Today, Cindy wrote me, a 2000 donor. The hook is John McCain is celebrating a birthday August 29 (the letter never says how old he is) and Cindy "very much want you and many of his other loyal friends and supporters to be part of the celebration."  The letter uses McCain's age as a plus - he is such "a human dynamo" despite having "taken plenty of hits from late-night comedians and many of his detractors" - and it ends in a request to sign an enclosed birthday card, add a personal message, and "back that support with a giant birthday check" which "will be the icing on the cake!"  The pre-printed greeting on the card is a hoot.

"Happy Birthday John" (open card) "Dear John, My best wishes to a true American leader, genuine hero, proud patriot and the next President of the United States!  Good luck and God bless you. I stand with you all the way!" (facing page in small letters) "Here is my personal birthday message:"

John McCain is the One, particularly, "when you consider that he first stepped forward to serve his country at age 17, when he entered the U.S. Naval Academy, it would surely be a fitting tribute to cap his decades of selfless service to our nation as President and commander in chief."  

The full letter is below the fold.

Like the current President Bush, John McCain is the product of the affirmative action America's elites dole out to their own children.  Given his poor record in High School, on what basis could McCain have been accepted into Annapolis if not because his father and grandfather were Admirals?  And then, though he was in the bottom 5 percent of his Annapolis class, he got to be a flyer in the Navy, a highly sought specialization. Likely his family's prominence took care of him.  As it probably did when he flew several aircraft into the ground (or water) in accidents where there was no evidence of mechanical failure.  How come he was not drummed out of the service?  Basically, McCain is the mediocre product of America's WASP elite, just like the current President Bush.

You know the drill - William Kristol, John McCain, Michael O'Hanlon, the Kagans, any number of jovial chickenhawks in the Congress - they say Barack Obama does not want victory in Iraq.  And the NYT, in a gift horse to McCain (for not being allowed access to the hallowed editorial page in an obvious example of leftist thuggery), refused a rant from McCain on the grounds he had not defined Victory in Iraq.  This community is eminently qualified to help McCain define Victory in Iraq so we will realize what kind of a defeat America will suffer under Barack Obama.

Try your hand at it.

- Victory will be achieved when Mobil Exxon moves its headquarters to Dubai and gets a contract to distribute at least 40 percent of Iraq's oil.

- Victory will be achieved when Iraq puts the face of Ronald Reagan and W on its currency and the currency circulates without incident.

- Victory will be achieved when Islamic law is imposed on all Iraqis and the Maliki government is replaced by a King related to King Abdullah of Jordan (oh wait the British tried this).

- Victory will be achieved when the Iraqis install Diebold machines throughout the country to ensure free and fair elections.

- Victory will be achieved when a Hummer dealership network is established in Iraq.

With increasing frequency John McCain is sending me requests for contributions (a consequence of an insurance-policy donation made to McCain in 2000).  Today the request included a crisp and well ironed $1 bill, presumably McCain's effort to motivate guilt giving along the lines of return address labels sent by a host of charities, from Amnesty International to the SPCA.  I pocketed the $1 bill and would like to share the pitch dated July 14.  McCain's stated goal for July is to raise $25 million.

"I want you to know that I don't take sending you this $1 bill lightly.  I understand there is a chance that you will not send the $1 bill back to me. But I'm willing to take that risk, because after all we've been through together in this historic campaign, I believe I can count on you.  Today I need you to send this $1 bill back to me along with $1,000 or $750 of your own to help our campaign take the next crucial steps in this pivotal presidential election........ The scope of Senator Obama's initial media buys sends a clear signal that he will be investing money in states no Democrat has won in years ... If we meet our financial goal of raising $25 million this month, we will stay right on track to have the funding we need to continue to implement our campaign plan and win."

Aged liberal luminary Nat Hentoff describes Obama as the flimflam man and compares him to Boston's Mayor Curley (who was reelected by the people once while he was in prison) and not the heroic FDR whom Hentoff and his mother adored. SacBee Article  Hentoff focusses on Obama's rejection of public financing, his support for delivering social services through religious institutions and his decision to support FISA with the retroactive immunity provision still in.  Hentoff is overwrought and his piece is Exhibit 1 of the danger of purists when it comes to political change and leadership.  Nat Hentoff would do well to study the 1932 election when FDR ran to the right of Hoover in some ways to get elected.  In 1932 he was not the liberal savior on a horse but a competent alternative to the failed Republicans who had lost public support.  The New Deal came later.

The conventional explanation is that Senator Obama is going to the proverbial center to secure a majority of votes in November so that he will be elected President of the United States.  But perhaps Obama is cutting off his own ... (insert Jesse Jack terminology) ... in order to appeal to a squishy center, in a process by which he will lose the enthusiasm of his base and he will be perceived by a majority of Americans as too weak, too insecure and too calculating to be worthy of being elected President of the United States.  Despite McCain's horrendous record and errors as a candidate,  Senator Obama is making the election about Obama.  Go figure.  The campaign, in choosing to play defense and coopt some poll-tested center, is showing weakness.

