The image Harry Truman wouldn't want you to see

By Richard K. Barry

The Daily Mail has an absurd headline today that reads, "The image John Kerry WON'T want you to see: U.S. Secretary of State pictured dining with Assad and his wife at Damascus restaurant before war broke out in Syria."

The Mail writes that, "[t]he picture is believed to have been taken in February 2009 in the Naranj restaurant in Damascus when Kerry led a delegation to Syria to discuss ideas and talk about the way forward for peace in the region."

Shocking. Absolutely shocking, I say.

And here's another picture. This one is of President Harry Truman and Prime Minister Winston Churchill with Uncle Joe Stalin at the Postdam Conference in 1945 before things turned Cold War super frosty between the super powers. I guess you're never supposed to talk to people who might become your enemy. Now, that's diplomacy. 

The adult in the room

By Carl 

The interesting dynamic that is the relationship between Obama and Putin has a new twist, and it's one we should welcome: 

On Wednesday evening, when U.S. President Obama cancelled his upcoming visit to Moscow, the Russian reaction was perhaps most clear in the way that Vesti, the state's main propaganda TV channel, conveyed it on the channel’s website. Buried about half way down on the page, underneath a story about Russian tourists in Turkey, Vesti announced: "The invitation for Obama stands." Beside that was the somewhat diversionary headline: "Barack Obama will travel to St. Petersburg for the G20 summit." The actual news — that Obama had decided not to meet with his Russian counterpart before, after or during the G20 summit in St. Petersburg next month — was clearly not something the official spin doctors wanted to advertise.

After a year spent honing their anti-American rhetoric — on issues ranging from the adoption of Russian children to missile defense in Europe and the civil war in Syria — the Kremlin message makers were suddenly eager to claim that President Vladimir Putin didn't really mean for things to go this far. "Sure, Putin uses this rhetoric, but it's not so much anti-American as anti-Euro-Atlantic," says Evgeny Minchenko, a Kremlin-connected political strategist. "And keep in mind that he has tried to stop short of a head-on collision."

So, shorter Kremlin: Holy fuck, he's not that idiot Bushy BooshBoosh! 

Indeed, he is not. And he's not going to kowtow to the likes of a tin-plated moron who trades offices like a Southern governor.

Putin has played the U.S. since at least 9/11, using our War on Terror as cover for all kinds of sins in Georgia and Chechnya, and let's not forget the 130 Russians who died in a terrorist standoff in a Moscow theater.

Yes, this is the guy Edward Snowden wants protecting him, but won't give up secrets to. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Keep in mind that, as Bush pursued a unilateral American foreign policy with healthy servings of imperial aggression, without engagement or advisement from what could have been its strongest ally in fighting terrorists, Putin took both offense and advantage of Bush's narrowed focus to become an active player in the Arab and Muslim world, particularly as the development of the Russian natural gas industry saw Russia become a major player in the energy field that previously had been dominated by the OPEC nations.

Read more »

John Kerry, peacemaker?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well, this is something:

Secretary of State John Kerry said Tuesday that Israeli and Palestinian negotiators would convene again in the Middle East within two weeks and that their goal would be to work out a comprehensive peace agreement within nine months that would lead to an independent Palestinian state. 

"The parties have agreed to remain engaged in sustained, continuous and substantive negotiations on the core issues," Mr. Kerry said at the State Department, flanked by Tzipi Livni, Israel's justice minister, and Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator.

"Our objective will be to achieve a final status agreement over the course of the next nine months," Mr. Kerry said. "We all understand the goal that we're working towards: two states living side by side in peace and security."

It's good to see the U.S. again assuming a productive leadership role with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian situation, something that only seems to happen when a Democrat is in the White House, but a meaningful agreement on a two-state solution, however desirable, seems less likely than Kate giving birth to another undeserving "royal" in nine months.

Nonetheless, if Kerry pulls it off, the Nobel is his, deservedly so, and all of us who thought he was a fantastic pick to be secretary of state, perhaps better even than Hillary, and thought he would have been a similarly fantastic president, will be proven right.

Bob Perry (1932-2013)

By Richard K. Barry 

Bob Perry was the money behind the insidious "Swift Boat" ad campaign attacking John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, in 2004. Perry, a homebuilder, started as one of the largest campaign donors in Texas before branching out nationally. 

He died at the age of 80 at his home in Nassau Bay, Texas, near Houston. 

In 2004, he gave $4.4 million to a group called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." They used the money to launch a baseless ad campaign accusing John Kerry of embellishing his military accomplishments and discrediting others who served with him. 

