Latest Column

"speculation" = "Bone-chilling terror."

Now to read it....

Wrong guess. Acquiescence, mostly. Ornstein's comment illusrates a way that McCain could make his apology, though. A joint, antipork appearance in favor of an infrastructure bank could do it for him.
.
Joe-- is there some chance that we can reexamine the risk of "Islamic extremism?" I think there's a pretty story to be told that it is overblown--more like Basque separatists and the Tamil nationalists than like the Nazis or the Soviets.
.
Also, you need to consider the possibility that Obama's prioritizing energy conservation and reduced dependence on oil supplied by some states that, either officially or unofficailly, are engaged in, for what danger it represents, Islamic extremism.
.
The US is way overdue in shifting away from the use of imperialist application (or threatened application) of military force to addressing the root causes involved with separatist movements in allied countries.
.
And in the same use of force dealing with countries that express opposition to the US, but have no mechanism for acting on that opposition, and, perhaps, no actual interest in doing so, other than for domestic political consumption.

My comment is crossposted, and visible at the lagoon:

http://politicallagoon.blogspot.com/

My comment, while in limbo, is accessible here at the lagoon.

Joe-
Off topic, but I'd be curious to know your thoughts about how Dubya will take to the role of Elder Statesman.

Joe Klein,
.
I have a question/observation that I would love to get some clarity on. Much has been made about John McCain's ability to work "across the aisle" to get things done in Washington. However one thing kind of sticks out ot me about that work. In most cases it was a Democratic policy that he ended up embracing which made it a bipartisan effort. What I mean by that is from the record as I see it the "reaching across the aisle" that McCain did was mostly just agreeing with Democrats on a few issues. But what I hardly ever see is John McCain bringing Democrats over to Republican issues. I would think truly "working across the aisle" would include the ability to convince Democrats on occasion that they are wrong and the Republicans are right. I am not saying by any means that Obama has McCain's overall record BUT I do think that when Barack Obama
.
A. Worked on ethics reform and
.
B. Worked to get a google for government involved so people can see who is behind all the earmarks.
.
Obama had to actually bring some of his party kicking and screaming over to the middle with him to pass those bills. When did McCain have to drag his party with him to the middle to get legislation passed? It seems to me all he did was align with Democrats when they needed a few votes to pass legislation but he never brought his party with him. As I recall when he had pushback from his party on illegal immigration reform, one of the things "journalists" point to as proof that he is a uniter, he walked away from it and took his name off the bill.
.
I won't hold my breath for an answer but I do think this is something that should have been put into perspective along time ago and might have been if credible journalists had stopped drinking the kool aid with McCain when he called himself a "maverick".

I think the longer your post the more likely you get into moderation

Joe Klein,
.
I have a question/observation that I would love to get some clarity on. Much has been made about John McCain's ability to work "across the aisle" to get things done in Washington. However one thing kind of sticks out to me about that supposedly bipartisan work. In most cases it was simply a Democratic policy that he ended up embracing which made it a bipartisan effort. What I mean by that is from the record as I see it the "reaching across the aisle" that McCain did was mostly just agreeing with Democrats on a few issues. But what I hardly ever see is John McCain bringing Democrats over to Republican issues. I would think truly "working across the aisle" would include the ability to convince Democrats on occasion that they are wrong and the Republicans are right. I am not saying by any means that Obama has McCain's overall record BUT I do think that when Barack Obama
.
A. Worked on ethics reform and
.
B. Worked to get a google for government involved so people can see who is behind all the earmarks.
.
Obama had to actually bring some of his party kicking and scre@ming over to the middle with him to pass those bills. When did McCain have to drag his party with him to the middle to get legislation pa$sed? It seems to me all he did was align with Democrats when they needed a few votes to pa$s legislation but he never brought his party with him. As I recall when he had pushback from his party on illegal immigration reform, one of the things "journalists" point to as proof that he is a uniter, he walked away from it and took his name off the bill.
.
I won't hold my breath for an answer but I do think this is something that should have been put into perspective along time ago and might have been if credible journalists had stopped drinking the kool aid with McCain when he called himself a "maverick".

ok I give up. I tried to resend the same post and mod proof it but its back in mod he!!. Swampland sux

Joe B-
.
I can tell you that. On his bike.
.
sg--
.
Yes, the more characters you type the more likely you will have an offending string. It's no coincidence that comments have gotten shorter and less substantive in this environment.

put it up at the lagoon as a comment sg.

Jay,
.
I just tried but then the lagoon went haywire saying I wasnt logged into wordpress. I will try again in a little while. It also wouldnt accept my google blogger account. I don't know whats going on

Odd. [looking around for my own high sheriff. Oh. That would be me.]

I dunno, Joe. Wouldn't this mean a Republican SecDef since 1998 or so? That has been pretty bad for America, the military, and the world.
-
Also, didn't Clinton conclude that his mistake was leaping to controversial issues, rather than building consensus? That is certainly Obama's style. I doubt he'll make the Infrastructure Bank priority #1.

I've turned off the logon requirement. Should work now.

Yes, elvis, this would be a very bad idea. The democrats need to reclaim a role in determining security policy, and very soon. The only way to fund the programs that will needed to be funded domestically is by reducing expenditures on occupation of friendly countries--and wars against unfriendly ones.
.
The idea that the US needs "continuity" from the most disastrous US foreign policy regime in the postwar era is absurd. "Reversal" is the operative word.

Lets not forget who it was that dragged the country into the quagmire in Iraq, Republicans. Leaving them in control of national security makes no sense to me. It also plays to the myth that Republicans are better at it.

You should do a blog about this Obama ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eUz13-pmTY
It is sexist and disgusting.

You should do a blog about this Obama ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eUz13-pmTY
It is s*xist and d*sgusting.

I was fine with playing the who will be VP game, but not gonna talk Cabinet until after the election. Wouldn't be prudent.

Thanks jay,
.
By the way, I think the Exxon/Mobil earnings report might be for Obama the eqivalent of what a bin Laden tape would have been for McCain. To see them making almost 15 billion in a quarter 5 days before an election is going to pi$$ a lot of middle america off

newliberty,
.
Thats the GREATEST ad EVERRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!

I disagree strongly on one point. While Obama might be somewhat satisfied with the National Security team that's currently in place, he is certainly going to have to make an assertive move on arrival if for no other reason than to remove all doubt that HE'S in charge. The last thing we're going to need is for any second guessing along the chain of command, especially if some of his strategic decisions happen to be unpopular with the troops themselves.

sgwhiteinfla
I'm so sick of the personal insults...let's make fun of Sarah Palin for being cute and attractive...let's spend millions on dozens of ads calling McCain "confused" and "erratic."
Personal insults shouldn't have any place in politics.

You guys don't understand Obama if you think he won't keep or appoint Republicans to his cabinet. Look at his time running the Harvard Law Review when he had to balance a wide ideological spectrum.

Obama knows that as the first black president, there will be tremendous pressure for performance and competence. Luckily, because of his short time in Washington, he doesn't owe as many chips (I hope). Maybe that will give him the freedom to pick the best person for the job. Gates will be there, at least for a couple years, ESPECIALLY because of Biden's observation that the new president will be tested in the first 6 months. Obama won't want a neophyte there learning the ropes and learning the situation while he himself is getting his bearings. Keeping Gates there will let him focus on the economy and Treasury. That will be his single most important appointment during the transition. I hope he picks Geithner, but it'll probably be Summers.