Rather, as Congress submissively keeps sending billions upon billions into the black hole of unaccountability that is post-invasion Iraq, it's become clear over the last several years that everyone and anyone in Iraq is clamoring for cash.  The tragic outrage of it all? Except for a hearing here and there on Capitol Hill, under the "leadership" of President Bush, the American government doesn't seem to give a damn.

Last fall, Vanity Fair published a must-read article on the shocking incompetence which lead to the missing money:

[A]fter the money was delivered to Iraq, oversight and control evaporated. Of the $12 billion in U.S. banknotes delivered to Iraq in 2003 and 2004, at least $9 billion cannot be accounted for. A portion of that money may have been spent wisely and honestly; much of it probably wasn't. Some of it was stolen.

Once the money arrived in Iraq it entered a free-for-all environment where virtually anyone with fingers could take some of it. Moreover, the company that was hired to keep tabs on the outflow of money existed mainly on paper. Based in a private home in San Diego, it was a shell corporation with no certified public accountants. Its address of record is a post-office box in the Bahamas, where it is legally incorporated. That post-office box has been associated with shadowy offshore activities.

The article is filled with outrageous anecdotes of waste, fraud, and corruption.  Some infuriating examples:

An Iraqi hospital administrator told The Guardian of England that, when he arrived to sign a contract, the army officer representing the C.P.A. had crossed out the original price and doubled it. "The American officer explained that the increase (more than $1 million) was his retirement package." Alan Grayson, a Washington, D.C., lawyer for whistle-blowers who have worked for American contractors in Iraq, says simply that during that first year under the C.P.A. the country was turned into "a free-fraud zone."

Once the cash passed into the hands of the Iraqis or any other party, no one knew where it went. The C.P.A. turned over $1.5 billion in cash to Iraqi banks, for instance, but later auditors could account for less than $500 million.

Of 8,206 "guards" drawing paychecks courtesy of the C.P.A., only 602 warm bodies could in fact be found; the other 7,604 were ghost employees. Halliburton, the government contractor once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, charged the C.P.A. for 42,000 daily meals for soldiers while in fact serving only 14,000 of them.

The difference it made was that some American contractors correctly believed they could walk off with as much money as they could carry. The circumstances that surround the handling of comparatively small sums help explain the billions that ultimately vanished. In the south-central region of Iraq a contracting officer stored $2 million in a safe in his bathroom.

Custer Battles had billed the government $400,000 for electricity that cost $74,000. It had billed $432,000 for a food order that cost $33,000. It had charged the C.P.A. for leased equipment that was stolen, and had submitted forged invoices for reimbursement—all the while moving millions of dollars into offshore bank accounts.

This is what retired admiral David Oliver, the C.P.A.'s director of management and budget had to say about what happened to the billions of dollars sent to Iraq:

"I have no idea—I can't tell you whether or not the money went to the right things or didn't—nor do I actually think it's important."

Over the last few years, stories about the greatest mishandling of taxpayer money n the history of the United States have peppered the media landscape.  Three years ago, we learned that some $9 billion were "lost" in Iraq.  In May of 2005, it was reported that 100 million dollars  was missing ("worse case scenario, someone took it home," an official said).  Last fall, some 1.6 billion, meant for the training of Iraqi troops, was reported "unaccounted for."  About three months ago, we learned that $1 billion in military equipment was lost in Iraq.

There are so many questions yet to be answered about who stole or misused American money in Iraq, and yesterday's hearing is good first start.  How many billions have been lost? Were did they go? Why is this happening?  How can we prevent it in the future? Who should be held accountable?

But the greatest question of all:  how can Congress in good conscience continue to appropriate billions for this mess?  How can Congress continue to give this president blank checks which are being cashed in by the greedy, the corrupt, and the incompetent?  

In short, how can this government justify its irresponsible handling of taxpayer money?

The answer? It can't.

Here is an interesting tidbit from the Mississippi exit poll.  Look at the percentage of Hillary Clinton voters who are dissatisfied with the idea of an eventual Clinton nomination:

A full 15% of voters who said they will be unsatisfied if she gets the nomination voted for Hillary Clinton. In contrast, only 4% of Obama voters say the same about their candidate.

Looking at other exit polls, we see a similar result.  In Ohio, for example (which was also an open primary), 12% of those who would be unsatisfied with Clinton were Clinton supporters, while only 3% of those unsatisfied with an Obama nomination were Obama voters.

In Texas (open primary), 10% of those unsatisfied with a Clinton nod were Clinton, compared to Obama's 7%.

In Tennessee (also an open primary), 11% of those who would be unhappy with Clinton as nominee were Clinton voters, and only 4% of those unhappy with an Obama candidacy were Obama voters.