The New York Times gently suggests that the ads were "widely criticized as misleading." In truth they were simply a pack of lies, but they did their job. They made some voters doubt the facts behind Kerry's war record, a record for which he was awarded the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts. 

Though one cannot say for sure that he would have won a close race against George W. Bush in 2004 had Perry kept his checkbook in his pocket, there is a decent chance he would have. 

Whatever good Mr. Perry may have done in his life, he will be best remembered as the man who bankrolled one of the biggest lies in American electoral history. Quite a legacy. 

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

The ghost of Tailgunner Joe

By Mustang Bobby

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) is new to the job, but he's already making news for himself by being a shameless jerk. He's already gotten some notice for claiming that John Kerry and Chuck Hagel are not "ardent fans" of the U.S. military — they were both wounded in Vietnam — and now he's gone and accused Mr. Hagel of being a secret supporter of Iran. It got bad enough at the Senate confirmation hearing for Mr. Hagel that Florida Sen. Bill Nelson (D) got pissed off.

You have to realize that Mr. Nelson is not the most excitable person in the world — if he was any mellower he'd rot — so this little flash of temper on his part is the equivalent of a full-tilt rant from anyone else.


You go, Bill.

For those of us over a certain age, Mr. Cruz reminds us of another junior senator some sixty years ago who made a name for himself by accusing people of being "fellow travelers" and scattering the pigeons with character assassination. To some people, that shit never gets old, and my fellow Texans have got a fresh version of the dyspeptic demagogue on their hands.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

How desperate are Massachusetts Republicans?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

One word: Tagg.

Okay, a few more: Tagg "I want to punch President Obama in the face for being mean to my daddy" Romney.

But it won't be Tagg, and it won't be Ann either, and of course Scott Brown wants nothing to do with another Senate run.

And so now what? What will Republicans do to try to win the seat left open by John Kerry's move to the State Department? 

[T]he state GOP's leader tells the [Boston] Herald that they don't even care if their candidate has name recognition. "If you think back, Scott Brown wasn't a name, he was a state senator who worked his way up," she said. "I think what GOP candidates have to offer voters in Massachusetts is a fresh face and a new direction, and I think that's the take-away from our candidates, whether they be a name or not." So if you're at all interested in the job, don't let lack of experience or a set of nearly nude photos from your college days hold you back.

A fresh face? A new direction? Yeah, sure, whatever. The only way the Dems lose this seat is if they pick a terrible candidate, self-destruct, and hand it to the GOP.

And they never -- cough-cough, Martha Coakley, cough-cough -- do that, right? 

America, your new secretary of state

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Not sure if this is better than winning the Cup, but it's close.

Congratulations, Senator (soon to be Secretary) Kerry:

The Senate Tuesday confirmed President Obama's nomination of Senator John F. Kerry to be secretary of state, handing the Massachusetts Democrat a redemptive career victory that ensconces him in an elite echelon of national leadership nine years after his failed bid for the presidency.

The 94 to 3 vote was the final hurdle for Kerry, whose nomination soared through the Senate...

Kerry met virtually no resistance, as his colleagues on both sides of the aisle lauded his 28 years of service in the Senate and his deep experience in international affairs, most recently as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He is expected to give a farewell speech in the Senate on Wednesday and will be sworn in as Hillary Clinton's replacement in a Department of State ceremony later this week.

It was a sure thing. (The three loser Republicans are Inhofe, Cornyn, and Cruz, by the way.)

It's still shameful what happened to Susan Rice, a well-qualified candidate who was viciously assaulted by McCain and his vindictive pals, but I've long admired Kerry, and he's a fantastic choice to guide U.S. foreign policy.

Most shameful moment on The Daily Show

By Frank Moraes 

The Daily Show annoyed me again Wednesday night with the most shameful deception I have ever seen on the show. My friend Andrea tells me I'm just angry at Jon Stewart over his treatment of the platinum coin idea. This is not true. I am often bothered by how The Daily Show deals with issues and bends over backwards to seem "balanced" when it is anything but. Last night, the show took on Hurricane Sandy relief. I figured they would do a good job of this, but they blew it completely.

They started by noting Republican obstruction in the House. Then they showed a clip that made Chris Christie look good. That's fine, when it comes to this issue, Christie has been okay (although not nearly as good as his press would indicate). Then they showed Representative Mick Mulvaney complaining about pork in the bill. In particular, there is money to help the fishery industry in Alaska and the Gulf Coast. Stewart followed up with a typical, "Can't we all just get along?"

