To everything there is a season...

WASHINGTON - More than three decades after he first appeared before the panel as a 27-year-old Vietnam veteran-turned-antiwar protester, Senator John F. Kerry will be named chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, giving him enormous influence over President-elect Barack Obama's foreign policy, according to congressional officials.

Welcome all the way home, brother...

That Kerry fella…

…is still serving it up rare.

...John McCain has proven that he's not a maverick, he's erratic.

Old, too.

Hat tip to Digby.

That Kerry fella…

…blood rare for the red meat lovers among us
.

Candidate McCain now supports the wartime tax cuts that Senator McCain once denounced as immoral. Candidate McCain criticizes Senator McCain's own climate change bill. Candidate McCain says he would now vote against the immigration bill that Senator McCain wrote. Are you kidding? Talk about being for it before you're against it.

Let me tell you, before he ever debates Barack Obama, John McCain should finish the debate with himself.

And this...

…from mcjoan.

There's one and only one response to the Villagers' vapors: "General Clark has never denigrated John McCain's military service, and neither has anyone who speaks for Senator Obama. As Max Cleland and John Kerry can tell you, only Republicans do that."

Speaking of that Kerry fella, he's taking some heat for not having Wes Clark's back on MTP. While Kerry may believe he disagrees with Clark's comments about the relevancy of McCain's POW experience to the presidency, he's really reacting to the spin. It's disappointing, but unsurprising, especially given the setup = in his question, Brokaw told Kerry that Clark had used the words "untested and untried," as if Clark actually had denigrated the character McCain's service, which he pointedly had not done.

Should John Kerry have been fully briefed and informed on Clark's actual statement in context? Perhaps, but he really does have other matters to attend to. It happens. It happened, for instance, with Obama's reaction to Rev. Wright's National Press Club appearance. As his response made clear, he didn't actually understand why Wright was at the NPC, or what he said, or what the actual source and cause of controversy was. Most folks didn't, and don't. He reacted to the conroversy - a word whose etymological link to "contrived" has rarely been more relevant - or, if you will, to the spin, just as Kerry has in this instance.

Tough one to solve, but the adoption and widespread dissemination of mcjoan's formulation would be a big step forward. The next step would to be to inculcate the notion that pretty much any anti-Democratic spin can be presumed to be one more part of the big Republican lie.

That Kerry fella…

…speaks for me.

“Ted Kennedy and the Kennedy family have faced adversity more times, in more instances, with more courage and more determination and more grace than any family should ever have to face even just once.

“He’s helped millions and millions of people, in so many ways, at so many different times, from countless big pieces of legislation in Washington to the most personal of issues.

“Now, everybody needs to pull together on behalf of Ted. We must pull for him and his family and remember that Teddy is one unbelievable fighter."

Hat tip to The Democratic Daily.

"The bottom line…

…for that Kerry fella?

"He clearly did more than he had to, and she did not achieve what she had to."

And there it is.

That Kerry fella…

…on McCain v. McCain.

"I think John McCain has taken positions in the course of trying to win the Republican nomination, whether it's the reversal and flip-flop on the intolerance with respect to Jerry Falwell and others, or whether it is the Bush tax cuts flip-flop, or whether it is this flip-flop now on the issue of Iraq, or whether it is, you know, global climate change, where he has not yet signed on to Joe Lieberman and John Warner's bill. There is a clear indication of a Nomination John McCain versus the Senator John McCain."

Even his friends don't recognize him now.

And so we begin.

"Let me be one of the first," writes artistdogboy...

"...to call for Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell and Jay Inslee et al to reconsider your pre-caucus endorsement and be willing now to support Barak Obama who has won the Washington State Democratic caucuses overwhelmingly and decisively. There is no doubt now who most Democrats in Washington State want to be the party's nominee. You as our elected leaders and subject to the will of the voters should be willing to support the peoples choice.

No, please. It's not a path we want to take for several reasons. Of course, there's the suggestion that our elected officials should be mandated, contrary to the rules that govern their delegate status, to cast their personal ballot as directed, even if that direction constitutes a violation of their own conscience and best judgment. That's a profound violation of the spirit of democracy, and the principles of Democrats.