The phenomenon doesn't appear to be universal (in Wisconsin, for example, the numbers break down 4% for Clinton and 6% for Obama).   But it is prevalent enough to merit a closer look.  Why are so many Clinton voters in some states unsatisfied with the prospect of a Clinton nomination? Does that number reflect Republican crossover votes?  A little mischief perhaps? After all, Clinton did dominate the Republican vote in Mississippi (75%-25%).  Is a certain block of Hillary's "support," in other words, an effort to nominate a candidate they think will be "weaker" in the general election?

Or, on the flip side (and less likely, I think), are some voters picking the candidate they thing will be the "strongest," even if they don't necessarily like that candidate?

The same questions apply to Obama's "dissatisfied" voters, of course, but to a lesser degree.

Update: Sorry for jumbling the numbers, I misread the chart initially. The post has been slightly tweaked to reflect the correction.

Hillary Clinton, on the qualifications of John McCain to be President of the United States:

“I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,” the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant’s bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.

“I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,” she said.

Calling McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee a good friend and a “distinguished man with a great history of service to our country,” Clinton said, “Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold. That is a critical criterion for the next Democratic nominee to deal with.”

Let us leave aside for the moment the disturbing fact that Clinton is praising the presumptive Republican nominee while simultaneously attacking the Democrat who very well may be his opponent.  Let's examine instead the very notion of the "threshold" Clinton presents as a qualification for president.

John McCain served his country in Vietnam. He was captured and was kept as a prisoner of war.  He has served on committees in the Senate dealing with foreign policy and military affairs.  In short, he has decades of experience with military issues, intelligence issues, and other matters which one may fairly say fall within the "commander in chief" sphere.

But what has been the result of these decades of experience?  What does John McCain present today that pushes him past the "commander in chief threshold"?

Is it his joking and singing about bombing Iran? Is it his promise that "there will be more wars"? Is it his belief that the nation's spying apparatus should be turned upon its people?

What proves that McCain has "certainly" crossed the threshold?

His claim that we should remain in Iraq for 100 years? His dishonest accusations that his political opponents want to "wave the white flag of surrender"? Or is it his insistence on sending more troops into a quagmire?

Clinton's "threshold" appears to be more about quantity than quality.  McCain has been involved for decades in military or national security affairs, and thus, according to her logic, he apparently crosses the "threshold" to be commander in chief.

This definition of "threshold" though is both troubling and dangerous.  Using this definition, Donald Rumsfeld would "certainly" cross the threshold.  Colin Powell would "certainly" cross the threshold.  

By focusing on the quantity of years in the national security arena rather than on the quality of judgment which has been evidenced during those years, Clinton compacts the most important role of the president into a numbers game which is blind to political philosophy or governing ideology.

Yet it is precisely the use (or abuse) of political philosophy and governing ideology which should be the "threshold" for being commander in chief.  

McCain brings decades of "experience" to the table, but he also brings a decades-old "us vs. them" mentality and a loyal belief in the unitary executive.  It is this mindset which makes Clinton's assertion that McCain is "certainly" qualified to be commander in chief utterly absurd.  

To emphasize the absurdity of her statement: let's remember that McCain's commander in chief philosophy is no different than that of President Bush.  

Clinton repeatedly refers to Bush's legacy as a "failed presidency."  She calls the president's decision to keep troops in Iraq "the height of irresponsibility."  And yet, a man who wholeheartedly embraces both the policies of that "failed presidency" and the irresponsible idea of keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years receives Clinton's stamp of approval.

Had the founders desired years of military-related experience to be a "threshold" for commander in chief, they would have drafted such a requirement into the Constitution.  Instead, a 35 year old natural born citizen who has resided here for 14 years can assume that role.  And the only "threshold" that exists is gaining the approval of the American people, by proving to them that you have the judgment necessary to fulfill the duties of the office.

It is that threshold that qualifies a person to be commander in chief.  It is a threshold of trust.  A threshold of judgment. And against that threshold, McCain's record shows that he falls far short.

Updated 10:05 PM CST:

568 of 568 Precincts Reporting - 100%

Bill Foster (D):  53% (52,010)
Jim Oberweis (R):  47% (46,988)

Looking quickly at the county-by-county totals, Foster eked out victories in Republican strongholds, and performed well in more moderate parts of the district.  Oberweis lost almost everywhere.  

There will be a lot of pressure for Oberweis to step down and have the party chose a viable replacement for November.

Race tracker wiki: IL-14

Van Hollen on Foster's win:

"It is a stunning rejection of the Bush Administration, its Republican allies, and presidential nominee John McCain," said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen in a statement.