There are two problems here. First, putting pork in a bill is part of getting along. In fact, a lot of the Congressional dysfunction these last few years comes from the fact that Congress has made it much harder to do this kind of horse trading. Second, Congressmen always have some very good reason for not voting for any particular bill. Oh yes, Mulvaney would love to vote for the bill, if only it weren't for this one thing! Stewart is showing himself to be extremely naive about the way politics works.

Read more »

Still worried about Kerry

By Frank Moraes 

Jonathan Bernstein at The Plum Line blog encourages us, "Don't Worry Too Much About John Kerry's Senate Seat." I not exactly worried about this, but I have been opposed to it. Of course, that was when Kerry was going to be moving to the Pentagon. Moving to State seems like a better deal, but I still think it is a questionable idea.

Bernstein argues mostly that Scott Brown isn't that big a threat. First, he says that Brown is not the favorite to win the special election next summer. But as reported yesterday by his own paper, "Scott Brown Would Win Special Election Today." That's just a poll nine months out, of course. But exit polling of the 6 November election showed that the people still liked Brown by a lot; they just liked Warren more. So Brown has at least a decent chance to take Kerry's seat.

Bernstein says not to worry because the seat comes up for re-election in 2014. So the Democrats would have a second chance to defeat Brown. This strikes me as a very weak argument. If Brown wins the special election, he will almost certainly win the off-year election.

Read more »

Kerry gets State

By Michael J.W. Stickings

With Susan Rice having pulled out of contention, thereby avoiding a contentious confirmation process, it looks like John Kerry will get the Obama administration gig he's always wanted, secretary of state.

Basically, instead of getting Rice at State and Kerry at Defense, we're going to get Kerry at State and Chuck Hagel at Defense.

Which combination is preferable? I preferred Kerry over Rice at State all along, because I have such enormous respect for him and think he's much more progressive and independent-minded than Rice (even if I backed Rice fully when Republicans went after her over Benghazi), but I'm generally mixed about Hagel at the Pentagon. He's fine, as far as Republicans go, but why appoint a Republican at all? You wouldn't find a Republican president appointing a Democrat to such a senior position, and surely there's a Democrat Obama could appoint instead.

I get that these positions usually go to establishment insiders who won't threaten the whole military-industrial status quo, or whatever we want to call it these days, and I suppose Hagel is enough of a cautious realist not to get pulled in dangerously militaristic ways, but still. This is Obama's chance to remake key government departments along more liberal-progressive lines. Unsurprisingly, given that he's awfully establishmentarian himself, it looks like he doesn't care to do anything of the kind.

So what's preferable? How about Kerry at State and a (liberal) Democrat at Defense? There's still hope.

Hagel to the Pentagon, Kerry to Foggy Bottom?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Bloomberg reports:

Former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel has emerged as the leading candidate to become President Barack Obama's next secretary of defense and may be nominated as soon as this month, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Hagel, who served as an enlisted Army infantryman in Vietnam, has passed the vetting process at the White House Counsel's office, said one of the people. The former Nebraska senator has told associates that he is awaiting final word from the president, said the other person. Both requested anonymity to discuss personnel matters. 

***** 

Obama invited Hagel, 66, to the White House on Dec. 4 to discuss the position with him, according to an administration official. The president hasn't made a final decision, said another official. Both asked for anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

There's a lot of anonymous sourcing going on here, but I suppose it's a credible report. And I suppose that as far as establishment figures go Hagel wouldn't be a bad choice, particularly if John Kerry ends up getting State now that Susan Rice has pulled out of contention. (And I much prefer Kerry at State than Rice. He's also an establishment figure, of course, but I think he's more of an independent thinker than she is.)

Read more »

Rice burners

By Carl 

It strikes me that the Republicans are being a little disingenuous in their efforts to derail the not-even-announced nomination of UN Ambassador Susan Rice to Secretary of State, replacing the resigning Hillary Clinton.

Her CV, for one, suggests an intelligent and gifted person who would be adept at managing foreign affairs for the Obama administration, perfect for the job. In this, she would outshine the presumptive second choice, Senator John Kerry, which is no easy feat.

The controversy, as you know doubt know ad nauseam, is Rice's comments in the wake of the September 11 attacks on the Benghazi compound of the American ambassador there.

The facts are pretty clear: an organized attack occured on the compound on September 11. Either coincidentally or in a coordinated misdirection, there was also a protest in Egypt over some bloody idiot's idea of a prank on the same day. It doesn't really matter how Egypt played into this, except it also made a convenient excuse to buy a little time if needed.

