I am an Obama supporter. Who could not be when McCain is the other choice? But pols are pols and do what they do. That's why I rip them all when they do the wrong thing, by my lights. For example, as Obama did on FISA Capitulation. But a new breed of Democrat and "progressive" is emerging. Glenn's Greenwald's interview with Mort Halperin allows us to coin a new phrase - a Halperin "Progressive." What is a "Halperin" progressive? One who decides what the right position is for progressives based on what Barack Obama does. Glenn writes:

[T]here was only one meaningful change that occurred between Halperin's June 9 opposition [to FISA Capitulation] and his July 8 support [for FISA Capitualtion]: namely, it was in that interim -- on June 20 -- that Barack Obama announced that he would support the FISA bill . . .

There are many "progressive" blogs and Obama supporters who are Halperin "progressives." I am not one of them.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

I have an article at Pajamas Media today, Reframing Iowa without Edwards. It points out that the operative time period for the inquiry into the effect of an Edwards' withdrawal from the race is October, 2007, when news of his affair was first reported and he issued his first denial. The question should be what if he dropped out then? To answer it, there are other factors to consider besides second choice candidate preferences on the eve of the January 3 caucuses or during entrance polling, as others have focused on.

In the end, I conclude there's no way to know what would have happened.

But now, get ready for the next Edwards bombshell. The Enquirer is reporting (already picked up by the New York Post) that Edwards rekindled his affair with Rielle Hunter in 2007 -- during the time period when her baby likely was conceived.

If that's true, and it's a big if, regardless of whether Edwards really is the father of Hunter's baby, it gives even greater weight to the argument that Edwards should have dropped out of the race in October, 2007 when reports of their affair surfaced, rather than issue denials. [More..]

Barack Obama take notice - according to a new Greenberg poll (PDF), Americans are ready for REAL change (PDF), not post partisan unity schticks. Greenberg writes:

When asked to compare the current times and the types of solutions needed to deal with their problems to three other difficult eras – FDR’s “New Deal” era in the 1930s, the late 1970s and early 1980s when Reagan was elected, and the early 1990s of Bill Clinton – voters’ preferences are striking: By significant margins, voters believe Roosevelt’s times and solutions are more analogous to ours than Reagan’s, but that Reagan’s are closer to ours than Clinton’s. These feelings center largely around a desire to restore an American middle class that has declined steadily in recent decades.

More . . .

Apparently John McCain believes the presidential election will come down to which candidate is the bigger (or lesser) celebrity:

Here's proof, if proof were needed, that the McCain campaign's advertising strategy is in fact being run by a crack team of six-year-olds, out of their minds on Sunny Delight. Yesterday they released a new ad, Fan Club, which continued to mock Barack Obama as a celebrity, this time on account of his "dreamy eyes". It included a brief clip of Mike Myers and Dana Carvey in Wayne's World ("We're not worthy!") -- but Myers objected, claiming copyright violation, and the ad was reissued without the clip.

Doesn't the McCain campaign realize that voters love celebrities? How else to explain the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger in California or Jessie Ventura in Minnesota? If McCain had ideas that were worth listening to, perhaps he wouldn't have to spend his time mocking his opponent's popularity.

The Vice Presidential candidate speaks at the Democratic Convention on Wednesday night. The theme that night is "Securing America's Future."

So the VP candidate is someone who fits with that theme. Also, according to another report I read elsewhere, miltary veterans are part of the night's theme.

Could Gen. Wesley Clark be back in the ballgame? His organization is Securing America's Future, the same name as the night's theme. More on that here.

Gen. Wesley Clark would be just fine with me. He's actually got progressive views on criminal justice issues and constitutional rights: [More...]

The Atlantic has released a series of internal memos from the Hillary Clinton campaign. The memos are here.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign was undone by a clash of personalities more toxic than anyone imagined. E-mails and memos—published here for the first time—reveal the backstabbing and conflicting strategies that produced an epic meltdown.

....What is clear from the internal documents is that Clinton’s loss derived not from any specific decision she made but rather from the preponderance of the many she did not make. Her hesitancy and habit of avoiding hard choices exacted a price that eventually sank her chances at the presidency.

Greg Sargent at Talking Points Memo and the Caucus at the New York Times provide some analysis. Jake Tapper at ABC News suggests the memos "appealed to prejudice" and in this later post, refers to a memo written after Iowa in which Mark Penn talked about "releasing the tapes" to counter Obama. Tapper asks, "What tapes?"