Update:  The full statement, via email:

"Congratulations to Bill Foster on his victory tonight. Bill Foster’s victory in the seat that was held by Speaker Hastert sends a political shock wave across America this election year. It is a stunning rejection of the Bush Administration, its Republican allies, and presidential nominee John McCain. Republican candidates learned tonight that Senator McCain, who campaigned with the Republican nominee, cannot save them from defeat this November against strong Democratic challengers, even in districts that voted overwhelmingly for President Bush.

"Despite spending 20 percent of the their cash on hand, the NRCC was unable to hold a seat easily won by President Bush and held by Speaker Hastert for 20 years.  Americans of all political stripes are rejecting Republicans’ divisive, status quo politics and turning to Democratic candidates for change.  I am   grateful to Senator Dick Durbin, Senator Barack Obama, and the Illinois Democratic delegation and candidates for encouraging the people of this district to vote for change by supporting Bill Foster.

"Voters of all political stripes responded to Bill Foster’s commitment to change. With his unique background as a respected scientist and a successful businessman, Bill Foster will be a tremendous asset to our Democratic Caucus, as we continue fighting to strengthen our economy and ease the squeeze on America’s struggling middle class families."

Race tracker wiki: IL-14

Updated 9:10 PM CST:

564 of 568 Precincts Reporting - 99%

Bill Foster (D):   52% (50,947)
Jim Oberweis (R):  48% (46,125)

Race tracker wiki: IL-14

Democrat Bill Foster has won the special election in IL-14, and by a stunning margin.  

This is a red district. Former Speaker of the House Denny Hastert represented this district since 1987, winning reelection by huge margins.

This district includes the city of Dixon, which is the birthplace of Ronald Reagan.

This is a district that President Bush won twice, and in 2004 he received 56% of the vote.

The NRCC poured over $1 million here to hold onto this seat -- nearly a third of its cash on hand.

John McCain actually took time from his presidential campaign to come to Illinois and hold a fundraiser for Oberweis and formally endorse him.  

This was an important race.  Despite the inevitable spin from the GOP tonight, the fact is that Bill Foster ran in a deeply red district, against an opponent and a Republican machine that blanketed the airwaves with attack after attack.  Republicans fought tooth and nail to keep this district, and they lost.

Congratulations to Bill Foster, and to the team of dedicated volunteers both in Illinois and around the nation that pitched in to help turn this seat blue.

Barack Obama also deserves a shout out, not just for cutting an ad for Foster and helping with the GOTV effort, but also for proving that his coattails can help even a political newcomer win in a red district.      If Obama is the nominee in November, this will be a key element of building on a Democratic majority throughout the nation.

Foster will be seated soon, and will face Oberweis again in November.

For now though, Foster's win is sure to keep Republicans up at night.  As DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen explained:

Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said a Foster victory in the "rock-ribbed" GOP district would "send a shock wave through the political system that people are absolutely fed up with the status quo."

Welcome the newest Democratic member of Congress, Representative Bill Foster!

Race tracker wiki: IL-14

Polls have closed in IL-14.  Will the brainy Democrat Bill Foster pull an upset in this Republican district?    Or will fear-mongering Republican Jim Oberweis convince residents to vote against their interests?

90 of 568 Precincts Reporting - 16%

Bill Foster (D):   54% (14,549)
Jim Oberweis (R):  46% (12,213)

Also, check out dmsilev's liveblog here.

Update: Turnout was higher than expected for a Saturday special election:

In Kane County, home to more than 50 percent of the district's voters, election officials reported turnout of 22 percent.

Update #2:  Results in Kane County are trickling in.  With 16 of 223 precincts reporting, Oberweis leads Foster, 52.47% to 46.72%.  

Race tracker wiki: IL-14

Polls in the 14th District close in a half hour.  Here is an on-the-ground update from Prairie State Blue:

The scientist and engineer activists are out in full effect, including current and former Fermilab scientists and support staff and academic colleagues of Bill's. There are several people here from around the country who went to grad school with Bill and are incredibly excited about his campaign.

Labor is on board with folks from IUPAT, SEIU, AFSCME, IBEW, and Letter Carriers everywhere. The Letter Carriers local in Aurora is one of the most militant unions I've had the pleasure to know and work with! You've got to love militant mailmen and women who want to see a change in their government.

The Seals campaign has sent a bunch of people and the Harper campaign, too. Obama's Illinois organization is on board, too. In fact, I received a call from Obama's Chicago headquarters this morning asking me to volunteer! The woman on the other end of the line was pretty heartened to hear that I was already here!

Race tracker wiki: IL-14