Rice went on the Sunday talk shows, and implied that the Egypt attack may have been a part of the Libyan massacre, even if tangentially. This was the talking point the CIA had handed up to the administration, which greenlighted it as an interim explanation, even though it was clear from the get-go this was a terrorist attack.

Why the deception? The CIA had assets on the ground in Libya that would have been exposed if their information had been made public.

Read more »

Stay put, John Kerry

By Frank Moraes

(Ed. note: For my thoughts on the matter, see here. I'm generally fine with Kerry going to the Pentagon, though it would certainly help if the Democrats found a strong candidate to replace him. Like, someone who could beat Scott Brown. -- MJWS)

There is always a lot more that I want to write about than I have time for. For the past few days, I've been wanting to write about this rumor that Obama is going to appoint John Kerry as secretary of defense. If this is true, I am really worried about President Obama. It seemed that after the debt ceiling debacle, he learned that politics is a game that requires strategy. This could prove that he learned nothing.

Look, this is simple. In 2014, there will be 20 Democratic senators and only 13 Republican senators up for re-election. The Republicans have a very good chance of taking the Senate back in 2014. So the Democrats don't want to lose even a single seat in the Senate. If Kerry steps down, that seat could easily go Republican. And I think you know the Republican I'm talking about: that great defender of Native-American rights, Scott Brown.

I understand. If you are really bad at playing the game of politics, you might think, "The Democrats won't lose control of the Senate if they lose one seat." And this is true. But this is one more seat that the Democrats will have to hold in 2014. It doesn't make sense to make a hard election even harder.

Some will say that I am underestimating the president. They will use the 9-dimensional chess argument. They will claim that he knows what he's doing. But when people have made these claims in the past, they've been wrong. And even if the Democrats manage to hold onto Kerry's Senate seat, it will still have been a dangerous move.

Take one for the team, Senator Kerry: remain a lowly United States senator!

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Swinging 'round the circle

By Capt. Fogg

Observing the American political process, do we really need a geneticist to tell us we're getting stupider?

• Take the American Bigots Family Association -- please. We need to "clamp down" on immigration because those genetically inferior races socialist immigrants always vote for Democrats, says a spokesman who would never make anyone think of the Nazis.

• Failed VP candidate Paul Ryan says he lost the election not because he's a dangerously unbalanced and stupid dirt bag but because the genetically inferior races "urban" voters turned out to vote.

• National Disgrace Fox News exhumed that vicious Swift Boat ad after a Washington Post suggestion that John Kerry might be the next Secretary of Defense, continuing its tradition of smearing wounded combat veterans who aren't demented, neo-Fascist, psychopathic liars Republicans.

• Demented, neo-Fascist psychopathic liar Grover Norquist told us all that the dynamic Romney-Ryan duo lost because Obama's "attack ads" called Romney a "poopy head." Whorequist (sorry, that's a typo) maintained that his party has a mandate not to raise taxes even if it causes the destruction of the nation.

• Ambulatory pustule Rush Limbaugh affirmed that the Republican loss was all about Rush Limbaugh and his grotesquely dishonest, racist, bigoted, misogynist, indecent, seditious conservative commentary: "I am, by the way, the primary reason the Republican Party will keep losing, until I am denounced by the Republican Party." Unfortunately, that grotesquely dishonest, racist, bigoted, misogynist, indecent, seditious conservative commentary is just what the enemies of all things good and decent Republicans like about him

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Kerry to the Pentagon, Rice to Foggy Bottom?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

WaPo:

President Obama is considering asking Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) to serve as his next defense secretary, part of an extensive rearrangement of his national security team that will include a permanent replacement for former CIA director David H. Petraeus.

Although Kerry is thought to covet the job of secretary of state, senior administration officials familiar with the transition planning said that nomination will almost certainly go to Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

I have enormous respect for Senator Kerry and would love to see him get a senior post in the Obama Administration. He'd be a fine SecDef. (And Rice would a fine successor to Hillary.)

But I have two big concerns:

First, Democrats would lose a key voice in the Senate, particularly on foreign and military policy. Then again, he's almost 69 years old. How much longer does he want to serve as a senator? Maybe four years at the Pentagon -- with the Afghan War drawing to a close, the U.S. continuing to face nebulous threats around the world (and requiring new strategies for dealing witht them), and the military in need of major reform -- would allow him to leave a greater mark.