The skinny on Senator Obama's foreign travel is not very encouraging  .  The itinerary is not well thought out and the inclination to do a big public speech in Berlin is politically inept - Americans like their presidents to be loved by foreigners but they want their presidential candidates to show that they will work exclusively on behalf of the American people.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel and the UK are pretty much givens.  Senator Obama needs to meet with the commanders and the troops and establish himself with government leaders in Kabul and Baghdad (and why not Kirkuk and Basra).  We are at war and while it is risky (Dukakis+tank+helmet+MSM man crush on McSame), Obama has to show that he will be comfortable and competent as Commander in Chief from day one.

Israel, being an ally under constant attack, is a must (with visits to VadYeshem but also perhaps with visits to PeaceNow or Reform Jewish sites) as is the UK as our most solid military ally and linguistic mother country.  But why France and Germany?  And why not Italy, Ireland, Poland and possibly Bosnia? More below the fold Report on Itinerary

Senator Obama - Use your Senate perch to inform voters about what is at stake in this election and convince them to vote for you and fellow Democrats.  Laws are being made now that show and continue the corruption, danger and ineffectiveness of President Bush's government.  And yes, some of this was enabled by Democrats - which is why Democrats came out in droves to vote you in, because you, unlike other Demcoratic candidates, called Democrats on their cupidity in the face of President Bush and the neo-cons.  While it is tempting to run out the clock on the current Administration (knowning that Mr. Veto is using his pen and we are at war) and assure us all that you will clean up the Augean stable come January if you are elected,  Senator OBama, you risk irrelevancy if you spend the next five months on the campaign trail while our government continues to fail and flail in Washington.  Spend time in Washington to show tangibly how the course of our nation will change if you are elected.  Remind your fellow Democrats that the President needs money to govern.  If he continues to govern badly it is because the Democratic Congress let him.  Senator Obama.  The field of battle is in Washington.  Join the fight.  

Obama should not have picked Jim Johnson in the first place to vet the field of potential vice presidential candidates.  Johnson is a long term Washington insider in the crux of the self dealing and kleptocracy that passed for corporate and governmental leadership in this country.  We find out now that Johnson received $7 million in cut rate loans via a friends of the chairman of Countrywide Financial Program. Salon.  This article goes into tit for tat mode with the Obama campaign pointing out how conflicted the McCain campaign is on the topic of the mortgage meltdown.  But Obama was not supposed to be about tit for tat.  Obama was not supposed to be about tapping a complete Washington insider to head his VP search.  Obama did not win a majority of Democratic delegates for us to see him be coopted by a dysfunctional establishment.  Some may joke about McCain's comment that he is using the google to check VP candidates.  Maybe Obama could learn from McCain on this one.

Unrepetent update below the fold

If you have some spare time it could be fun to visit this website.  You can sign the petition to Senator Obama asking that he invite Senator Clinton to be his running mate.  Of course, given that these tubes are so complicated, there is no effort to verify potential signees or stop multiple signings.  Have fun!  I am not sure if Mahatma Gandhi signed the petition yet, but Tom DeLay already has.  And then there is the wonderful option of sending a message to a list of preselected delegates with your thoughts on the matter.  It is an opportunity to let a delegate know how you feel about .......... Lanny Davis.  Go ahead enjoy this guilty pleasure.  Vote Both

womenforfairpolitics.com is the web site Lanny has set up where one can sign the petition advocating Hillary Clinton to be vice president.  The whole site, petition and all, is pathetic and narcissistic.  Yes women historically and now have been held back and our country's social structure values the work women do less than the work men do.  That is clear.  But since Hillary Clinton has not suffered these slings and arrows, the site is besides the point.  It is in the same vein as all that David Horowitz stuff where he claims all these privileged conservative people have suffered so much on college campuses for being themselves.  Perhaps so. Maybe.  Possibly. But not him.

Anyhoo, I went on the web site and instead of signing the petition I sent an email recommending Geraldine Ferraro for the Vice Presidential slot -  she truly speaks more eloquently and genuinely for the purported community served by Lanny's website. (Obvious snark suggestion: the suggestion cited her having been vetted for the position already, her superior bitterness, and her palpable resentment)

For the past seven years I have turned off the radio - NPR whatever - and turned off the TV when President Bush or one of his surrogates have come on the air because I don't want to be lied to. Most people on this site knew we were being lied to from the getgo.  It was so obvious how deceitful and criminal Bush would be that I gave money to McCain in 2000 (as my plan B if Gore did not win).  And that is how I feel about the surrogates the Clinton Camp sends out, Penn, Wolfson, Davis, Ickes, McAuliffe and Bill Clinton himself, they are a bunch of liars and I don't want to be lied to by my government.  Certainly Senator Clinton is a cut above President Bush because she actually knows a thing or two about public policy and governing - but the people she has surrounded herself with are a disgrace and indicate that a Clinton Presidency would in actual fact be a continuation of the "permanent campaign" Scotty McClellan has been talking about of late.

