When the Democrats allowed this debate to be about "funding the troops" instead of "funding Bush's War", they set themselves up for inevitable failure.

Thanks for calling out those who want to paint Bush with the same simplistic "Evil" brush that Bush uses against others. What those who do so fail to understand is that, by doing so, they are legitimizing Bush's own use of this model.

If we are to argue that Manichean "Good vs. Evil" is a bad frame for our foreign policy (or any other policy for that matter) than we shoot ourselves in the foot if we, at the same time, adopt a similar black-n-white approach to Bush and his cronies.

On the second point: I agree that the question of Bush's own personal beliefs are irrelevent. If he really believes we are in a titanic battle of "Good vs. Evil" or whether he just uses it as a convenient talking point to scare people into supporting his policies, the end result is the same: the encouragement of a naive, simplistic view of the world that leaves us more vulnerable to the true evils (small e) of the world.

Besides, it is my personal belief that, even if the "Good vs. Evil" frame was adopted opportunistically by the right, the repeated application of the frame will seep back into the mindset of those who promote it. In other words, the more you push the Koolaid the more the Koolaid starts to look good to you. So even if Bush didn't start out really believing in all his talk of "Good vs. Evil" he probably does now. After all, it may be the only thing that comforts him in the face of overwhelming public disapproval.

I'm inclined to give Klein the benefit of the doubt on this. I have no doubt that Klein has noticed the increasing use of "Serious" as irony, both in your blog and in others (notably Atrios and Digby). But it may also be true that what triggered his post was reading that particular Swampland comment.

Thus, the comment was more a "straw that broke the camels back" phenomena.

You are getting under his skin Glenn. But you have done so through the excellence of your entire work, not the content of one particular column.

...that these people actually believe we are facing an immanent threat of invasion by Islamic hordes. After all, these are the same type of people who believed that "Red Dawn" was a realistic portrayal of what might happen if we didn't "stand strong" against the "Red Menace".

And the odds of a Soviet invasion of America were far higher than the chance that a modern day Saladin will come charging into Washington, D.C.

The media is looking for Democrats who saying something, anything, positive about Iraq in order to then report "Democrat gives full support to Bush policy!"

This is no longer a surprise to me. I've come to expect it and it is why I always make a point of double-checking media reports before responding to them (cf., The Michelle Obama "get your family in order" quote).

Unfortunately, a lot of other people don't do this and instead respond with outrage at the alleged sellout by the Democrat who made the positive comment. This message board alone has multiple examples of this.

We need to work within the media dynamic we have. Democratic leaders need to understand how their words will be distorted. An Democratic voters need to understand that the initial reports of a Democratic support for the surge is often distorted and sometimes blatantly false.

If it was about another candidate than it was obviously about Rudy. She uses "he" for heck's sake!

But then that wouldn't be as delicious a story.

Republicans may express faux outrage whenever opponents show any signs of fighting back. But what they REALLY hate is when an opponent shows weakness. That just compounds the hate with disgust and makes them want to hit even harder.

I grew up with bullies so I know the behavior intimately. The worst thing you can do in the face of a bully is retreat.

Mukasey has already demonstrated that he WON'T put the rule of law first. He has said that one reason he can't say that waterboarding is torture is because it may put some members of the administration in legal jeopardy. That means he puts the legal welfare of Bushies before the legal welfare of the United States.

So, by Sen. Schumer's own standards, the choice is clear. Vote No.

Obama's response is beautiful on more than one level. Not only does it throw the accusation back in the Republicans face, it does so in a way that is not defensive (I don't have to prove my patriotism to YOU) or adoptive of right-wing methods of demonstrating patriotism (I do so wave the flag, wear lapel pins and sing "I'm glad to be an American!"). Furthermore, the throwback does NOT make a similar accusation of lack of patriotism on the part of the GOP even though it may look like it at first blush

Go back and read what Obama says. He never once calls the Republican's patriotism into question. He highlights the mistakes of the GOP on foreign policy. By doing so he suggests that their judgment on questions of patriotism is flawed. But he does NOT follow this up with a "and that is why Republicans are unpatriotic" accusation. Instead, he deftly closes it with a "let's leave it to the American people to decide."

If this is an example of how Obama deals with such future attacks then color me greatly relieved.