It gets worse

Warning -- The Secret File of Abu Ghraib will make you feel sick to your stomach.

"One and one is two, two and two is four, I feel so bad because I'm losing the war" *

Rebels' writ runs large across the troublesome Sunni triangle
What, exactly, are 135,000 US troops doing in Iraq? What is the point?
Whenever they patrol, someone shoots at them. Forget about building schools or repairing hospitals or fixing generators or protecting pipelines -- whenever they leave their fortified bases, someone shoots at them. They have to hide in mosques.
The DOD briefing last week, Gen. Myers said that the US " goal is to make sure that for major supply routes and coalition forces in the area, that these hotbeds don't become centers where they can spin out and create other havoc" -- so its a defensive war now for the Americans, a rearguard action to keep their own supply routes open. They don't appear to be on the offensive anymore.
The quietest and most secure place in Iraq today, apparently, is Fallaujah, after the US military pulled out in April -- there is no violence on their streets anymore -- of course, its now an Islamic dictatorship iin this city -- so much for democracy, I guess. And its now become a bomb factory for the rest of the insurgency, which the US keeps trying to shut down by air raids, which just kill more civilians.
Now it looks like Ramadi is going the same way. The Financial Times reports that "several large Iraqi towns have recently fallen outside the control of US forces and its allies in the Iraqi interim government."
People in the US keep saying that the Americans will be needed in Iraq for five years, or ten years -- nope, its not going to take nearly that long for them to lose this war. They seem to be retreating at the rate of about one city a month now, and its a geometric progression, so give it another year at most. And people keep wanting Kerry to present a detailed plan for what he would do to win in Iraq -- but how could he? It is impossible to come up with a plan to herd cats.
"Winning" is no longer an option in Iraq, and pretty soon America will realize this.
*Riff sung by Dick Shawn, playing Hitler, from The Producers.

Kerry's policies

Substance over Style For those who cannot type www.johnkerry.com, here is a summary of some of his domestic policy proposals.

Not exactly the highest priority

CNEWS - Canada: Premiers to ask the federal government to set up national pharmacare program
And what, exactly, would a pharmacare program do to reduce hospital and specialist waiting lists? The premiers have been bitching for years about how the feds are not transfering enough money to them to run hospitals -- so now they think the public wants the feds to spend all that money on a pharmacare program? I guess I wonder if this is being floated now just so that the premiers themselves can avoid the scrutiny of provincial health budgets which Martin and Romanow demanded.

Reactions and reviews

Well, Google News lists more than 2,000 stories so far about The Speech, and many (not all) bloggers were pretty happy about it. 
Anyway, one further thought -- given how poorly the TV network pundits handled the little bit of the convention they did cover, maybe everyone should quit complaining about how they did only three hours.  Better that people should read about it in the newspapers than watch these guys. 
In terms of the cable coverage, overall CNN did OK - some of their panels were strange, and Wolfie and Jeff Greenfield spend the convention reading from the RNC talking points (though I didn't watch everything they did) -- but Aron Brown (Newsnight) and Larry King did thoughtful work covering the substance of what was being said, and King had some terrific panels plus Moe Rocca.  MSNBC - specifically Chris Matthews --  was more prone to repeating gossip and, from beginning to end, was absolutely obsessed with the convention management (as if anyone other than the media control booth directors actually cared about the time deadlines for the speeches).   But their panelists did occasionally make good points, too.
Best blogger for the convention -- Liberal Oasis.  Used the opportunity to talk to people from all over, and post their interviews, plus covered the convention events.  I also really liked Buzzflash's thoughtful blog posts, and Pandragon too.

The Speech

MSNBC - Text of Kerry's acceptance speech
Well, I watched The Speech and I loved it - this one really was a "slam-dunk". Here are the Cathie awards to Kerry:

Best one-liner: "I'm not making this up. I was born in the West Wing!"

Turning the stupidest Republican 'attack', that he was raised overseas, on its ear: "On one occasion, I rode my bike into Soviet East Berlin. And when I proudly told my dad, he promptly grounded me. But what I learned has stayed with me for a lifetime. I saw how different life was on different sides of the same city. I saw the fear in the eyes of people who were not free. I saw the gratitude of people toward the United States for all that we had done. I felt goose bumps as I got off a military train and heard the Army band strike up "Stars and Stripes Forever."

