Glenn said:

If the GOP premises of foreign policy remain unchallenged, why would McCain have any weaknesses? If we want to elect a "tough" American Commander-in-Chief who is going to be able credibly to lead America in war, why would anyone reject McCain? If militarism and imperialism are the values Americans want to project, how could they do better than John McCain?

He's not going to be perceived as an extremist in any area except foreign policy. If he's not made to pay for that, what is his weakness as a candidate?

And yet the latest polling has Obama several points ahead of McCain in the hypothetical general election.

Look - I agree that the long-term problems will only be solved when people step up and start turning the tide against the absurdly large military machine that is running our foreign policy, much to our detriment. But you cannot simply argue that, if Obama and McCain proclaim an identical foreign policy attitude, that people will then vote for McCain. It simply doesn't logically follow.

Moreover, I think you have a long way to go before you can demonstrate that Obama and McCain endorse an identical foreign policy. Right now it is fairly clear in the public mind that McCain is the biggest proponent of the "surge", i.e. staying in Iraq indefinitely while Obama is the candidate who was against the Iraq war from the start.

Terry McAuliffe does not represent Obama in any sense. Terry McAuliffe has always been a Clinton man. He won the chairmanship of the DNC several years back because of the Clinton connection. But he's not in charge of the DNC now: Howard Dean is, and whatever you can say about Dean, you cannot accuse him of parroting the Republicans when it comes to foreign policy.

Glenn, I have the highest respect for your legal analysis, but you are not similarly gifted at political analysis. The fact that you cannot see how the Democrats could beat McCain without utilizing your preferred strategy could be seen as a limitation of your vision. There are lots of problems with the McCain candidacy. For starters, the GOP is suffering massive fractures with the theocons all rallying behind Huckabee and the moneyed interests turning their nose up at campaign finance reformer McCain. Even with his frontrunner status assured, McCain can only garner 26% of the GOP vote in the relatively moderate state of Washington. Meanwhile, his campaign is going broke while Obama is having massive fundraising success. Furthermore, turnout is at record levels in Democratic primaries, while the Republican primaries are relatively stagnant.

Basically, Bush has done so much damage to the Republican "brand", it will not take a perfect campaign by a Democrat to win the White House.

Campaigns are based on a multitude of factors, not just one.

Let's consider the background noise behind this scandal. Hillary Clinton has been belittled for her gender for the entire campaign, and her family has been debased for well over a decade by the snickering press corps. The comment by Shuster is tame compared to a lot of the stuff that has been said in the past.

At some point, enough if enough. NBC can grow up and look at the culture that fosters this kind of locker-room behavior, or they can have Shuster write a mealy-mouthed apology and we can all presume things will be business as usual.

It is very interesting that any time real consequences are encouraged for any member of the media who exhibits deplorable behavior, the usual suspects circle the wagons and defend the lowering of standards. It is hard to imagine any other line of work where I would be allowed to refer to a powerful individual as a pimp. Would that fly in a law firm or on the floor of the stock market? If I were teaching a class, would it be OK to refer to a student's parent as a pimp? Of course not.

People in the media are completely blind to how low their own standards have sunk.

The clock stopped before the foul. It's indisputable.

The NCAA owes basketball fans an explanation of why the clock stopped.

Interesting article when Strausbaugh is talking about how politics panders to fears. Unfortunately, he then ruins the impression by treating legitimate concern about global warming as a fundamentalist religion.

Oh well. I guess he's just a sissy in that sense. Incapable of examining the issue directly himself, Strausbaugh has adopted one of the common memes about global warming and now claims it as his own opinion.

Uh, not quite.

Blaming Hollywood for the negative image America has abroad is weak. Films have not changed much from what they were 10 years ago and yet the image of America has plummeted. Why? Because of what is happening in real life!

It is far too easy to envision the rest of the world as a moral universe frowning at American sins. The truth is that the rest of the world is not inherently better than the US, and indeed to a large extent people in many different cultures follow the cultural lead of the US. Do you know how much blue jeans sell for in Europe?