Second, Democrats could lose Kerry's seat in the Senate, reducing their majority. Because while Scott Brown, still a credible figure (or at least still a big name) even after his big loss to Elizabeth Warren last week, may run for the Republicans, it's not clear who the Democrats have even in solidly Democratic Massachusetts to compete for the seat in a snap election. Sure, they'd find someone, but what if that someone turned out to be as incompetent as Martha Coakley (who ran a terrible campaign and lost to Brown in 2010)? Other than Kerry, the biggest Democratic figure in the state is Gov. Deval Patrick, who proved to be something of a superstar this year supporting Obama's re-election (particularly his outstanding speech at the DNC), and he's already in his second term (having won re-election in 2010), but he's already signalled he'd rather stay where he is. But maybe. Because if not, Scott Brown might very well be a senator again.

So basically I'm fine with Kerry leaving the Senate for the Pentagon, but I'd be a lot happier about it if the Democrats found a strong candidate to replace him.

How Fox News misinforms: 15 minutes with Sean Hannity

Guest post by Ted Leibowitz

Ed. note: Ted's good friends with our former associate editor and co-blogger Creature, and Ted often wrote for Creature's now-on-long-hiatus blog State of the Day. Ted also guest blogged here at The Reaction. Looking back, I found a post from December 2008 in which he was rather critical of then President-elect Obama for choosing Rick Warren, who supported California's anti-gay Prop 8, to give the inaugural invocation. (We love President Obama here, but it's not like we're completely supportive of everything he does.) Well, it's great to welcome Ted back to the fold with a post on the completely unfair and unbalanced coverage of the election by the delusional folks at Fox. -- MJWS

Ted is an award-winning internet radio music director / DJ focused on bringing the best new and interesting indie rock to his worldwide listenership via his 10-year old station BAGeL Radio. He has been featured on panels at music/tech conferences and writes about the exciting new business of music as well as the foot-dragging, entrenched, dinosaur-like old music industry. Ted mainly tends to share his political thoughts around election time as this time of year makes him an insomniac.

**********

You lost, Sean. Oops.

I turned on the TV Wednesday night. It was tuned to Fox News. Sean Hannity was on. I watched, so you don't have to. For those of you who don't live in the U.S. and don't get the pleasure of tuning into Fox News, perhaps this sampling will help you understand how nearly 58 million Americans this week voted for a guy they didn't even like: they watch Fox News.

Below is what I gleaned from watching about 15-20 minutes of the show.

Sean Hannity is disgusted by President Obama for dirty campaigning.

SH: "One tragedy of this election is that Obama's dirty tactics have now been vindicated, and we're now going to see this [sic] kind of tactics replicated for many years to come. Thanks to Barack Obama, politics is now dirtier than it was, and it will get worse as others try to now perfect this "politics of personal destruction."

Apparently Mr. Hannity was not paying attention when George W. Bush (who is rarely mentioned anymore on Fox News for some reason) mercilessly took down one of his own, Senator John McCain, in the Republican primaries prior to the 2000 presidential election. Nor Dubya's second presidential campaign, during which Karl "Dubya's Brain" Rove invented the Swift Boat campaign smear against his opponent John Kerry, a recipient of the Purple Heart medal.

"If I'm [one of the people who ran Obama's campaign], today, I'm embarrassed," Hannity said, "because they knew no boundaries when it came to lying, and demonizing, slandering, smearing, besmirching, attacking a nice guy."

Hannity referred to the Obama campaign as "dirty and ugly and mean."

Even if this were true, it would be very "pot calling the kettle black" of someone at Fox News to disparage a campaign over such deeds. Fox News has on its payroll the unchallenged modern grand master of campaign dirty tricks, Karl Rove. Karl Rove learned dirty politics in the Nixon administration and went on to run many a smear campaign on behalf of George W. Bush with highlights including hinting that Texas Governor Ann Richards (1994) was a lesbian and suggesting that Senator John McCain (2000) was psychologically unstable due to his time as a POW (and also that McCain's wife was on drugs and that McCain had fathered an African-American love child). And who can forget the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame (2003) and the aforementioned Swift Boaters (2004).

The same Karl Rove who wouldn't concede Obama's victory on election night even after CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and his own Fox News had already called it. Perhaps he thought if he kept barking he could pull James Baker out of a hat, like in 2000. But enough about Rove.

Next, Hannity had Ann Coulter on the show.

Coulter: "Recent immigrants are more likely to be on government assistance. The Democrats lure them in, get them on government assistance... recent immigrants are for more likely to be on government assistance than native-born Americans..." (I doubt she gets the irony of her poor word choice with "native... American")... get them on welfare, and they vote Democratic."