Subtle and not-so-subtle comparisons to Bush: "I ask you to judge me by my record." "Let's not forget what we did in the 1990s. We balanced the budget. We paid down the debt. We created 23 million new jobs. We lifted millions out of poverty and we lifted the standard of living for the middle class." "Our band of brothers doesn't march together because of who we are as veterans, but because of what we learned as soldiers." "Some issues just aren't all that simple." "I will wage this war with the lessons I learned in war . . . You will never be asked to fight a war without a plan to win the peace." "There is a right way and a wrong way to be strong. Strength is more than tough words." "The future doesn't belong to fear; it belongs to freedom." "As President, I will not evade or equivocate." "That flag doesn't belong to any president. It doesn't belong to any ideology and it doesn't belong to any political party. It belongs to all the American people." "I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation - not the Saudi royal family." "Let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States." "I don't want to claim that God is on our side. As Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side. " "For America, the hope is there. The sun is rising. Our best days are still to come."

Strongest red meat statements: "I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war. I will have a Vice President who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws. I will have a Secretary of Defense who will listen to the best advice of our military leaders. And I will appoint an Attorney General who actually upholds the Constitution of the United States.

Destined to be the most televised line: "As President, I will restore trust and credibility to the White House."

Actually the most radical and far-reaching policy change -- health care as a right: "Health care is not a privilege for the wealthy, the connected, and the elected - it is a right for all Americans."

And the image which DNC hopes the RNC will attack: Kerry giving CPR to a hamster. It was a pretty silly little story, and the image is, on the surface, just as ridiculous as the biosuit photo But if the Republicans fall into the trap of actually SAYING it is silly . . . well, is there a parent anywhere who hasn't done whatever it takes to try to save their child's pet? It's the universal human experience, really.

I must admit that didn't watch a lot of the press analysis afterwards -- there seemed to be a total obsession on all the networks with reporting about how Kerry had delivered the speech in time for network coverage cutoff, to the point that he did not let the convention applaud the individual speech lines as long as they wanted to. I listened to a pretty incoherent "reply" from some RNC spokesperson, who couldn't seem to identify anything in the speech that the republicans disagreed with, exactly. And I turned off the TV coverage when I heard Chris Matthews cut off Willie Brown's attempt to discuss the speech content, saying he didn't want to discuss the substance, only the process -- oh, give me a break!
None of the pundits seemed to grasp that long pauses for applause and cheering would have screwed up the speech's rhythm and its pace of urgency. The arch of this speech was actually circular -- he returned to the same themes again and again, so that even if someone listened only to five or 10 minutes, they would still get most of the message. Overall, I conclude it was honest, straightforward, and clear on what the democrats are promising in this campaign. Now, I'm off to read what the other bloggers think . . .

Let them eat prozac

I just love overheard remarks like this one -- Unhappy Workers Should Take Prozac --Bush Campaigner
Undoubtedly Ms. Sheybani will now also be experiencing the opportunity to redirect her employment focus while she pursues an alternative career goal.

The substance of the dems

Dismissed in Boston - Why won't the Democrats talk about judges? By Dahlia Lithwick
Former (briefly) prime minister Kim Campbell will always be remembered in Canada for her remark that election campaigns are no time to be discussing important issues.
She will be forever reviled for that remark, but I could see what she meant -- the politicizing of important issues, and their consequent trivialization, is a problem during election campaigns, when the clamour of reporters' questions and the need to produce acceptable instant soundbites precludes any politician from ever saying "let me think about that for a bit and I'll get back to you." Kerry, in fact, gets into trouble all the time when he tries to give a substantive and thoughtful answers to press questions - gradually, he has learned not to do this.
I was reminded of that problem when I read this article.
Lithwick writes ". . . Shouldn't this election ultimately be a referendum on the rule of law? . . . What is at stake, in this election, is whether we value the notion of being a nation that's ruled by law as opposed to rulers. This isn't just a voting issue. It's what used to launch revolutions." She is right, of course. And the cheers during the convention whenever a platform speaker refers to civil liberties, arbitrary arrests of Arab Americans, and the more bizarre provisions of the Patriot Act, shows that the democrats know this is a core issue as well.
But its not one that can be glibly soundbited, to become just another election goodie -- its not something that produces a soundbite along the lines of "we promise $4,000 college tuition credit". Kerry and Edwards cannot say, in their next breath "and we promise to appoint judges who will support the constitution rather than searching for ways to undermine it" or "and we promise not to corrupt our justice system by soliciting pandering legal opinions that put our own actions above the law" or "and we promise that our Pentagon will not get away with producing soldiers so lacking in moral fiber and leadership that they routinely torture and kill prisoners of war" or "and we promise that that disgrace to American values called Gitmo will be closed immediately".
The Bush administration has portrayed every one of these actions as part of the War on Terror; stating directly and explicitly the intention to change them would allow the dems to be characterized as "weak on terror".
In reality, these actions have nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with a kind of megalomaniac fascism which has seldom raised its ugly head in American political history before, but which is the basic underpinning of the Bush administration and the Project for a New American Century fanatics who are an integral part of that administration. Every president before Bush has taken seriously their oath to protect the constitution. I don't think even now most Americans would accept the fact that Bush and his people see the constitution as archaic, obsolete, an obstacle to their goals.
Lithwick is wrong, however, when she says that the democrats don't talk about these things. Their promise to make these kind of changes is implicit in every statement they make about bringing America together toward a more perfect union, and it underpins their commitment to build a diverse, inclusive, "united states" of America.