The New York Times examines the pros and cons of Indiana Senator Evan Bayh as Sen. Barack Obama's vice presidential candidate.

Shorter version: The cons are that his early pro-war position stands in stark contrast to Obama's repeated emphasis on his own early opposition to the war in Iraq and Bayh is bland and unlikely to excite voters.

The pros are he has economic experience and his youthful appearance bolsters Obama's message of "generational change."

If not Bayh, then who? Sebelius or Kaine or someone the media has overlooked or counted out?

Sen. Barack Obama has relased his first plan I'm on board with: no income tax for seniors making less than $60,000 a year.

Critics say the seniors would be getting too much of a break because of Medicare and Social Security.

Seniors can't live on Social Security and Medicare alone. And if they have to go into a nursing home, Social Security doesn't pay for that. A typical nursing home in Colorado is $6,500 a month just for room and board. Medicare picks up some therapy and medication, but that room and board is a huge amount of money to pay. The only break is if you end up in the nursing home after a medical injury and need rehabilitation, which runs about $10,000 a month, Medicare pays for 120 days. Then, you are on your own.

Medicaid only helps if the people are poor, in which case they likely won't owe income tax anyway.[More...]

Wes Clark is promising to not go away:

A little over a month ago, following my appearance on Face the Nation, the right wing freak machine took me out of context, attacked me, and just wanted me to "hit the road."

Well, I'm here to tell you: I'm not going away.

Contribute to WesPAC's "Hit The Road Fund!" Help us raise $25,000 by this Friday. . . . Contirbute to Wes.

You think the former Suprene Allied Commander of NATO who won the Kosovo Conflict might be an effective Democratic surrogate just about now? Think he can speak to the issues in an authoritative way? You think he would be a strong voice for discussing the Democratic position on the Russia-Georgia conflict? You think Dems NEED him? I do.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

I have avoided like the plague the discussion of John Edwards' private life. But I am interested in the argument about the effect of John Edwards' campaign in Iowa. Howard Wolfson argued that if Edwards had not been in the race, Hillary would have won Iowa. Chris Bowers and Clinton hater Poblano say it would not have made a difference. I have no idea what would have happened the night of January 3, 2008 if Edwards had not been in the race, but to ignore the fact that John Edwards served as Obama's attack dog in Iowa, as Bowers and the Clinton hating Poblano do, when discussing his effect on the race, is absurd.

I always argued that the most important night of the campaign came on October 30, 2007, when Jack Welch's NBC boys Tim Russert and Brian Williams teed it up against Hillary Clinton. To wonder what would have happened in the campaign if Edwards had been out is like wondering what would have happened if Russert had not been at the October 30, 2007 debate. They both were there. Silly to pretend that we would have known what would have happened otherwise. But we are nothing if not silly sometimes.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Ralph Nader says he's "on track" to be on the ballot in 45 states in November and now polls at 5%. I just received an e-mail from his campaign advising he'll be speaking in Toronto tonight to promote the new documentary about him, The Unreasonable Man, and tell Canadians "what's at stake "for them in the election. He lists his positions on issues:

Ralph Nader is the only major candidate for President of the United States standing up to implement Canadian-style universal healthcare, a Dion-style Carbon Tax, and ending the war in Iraq with a full 6-month withdrawal.

Over ten million Americans say they will vote for him, and another 20 million say they would if they thought he had a chance of winning. He's on track to be on the ballot in 45 states, and has a shot at getting in the Google Presidential Debates to be held in New Orleans this September.

With 5% and 10 million votes, he can't win. I wouldn't mind seeing him debate Bob Barr, but he's surplusage when it comes to McCain and Obama. I doubt he'll have the spoiler effect he had on the 2000 elections.

The Russia-Georgia conflict gives John McCain another chance to play "experienced hand" versus Obama's novice. Obama has already chosen his VP and most of us assume it will be Kaine, Bayh or Biden.

If he has chosen Kaine, he will be having second thoughts. These developments should favor Joe Biden, but the school of thought that does not want the "change" meme diluted will be up in arms about it - additionally arguing that it hurts Obama to acknowledge his inexperience.

It will never happen, but Hillary Clinton is an obvious choice here. Why? Because while she projects experience, unity will be seen as the reason for picking her. Obama will not be projecting concern or weakness regarding his inexperience. But Obama simply does not want Clinton on his ticket, no matter how much sense it makes.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only