She continued, "Teddy Kennedy's 1965 immigration act was specifically designed to change the demographics of this nation."

Suddenly, 47 years after the fact, Ann Coulter woke up and realized that the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act was a liberal conspiracy to change the demographics of the U.S. by luring immigrants to our shores in order to get them addicted to government assistance so that they would some day vote Democratic.

Mr. Kennedy, if Ms. Coulter is right, you were an even more incredibly forward-thinking political genius than anyone knew.

Coulter then said, "I think Mitt Romney would have won if he'd had the same demographics that Ronald Reagan had."

Yes, Ann, in an alternate reality, Mitt Romney could have won the Presidency of the United States this week. Unfortunately for Mitt, and you, and Sean, and Karl, and Fox News, we live in this reality.

Coulter went on to refer, in passing, to Bush's wars as "wars that help America." Off-handed remarks like that get bandied about without explanation all the time on Fox News, implanting unsubstantiated falsehoods in viewers' minds.

Then there was this exchange:

AC: "Simpson-Bowles [a commission set up by President Obama to address growing U.S. debt] would be better than anything Obama could come up with."

SH: "Tax reform is a sneaky way of basically raising taxes..."

AC: "...raising taxes, which produces less revenue to the government."

Wait a second... raising taxes is a way to produce less revenue for the government?!?! What?!?!

Then a favorite Fox News straw man came up: the Liberal Media, which is apparently a monolithic entity that works in concert against the interests of conservatives and America.

SH: "The Liberal Media put all it's resources behind re-electing Barack Obama."

He then had Bob Woodward of The Washington Post on to talk about how the Liberal Media worked to get Obama re-elected. Problem was, Woodward brought up three examples of how the "mainstream media" (which Fox always refers to as the Liberal Media) hammered Obama in recent months.

Hannity's response was (paraphrasing), "Well, you may have some [valid] points, but I don't think the Liberal Media covered the scandals* to my satisfaction." Before I get to just what those "scandals" were, here is what Hannity actually meant:

"Well, you may have some [valid] points, but I'm not going to let the facts which you just stated, Bob Woodward, and which I, Sean Hannity, just acknowledged the validity of, get in the way of me reiterating the false narrative we here at Fox News have created and are ramming down our viewers throats."

After that I could take no more.

*The "scandals" were "The Beghazi Cover Up" (a non-story that Media Matters thoroughly debunked); "The Fast & Furious" (which has been debunked by such liberal rags as Fortune and the NY Daily News); and something about high unemployment numbers, which Woodward had just stated had been pretty well covered by that demon, the Liberal Media.

Twisting knickers

By Carl 

It's kind of funny that, after nearly a week, Democrats and fans of the president are still flapping wings and gums over how lackluster President Obama's performance was at last week's debate, even getting all flustered over a debate "win" by Mittens.

Romney saw a two-point bounce. ALL CHALLENGERS see at least a two point bounce after the first debate. That Mitt only saw a two point bounce should be taken as nothing but encouraging news.

Why at least a two point bounce? Because up until last week, you'd never seen both the president and the challenger on the same stage. By allowing himself to be seen with a peon like Romney, Obama graciously gifted him a bounce. It showed that Obama took Romney's challenge seriously -- although obviously not seriously enough to challenge him more harshly. Which might be the point.

By contrast, not only did John Kerry see a much bigger bounce, Kerry bounced up into the lead by nearly eight points after the first debate in 2004, the last time a challenger has debated a sitting President.

I'm sure former President Kerry is smiling about this foo-foraw. In fact, if I were the good senator, I would have come out on Thursday or Friday and reminded people of this fact and that Barack Obama is still in command in the race and that it's more vital than ever to make sure every Democrat gets out and votes and gets out the vote.

Here's the thing: by engaging Romney on even his most ludicrous statements like the 47% comment, Barack Obama is seen as threatened by Romney's candidacy. He shouldn't be, even if he feels he might stand some small chance of losing to this chump.

Go watch the debate again, only this time, look only at the candidate who is NOT speaking. Now tell me who won the debate. Obama is respectful and patient with Romney, yet you can see his disdain and anger at the blatant lies Romney is telling.

Meanwhile, Romney is chomping at the bit like a wounded puppy trying to take a bite out of the squirrel that tricked him under the falling acorn.

Tell me again, who won? Who won a debate where the major talking point was killing a highly popular children's television icon? Who won a debate where the other major talking point is how badly the other guy lied to score cheap points?