Secondly, all we know without doubt is that most Democrats who attended a precinct caucus supported Obama, probably in numbers slightly smaller than his ultimate delegate totals, given the nature of caucus math (in my precinct, nearly a third of the attendees netted Clinton a fourth of the delegates). Right now, six of Washinton's sixteen PLEO delegates have endorsed Clinton, which is a reasonable reflection of Clinton's support. Even if we assume that caucus attendees are representative sample of broader Democratic sentiment (a substantial leap, in my experience), how would Obama merit 100% of the PLEOs?

There is, of course, the question of whether Senator Obama can afford to be held to a similar standard? Should Senators Kerry and Kennedy be required to honor the will of the voters of Massachusetts? Should Senator Obama eschew the support of any PLEOs from New York? California? New Jersey? Clinton's scored well in some big states, folks. No so much, maybe, in the single Congressional district states, but they don't really add up much in the PLEO column. Nope, it's a mathematical loser for Obama.

The rules have been in place since the last national convention. All of the campaigns know what they are, and knew as they plotted their strategies. Let's just drop the calls for the PLEOs to be subjected to an eleventh hour, ad hoc rules change. We elected them to represent us as delegates, as well as in their public or Party offices, according to their conscience with the best interests of our Party in mind. Let's trust that they have done so, even as we may disagree with their decisions.

It's called "representative democracy." We're in favor of it, remember?

Florida?

Once again, I'm with that Kerry fella…

"The bottom line is that Florida does not offer any delegates. It is not a legit race. It should not become a fabricated race."

Nope.

Yep.

That Kerry fellow…

"I'm here supporting Barack Obama, not against Hillary, not against John Edwards, either of whom would take this country and fight to take this country in the right direction."

Though I'd juggle the names a bit, that's a good expression of my sentiments at this point. The differences are largely matters of pace and emphasis. My preference for Edwards is strong, but a a Democrat, I'm fairly excited about the quality of the field, regardless of the problems that poses for my favorite.

Let's see,,,

...since he 'lost' New Hampshire, Barack Obama has picked up a national endorsement from UNITE-HERE (including the pivitol Culinary Workers local in Nevada), a statewide endorsement from SEIU Nevada and personal endorsements from Senators John Kerry and Tim Johnson and Rep. George Miller of California.

Stunning setback, huh?

Triple threat.

Wasn't sure when I posted below, but Ari Melber confirms what I thought I'd heard...

The Clintons shared another political asset in New Hampshire, though farther offstage. Michael Whouley, the most respected field strategist in Democratic politics, was dispatched to overhaul the mobilization program in the state. Clinton aides had debated whether to deploy him in Iowa, where he had helped engineer John Kerry's huge comeback in 2004, or task him with fortifying the famous "firewall." Some feared that his efforts would simply be wasted in New Hampshire if Clinton lost Iowa, but the "Plan B" advocates won, and now they look pretty shrewd.

Yes, they do.

A nice day, an established statewide turnout organization and Michael Whouley.

Whap, bam, boom.

If we're surprised, it's because we weren't paying attent….oh, look! Shiny!

Worth repeating.

Scott at the NPI blog…

The Iowa caucuses are regarded by many as a crucial harbinger of the campaign leading up to the party conventions. However since 1972, when Iowa started its "first in the nation" tradition, its track record has been mixed.

George McGovern came in third in 1972.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter came in second. In first place was an uncommitted slate. George H. W. Bush won in 1980. In 1988, he came in third.

Recently Iowa has done better as a predictor. John Kerry won the 2004 Democratic caucus by 6%. In 2000, George W. Bush won solidly over a crowed field and Al Gore defeated Bill Bradley by 26%.

In 1996 Bob Dole beat Pat Buchanan by 3%.

So enjoy the political theater that is Iowa, but remember that while a victory does give momentum going into New Hampshire and beyond, it does not guarantee victory or defeat. Just ask Bill Clinton. In 1992, he only received 3%!

Yep. We've only just begun.

I agree that…

"This whole drug thing is annoying and stupid," but despite the hypocrisy Jerome finds in Obama's response to the Shaheen slur, I can't agree with his wish that "...the Obama campaign would have just ignored it."

The last time a Democrat tried to sweep away some "annoying and stupid" charges, charges that had been vetted and dismissed time and again, charges disproved by official records and eyewitnesses, well, the Swiftboat Liars did enough damage to take credit - surely deserved in some measure - for bringing low the reputation of a genuine American hero enough to turn an election.

Nope, no matter how "annoying and stupid," a response is due to every charge these days.

Hopefully not an annoyingly stupid one.

Headlines.