Barack Obama spoke truth to Cuban Americans today - it must have been refreshing for the audience to hear a leader who actually is intent on solving problems of freedom and proverty in Cuba and Latin America.  But Barack should beware Democrats and progressives whose ill disguised respect for Fidel Castro showed its hand during the Elian Gonzalez affair.  For example, Kennedy aide and super fixer Craig Greg squired Elian and his father around Washington prior to Elian's return to Cuba in 2000.  One could argue that Janet Reno, with her forceable capture of Elian, cost Al Gore the 2000 race, no less than did Ralph Nader's delusions.  The problem was the Clinton administration confused legalism with the rule of law and justice.  Elian's mother died for her son's freedom from Castro; and the Clinton Administration negated this sacrifice.  At a minimum the US government should have laid low and allowed family courts and the operation of family law, informed by treaty obligations, to go ahead so that the end game involved Florida State courts.  Fidel Castro was not known to respect human rights agreements that failed to serve his interests.  Freedom and sacrifice trump state power.    

President Bush's statement to the Knesset - "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history" - is a clear attack on Obama, Democrats, foreign policy experts and, of course, on the Government of Israel which has negotiated with terrorists and radicals throughout its 60 years in existence.  Time for American Jewish leaders to disavow Bush's statement and to affirm that the United States and its political leaders, now and in the past, have all stood behind Israel.

The wheels are coming off the Republican playbook, with Hillary's latest insults to individuals who now comprise a majority of American voters ( blacks, working people, eggheads, non working and working black people, non working white people, non working and working Asian people, Hispanic folks) inadvertently defanging the Republican southern strategy.

Obviously, in light of the latest Rethug liquor-mistress-love child implosion, the Republicans are really in need of new rules (with gratitude to Bill Maher.)

New Rule 1 -  If arrested for driving drunk do not 1) admit you are going to visit your love child and 2) get bailed by the mother of said love child.
New Rule 2 -  Stay away from large numbers - like 100 years - that highlight the longevity of the policies you advocate and highlight your ... longevity.

more over the fold - add your own

The most enduring image at YearlyKos was Markos arriving for the Teamster-sponsored reception at Chicago's McCormick Place in the passenger seat of a semi with Teamster President Hoffa.  It was evidence that the culture wars were spent and that progressive forces and advocates for working people were coming together, particularly in light of organized labor's big push to represent documented and undocumented immigrants.  What's the matter with Kansas is nearly over.  Now it is is time for all of us - and our media - to engage in reporting on the many genuine challenges facing the nation.  We know there is dread in Cableland with the end of a Democratic contest which has brought in lots of easy money.  Let's hope our new coalition can convince the media that substance can now replace the horserace - genuine articles and analysis about health care, energy policy, military preparedness, containing and defeating terrorists of every stripe, environmental concerns, infrastructure.  So much material to cover before November.  

The Founders were deists.  They were products of the Enlightenment.  They didn't go to Church much.  Their sources were Locke, Mills, Montesquieu, Rousseau and Voltaire.  That's why our Constitution, and the Declaration that preceded it, have lasted so long.  Let religion into the tent and you have division, naked opportunism, greed and mass deception. Even in the midst of war Mr. Lincoln argued for progress, not for g-d.

Religion gets its current credibility largely on the basis of Martin Luther King.  But Martin Luther King focussed on America's founding documents.  The old testament is full of slavery and the new testament is full of waiting for the kingdom of g-d.  It was the black Church that permitted African Americans to organize and socialize - any other form of organization would have been quashed (perhaps save for the Pullman Porters who arose at a time of union growth).  The Church was a vehicle for the organizing and accomplishments of a great man and fellow civil rights leaders - and it was hard for a majority of Americans to attack Christianity (not so hard to attack Islam).  Sure, other folks who had found religious callings supported King, but was the urge to end Jim Crow really founded in religion, rather than progressive values?

Like a broken record, which underscores anew the lack of orignal thought and insight on the editorial pages of the NYT, Krugman continues his assault on Obama, rehashing the arguments the Clinton Camp have made since Pennsylvania about why Obama can't reach older white voters in addition to his observation that the magic is over. NYT 4/25/08  And surprise surprise he fixates on Obama's criticism of health insurance mandates and repeats the charge that Obama can't win big states.  The funny thing is that other than applauding Hillary for no nonsense style and wonkishness, Krugman provides no evidence that Hillary has any better policy prescriptions for these voters than Obama has.  And he is totally tone deaf to the reality that Hillary is the standard bearer for a machine that dominated the Democratic Party for 8 years, that she has huge name recognition and had huge money advantages going into the race.  Again, why didn't Hillary close the deal is a better question that why did she not melt when Obama first rained on her parade.