Now, unknot your knickers and go pick up a phone and start making this thing a slam dunk again.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

The media created Romney's loser image. Agree or disagree. Discuss.

By Richard K. Barry 

John Cook writing at Gawker makes an interesting case. I'm not sure I agree. I'm not sure I disagree. His idea is that somewhere along the way the media have decided Mitt Romney is such a loser that, no matter what he does, he will be portrayed as a loser:

The press is doing to Romney the same thing it did to John Kerry, and to Al Gore before him: Covering him as a loser. A weird loser. A distant loser, who is "uncomfortable in his own skin" and "failing to connect" with "regular voters." The contempt and pity for him as a candidate is almost palpable, and each moment in the campaign is distorted imperceptibly, as if by magnetism, to reinforce the Romney caricature.

Cook makes a case. It's not a bad argument. But I would argue that we've got to get our chickens and eggs in a row here (just to mix some metaphors). If he really is unable to connect and consistently says and does stupid things, as I think is obvious, it won't take long for the press to start blowing stuff out of proportion that might not otherwise have been significant. That much I accept.

But does this mean that Romney is not "uncomfortable in his own skin?" Does it mean that he doesn't "fail to connect" with "regular voters?" Uh, no.

The fairness issue comes into play only when we ask about the extent to which how Romney actually is makes the press too quick to magnify small gaffes and even non-gaffes that should mean nothing. This may have happened, and I'm sure it sucks if you're Mitt Romney, but his image was not created out of whole cloth by lazy media types.

Politics is hard, or so Ann Romney told me.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

New polls: Obama widens leads in Ohio and Florida

By Michael J.W. Stickings

WaPo:

President Obama is threatening Mitt Romney's best route to victory in the electoral college, grabbing a significant lead over his Republican challenger in Ohio and a slender edge in Florida, according to two new polls by The Washington Post.

In the presidential race, Obama is ahead of Romney in Ohio by 52 percent to 44 percent among likely voters. In Florida, the president leads 51 percent to 47 percent, a numerical edge but not a statistically significant one. Among all registered Florida voters, Obama is ahead by nine percentage points.

There's just no way Romney can win the election without at least one of these key swing states. And as Mustang Bobby writes:

More than a few people think John Kerry would be finishing his second term had it not been for some slight-of-hand in Ohio in 2004, and, well, we all know what happened in Florida in 2000.

Wouldn't it be ironic if these two states closed the deal for Obama?

Indeed, and while I'm still trying not to get too excited about any of this, things are looking really good at the moment.

Thursday at the Democratic National Convention

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I commented Tuesday and Wednesday nights, two fantastic nights for the Democrats in Charlotte, but it was all pointing to tonight, to Vice President Biden and then, just now, to President Obama. Here are my thoughts:

It was another strong day -- meaning that the convention proved to be an outstanding event, with three days showcasing the party at its finest. (And let's not forget how moving it was when Gabby Giffords appeared on stage to lead the Pledge of Allegiance.)

Former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm was excellent, as usual. She's presidential in her own right, though of course, having been born in Canada, she can't be president.

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer was typically pugnacious, if not terribly compelling. Honestly, I think I've already forgotten most of what he said.

Former Florida Gov. (and Republican) Charlie Crist was given a prominent speaking slot on the final day of the convention just before the big three (Kerry, Biden, Obama) -- and perhaps it had to be that way given that he's a former Republican who is deeply critical of the Republican Party (saying that he didn't leave the GOP, the GOP left him, just as Reagan once explained his break from the Democratic Party) and is from key-swing-state Florida -- but I found his speech flat. He hit all the right points, but I'm not sure he did much to give Obama any sort of boost among independents and/or in Florida.

But then the evening really took off.

I've always liked John Kerry. A lot. To me, he's an incredibly decent, intelligent, and honorable man. I still harbor immense frustration and disappointment from the 2004 election.

But give him credit. It was a tough defeat to a terrible incumbent, with the shadow of 9/11 still hanging over the country and the Iraq War not yet quite the unmitigated disaster it became, but he want back to the Senate and established himself as the Democrats' elder statesman on foreign and military policy. So much so that he was in serious contention for the secretary of state post that eventually went to Hillary and could very well get the job when Hillary steps down, likely not long after the upcoming election. In my view, he deserves it and would do an outstanding job.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are incredibly weak on foreign and military policy, as well as on national security generally. Romney's disastrous foreign trip to England, Poland, and Israel this summer, along with the many embarrassing and ridiculous comments he has made during the campaign (e.g., Russia is America's #1 enemy), showed what a dangerous combination of arrogance and ignorance he would bring to the White House.