Attorney general won't share destroyed tape info

Here we go again. John Kerry used to get a good response to his promise that he'd appoint an Attorney General whose name wasn't John Ashcroft. Turns out the problem isn't the name, it's the namer. Speaking of whom...

Roaming, thieving monkeys sought in roundup

No relation, I'm sure.

Congress authorizes war funds and sends bill to Bush

A drag, sure, but let's face it - he was going to keep his damn war going if it meant emptying the Pentagon and having a yard sale for the office furniture. The people who would get hurt in the short run aren't in Congress. In the long run the Bush program to dismantle the military establishment in favor of an all-mercenary force would be abetted. I don't like it, but I get it.

House votes to outlaw CIA waterboarding

Thus making it illegal to act unlawfully. It's really come to this, hasn't it?

Men carry breast cancer genes, too

As usual, it's all about us. Can the baby-blue ribbons be far behind?

It's probably true…

It's probably true…

…but it's a shame. Steve Benen...

For most political observers, the term “swift-boat” has become a ubiquitous, easy-to-understand verb. Whereas it used to mean lying about an opponent’s military service in order to smear him or her, it’s now taken on a more general meaning: to swift-boat is to fabricate a phony smear of your opponent.

I think the Republican smears against veterans like John Kerry, Max Cleland, even John McCain, based on denigrating their service and belittling their sacrifices, deserve notable distinction, and I think the term "swift-boat" could serve that purpose well. Steve's right, though. It's meaning has been diluted, and in the process, I think it's impact has been, too. Reserved for the Republican efforts to, in essence, put an asterisk next to the record of these veterans, it becomes, by extension, a mark against the record of every veteran, providing another example of the contempt of so many on the right hold for those they send to war.

Why can't we just call a smear, well, a smear? It's a good word. Sounds nasty, doesn't it? Perfectly good word. Better, really, for general use than "swift-boat," because, absent the military context, what the heck does that mean anyway? It becomes a term to hide the smear behind. In fact, if the smear is a lie (and there are other kinds of smears), well, why has the L word become so scarce in our political lexicon? Certainly there's no shortage of lies or liars.

But I'm just bitching. It's too late, I'm afraid, to save "swift-boat." No reason, though, not to encourage calling a smear a smear, and, perhaps especially, calling a lie a lie.

From the "Lessons Learned" file.

These days, when that Kerry fella gets slimed, the response is a lot faster and a bit more furious.

Kerry spokesman David Wade issued the following statement today in response to Rush Limbaugh, who said on his radio show that Kerry’s Swift Boat attackers in 2004, “were right on the money and nobody has disproven anything they claimed in any of their ads, statements, written commentaries, or anything of the sort.”

“At first I thought, that’s not Rush, that’s just the OxyContin talking. Nonetheless, this is a despicable but unsurprising new lie from a man whose closest brush with combat came when customs officials tried to take away his Viagra.”

Hat tip to The Carpetbagger Report.

Speaking of endorsements…

…this caught my eye over at the Seattle For Obama blog…

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Rep. Adam Smith has been named chairman of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign in Washington state, Obama's campaign announced Thursday.

Interesting in a couple of respects. I remember when the Kerry campaign in the upper left consisted of Rep. Smith and whatever staff resources he could spare from his campaign office. Adam's typically a Democrat of moderate persuasion and I always thought his enthusiasm for that Kerry fella, a far more progressive figure, was significantly inspired by fear of Howard Dean and particularly of the Deaniacs, who were rampant in Seattle and generally far more progressive than their candidate.

Few Dean supporters were more visible and effective than Howard "Howie in Seattle for Dean" Martin, who's now running the Seattle for Obama blog, and who posted the news of Smith's campaign appointment.

Meanwhile, I've gone from a candidate represented locally by Adam Smith to one for whom the head Deaniac in charge, Joe Trippi, plays a prominent role.

As I mentioned regarding the loss of Karen Marchioro, over the years, Karen and I were both allies and adversaries on various campaigns and questions, but always friendly nonetheless. The wheel turns, and in the heat of a campaign it's often worth remembering that in a short time, often just weeks or months, we'll be making common cause with folks who momentarily seem like our mortal adversaries.

I'm supporting that Kerry fella…

….for poet laureate.

"There once was a man named Vitter
Who vowed that he wasn't a quitter
But with stories of women
And all of his sinnin'
He knows his career's in the -- oh, never mind."

John Kerry or Ed O'Reilly?

What she said.

(And she actually has a vote.)