Democrats, keep it up

Too Nice For Their Own -- and Our -- Good (washingtonpost.com)
Isn't it odd that the media who wouldn't say "boo" to the Bush administration for three years are now berating Kerry and the democrats for not holding a fire-and-brimstone convention? They really are pathetic, aren't they?
The democrats are quite right to hold their fire -- there's lots of time left in this campaign for critiques, but the voters will be sick of it if they have to listen to it for three solid months. The debates are the time to ask the hard questions of Bush, like what the hell were you thinking and why did you screw it up so badly.
Besides, unlike George Soros and Move.On, the dems are NOT just asking people to vote Bush out, they're asking people to vote Kerry in. People need to know they are voting for something positive -- the democrats are using this convention to frame their themes for the next three months, to focus their message for their troops, and I think that's a clever, honest and far-thinking move.
So just continue to ignore what the media says it wants you to do, boys - you're doing just fine as it is.
And so what if you are not dancing to the media's tune -- they blew it big time themselves, so why should you listen anymore to their advice?

Blogger reactions

Atrios' item on Mainstream Bloggers makes some very good points about the media reaction to blogs and bloggers. As the media bloggers like Hardblogger are likely discovering, its harder than it looks.
This reminded me of some rumour I read of or heard of recently, something about how the RNC was going to start a bunch of left-wing blogs, and then just before the election they were going to start trashing Kerry, all with the idea that this would bring the pro-Kerry blogging universe crashing down.
Of course, anyone who actually reads bloggers knows how stupid this idea is. They just don't get it.
The thing about the great left-wing bloggers, and the right-wing bloggers too, is this -- its personal.
It takes an interesting, informed, somewhat unique personality to write a widely-read blog. It cannot be faked or spun or manipulated. The blogs I usually read -- Josh Marshall, Atrios, Kevin Drum, Bill Sher, Billmon, Buzzflash, Penguin, POGGE, Mike, and the others listed on the left -- they let it all hang out.
When my daughter was studying acting, I found out that one of acting's most important and difficult requirements was the demand that people who intend to perform first have to be able to reveal their own vulnerabilities to an audience -- their own stories, their hopes, fears, likes, dislikes, etc. etc. Now, I had always thought that actors concealed their own personalities in their roles, but actually great actors must know and accept their own personalities before they can adopt another personality. They must be able to expose themselves, psychologically speaking, to the audience - if they cannot do this, then their acting comes across as fake, shallow.
And I think its the same with great bloggers -- they do try to keep their blogs up-to-date and interesting, yes, but through their choice of items and their comments, they also reveal their own personalities and their unique "takes" on the world, and it is this revelation that makes their blogs interesting to read, that creates loyal readers. They could no more be right-wing moles than Kerry himself could be a secret Klu Klux Klansman.
And as I have found out myself doing this blog, its a challenge to remain true to yourself day after day in print, to make sure I have said what I meant to say, to continue to talk about things that I think are important, or even trivial things that matter to me.