And so there was perhaps no better figure (given that Hillary as secretary of state shouldn't really get involved in partisan politics) to raise foreign and military policy at the convention and to draw the clear distinctions between President Obama and his opponent, and between the two parties generally: "We have a president who has made America lead like America again," he said. "What is there on the other side? An extreme and expedient candidate, who lacks the judgment and the vision so vital in the Oval Office." There's the contrast. There's the choice.

And then there was one of his best lines, and one of the best lines of the convention, a direct response to the Republican "are you better off than you were four years ago?" nonsense: "Ask Osama bin Laden if he is better off now than he was four years ago."

To that, Mitt Romney has no response.

Joe Biden is always a concern. I think his propensity for making gaffes is way overblown, but there always seems to be the rist that he'll say something embarrassing. Tonight, he didn't. The only "gaffe" of sorts I caught was when he said Michelle Obama gave her speech last night (Wednesday) and then immediately corrected himself by saying it was on Monday. (It was Tuesday.)

Otherwise, it was a very strong speech. He's always gets a bit breathless when he lays on the gravitas, but he effectively combined his usual quirky folksiness (saying "folks" a lot) with some powerful and compelling personal stories about himself and others, a Biden strength. But actually I think he was at his best when he was talking about President Obama, about Obama's courage, about his unflinching leadership in the face of crisis, about his ability to make the tough decisions, like the one to order the raid that killed bin Laden, in a calm and determined manner. If Michelle Obama talked about Barack's character in personal terms, Biden talked about it in professional terms: This is what it's like to be at his side in the White House. This is how he leads. And it was very powerful.

And then there was Barack Obama.

Expectations were enormously high, as they usually are for his major speeches. They were certainly higher than they were last week for Romney, who just had to present himself as something other than a robotic asshole to exceed them. For the president, he was following some outstanding speeches by some towering figures, notably Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton, and the up-and-coming Julian Castro. They all made the case for him, all extremely well, but with the economy still struggling, and with the polls showing a tight race and an approval rating that isn't great, he had to make the case himself, for himself, without seeming arrogant, without taking credit for too much, without promising too much, and by straddling that fine line between president and presidential candidate.

And he did that. Maybe not gloriously, maybe not with the soaring rhetoric of four years ago, maybe not by inspiring us and even moving us to tears the way he has done before, but by being presidential. Yes, David Gergen said it best: it was a mature speech, a presidential speech, and in that way it struck the right balance.

Sure, it was, to me, a bit SOTU-y at times. It started off a bit flat, picked up a bit, then fell back into a SOTU-style checklist without much in the way of detailed pledges, and perhaps it was all a bit off here and there. Richard and I were e-mailing throughout and that's the point he was making almost until the end. It just seemed... off. Just slightly, but somehow off. I agree, but I think it was because of the line he was trying to walk between being presidential and being the sort of uplifting candidate he was four years ago. But you could see he was almost there, almost there, almost there, and then he was, back to his usual form, with some truly stirring moments and a fantastic conclusion, uplifting and inspirational but tempered by the gravitas of being president.

Looking back, giving some grades to the major speakers, I'd say Deval Patrick got an A, Julian Castro got an A-, Michelle Obama got an A+, Sandra Fluke got an A (not least as a non-politico new to the national stage), Elizabeth Warren got a B, Bill Clinton got an A+ (with the highlight of the convention, just ahead of Michelle's speech), John Kerry got an A, Jill Biden got a B+, and Joe Biden got an A-.

And the president? Richard says B+. I'm going to be a bit more generous and say A-, mainly because he faced an enormous degree of difficulty and succeeded at an extraordinarily tough task.

President Obama did what he needed to do tonight. The party exceeded expecations this week, while he just met them. And perhaps there won't be much of a bounce in the polls (maybe we shouldn't even expect such things anymore). But with this speech tonight the president announced that he is ready to go hard the next two months defending his record and reaching out to voters with a message of hope bolstered by an understanding that the challenges America faces are not easy ones to ovecome, that it will take time to fix the enormous problems that persist.

America is on the right track because of what he has done as president, because of the leadership he has brought to the White House. As Biden said, Obama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive and well. There is more to be done, but a lot of good has been doing already. 

With the convention drawing to a close tonight, three incredible days, it is now time to move forward. Barack Obama and Joe Biden need our undivided support. There must be no turning back.