It's not just Iraq anymore

MSNBC Haqrdblogger "Iraq becomes a four letter word" (Pat Buchanan)-
Let me get this straight -- the democrats are mad at Bush because of the Iraq war.
So they're supposed to be spending their time at this convention talking about Iraq, because that's the only thing about the Bush administration that the public is mad about?
So because the democrats are spending their time talking about unifying America, supporting regulations to protect the environment, taxing the rich to reduce the deficit, creating more jobs, supporting US businesses, appointing moderates to the courts, protecting civil liberties, and . . .oh yes, supporting stem cell research -- well, this is a fraud because they were supposed to spend the whole convention being mad about Iraq?
Sorry, Pat, but the democrats have moved way beyond being mad about Iraq -- they all know its a total mess over there and that America agrees its a mess. And they hope their guy can fix it. But they're not going to run their whole election on Iraq, because there's lots more that's wrong with the Bush administration than Iraq alone.
Buchanan's attitude, though, is so typically republican, isn't it -- single issue, narrow focus, black and white, pander to what the public wants rather than trying to re-frame the debate. It's all so familiar.

Well, at least he's getting some help

Here's a strange one -- Capitol Hill Blue: Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior .  It follows up on a recently published book, Bush on the Couch, where a psychiatrist did an analysis of Bush's public behaviour.  Author Dr. Justin Frank did a Washington Post live chat last month. 
Now, I have also done a couple of posts recently about Bush's apparently deteriorating mental state.  And its not exactly news that being president is one of the world's most stressful jobs.  So I guess if he actually is in as bad a mental situation as this article says, but if he is actually getting some help with this, then its all to the good, I think.   Just don't let him make any big decisions until the drugs start working -- it takes about six weeks.

Teresa

Buzz Democratic Convention Blog Buzzflash's take on Teresa Heinz Kerry's speech -- "Teresa became a star by beating the expectation's game too. Conventional wisdom had it that she would speak fast, digress and say something outrageous. But she was insightful, warm, sincere, and on message. Like Obama, she came off as the embodiment of the American dream, someone who values liberty and freedom even more, because she wasn't born into it."
Watching MSNBC and CNN discuss this speech I had to laugh -- on both panels, there was the token woman journalist, along with the right-wing male talk show host (Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough). In both cases, the right-wing male said Teresa's speech wouldn't be supported by women - "wouldn't play in Peoria" as Joe Scarborough said it.
And in both cases, the women on the panel sputtered to life -- they were angry, and even personally insulted, at how these men were brushing off Teresa's remarks. And then the other men on the panels chimed in to support the women.
These women were also impressed by Teresa's high style and class -- Andrea Mitchell, on MSNBC, even made the Jackie O comparison. And when you think about it, have you ever heard a woman say about another woman "I just admire her so much, she dresses so poorly and her clothes are so cheap" -- not one bit. Though women have this reputation for bitchiness and catty remarks, we're the ones who buy the fashion magazines -- we all admire stylish, well-put-together women; Teresa looks and dresses the way all we would, if we had the money.
Though men may be envious of her money and power, she got it the old fashioned way - she married it - and women don't resent her for that. Rather, we're saying "you go, girl!".

Another RNC talking point "Kerry the unpopular"

The Democratic Convention: Feed, but Do Not Annoy, the Swing Voters
Where is all this "buzz" coming from about how democrats themselves don't think much of John Kerry - don't like him, too cold, lacks charm, etc. etc?
I hear Jeff Greenfield at the convention talking about this on CNN all the time, usually backdropped by a sea of Kerry/Edwards posters, and just following a speech where the mention of Kerry's name evoked roars of approval. But the media line is that Kerry is hard to like, and the non-thinking media won't be deflected from their mantra regardless of the facts.
I smell another RNC talking point here, positioning Bush as "the guy everyone likes" (NOT) against Kerry "the guy even the democrats don't like" (also NOT).

Bloggers start getting the good stuff

One of the potential benefits of bloggers at the convention is to cover the stuff that the mainstream media miss. Here, for example - Semi-Live Blogging: Take Back America Conference- Liberal Oasis blogs about two related meetings at the convention, both very interesting events. Buzzflash also covers the Take Back America conference.
And yesterday, some blogs (which I cannot now find) also covered the first veterans caucus meeting ever held at a democratic convention.
Now, if it hadn't been for the blogs, I would never have heard about any of these events.
So right on, guys, you're getting the good stuff.
And on Political Animal, Amy Sullivan has a good post about the religious code in Clinton's speech. Worth reading.