Of course, Matt Stoller is outraged.  Baseless, emotional appeals such as this one make perfect sense to folks like him (appeals to America’s national security populism are pretty common from both sides).  Let’s ignore the fact that the kid appears to be no older than 12 months; placing his service eligibility somewhere around 2026.  Barring some kind of constitutional amendment (and a few advances in medicine), I don’t think John McCain would be in any position at that time to “have” this woman’s baby, even if he wanted adorable and vulnerable little Alex.  There are a few other reasonable interjections–such as the absence of a draft, America’s volunteer military, etc.–but I think the unlikelihood of a McCain dictatorship in 2026 should suffice.  The ad is simply stupid, and it treats Americans like idiots.

But remember, the activists and careerists like it that way.  Policy is incidental to them.  For them, it’s about mobilizing voters and scaring the crap out of them enough so that they not dare vote Republican ever, ever again.  Reminds me of a certain presidential “brain”/FNC contributor I know of. 

John McCain is the wrong man for president in 2008.  Democrats shouldn’t have to run like jackasses to prove it, and they certainly don’t need fringe groups like MoveOn screwing it up.

More at memeorandum

This narrative — or rather, exploitation — of American security dominates foreign policy discourse to this day. As a result, we get this week’s kerfuffle over the imminent (or not so imminent) threat posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Referring to Iran’s capabilities as “tiny,” Senator Barack Obama shook the proverbial beehive that passes as foreign policy dialogue in this country today. As a result, we get rather puerile debates over the size of Iran’s economy, or whether or not they’ve acted in a fashion similar to that of the Soviets or the Nazis. Not only does this litmus blur the legitimately horrible actions of these aforementioned regimes, but it makes dealing with lesser threats far more difficult.

The reality is that Iran has been contributing to regional instability in the Middle East for over 25 years. Attempted coups, assassination plots and terrorist finance are just the tip of an unstable iceberg that is revolutionary Iran. The Islamic republic founded by Ayatollah Khomeini extended what likely would’ve been a two year border incursion with Iraq into a nearly decade’s long war of attrition against what he viewed to be the Arab apostates in the region. The plan, from the Supreme Leader’s perspective, wasn’t merely to repel the Iraqis, but to also march on Lebanon and Jerusalem “through” Iraq (also known as “Operation Ramadan”). The girth of the regime’s economy has never prevented it from exporting their revolution all over the Middle East, nor has it given solace to our allies having to deal with Iran’s surrogates on the frontlines.

 Photo courtesy of The Caucus

What happens to “It’s Over” if Clinton pulls a 40-point victory in West Virginia on Tuesday, then follows it up a week later with a 30-point victory in Kentucky? If these states turn out in the same margins that states since March 4th have averaged, that would imply a net of about 290,000 votes for Clinton. That puts her within striking distance of a reasonable popular vote victory. “Over” will be over as we turn our attention to Puerto Rico.

There are good reasons not to take Puerto Rico lightly, even though the press has continued to do exactly that. I would note: (a) Puerto Ricans vote in large numbers (2 million in the last gubernatorial election); (b) Puerto Ricans have never had this important a role in United States presidential politics; (c) Puerto Rico’s politics is focused at least partially on how (if at all) to adjust its relationship with the United States; (d) Puerto Rico’s is an open primary, and the residents of the Commonwealth, who are United States citizens, do not see themselves as Republicans or Democrats.

The inference I draw is that Puerto Ricans could turn out in huge numbers. If they do, and they swing for Clinton in a sizeable way, the popular vote lead could swing, too. Add 290,000 votes from West Virginia and Kentucky to 250,000 votes from Puerto Rico, account for expected losses in Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota, and you get Clinton leading in many popular vote counts, some of which are really quite valid. If she has one of those leads when the final votes are counted on June 3rd, the race will go on to the convention.

This race has been spliced a million times over by now, so I won’t add too much to the pile.  I think the big winner here is the emerging Democratic coalition.  The media harped on all of the identity politics surrounding Barack Obama’s candidacy, paying less attention to the shifting party coalitions that were in conflict during these primary contests.  Clinton’s post-Super Tuesday rationale became a retro act of sorts.  Her bid represented the last gasp of the “New Deal Coalition,” which had become synonymous with the Democratic Party itself (causing much consternation for my friend Dheeraj).  Obama has ostensibly reorganized the coalition, uniting black voters, young voters and college-educated whites behind his message.  It’s not clear yet if Clinton’s support base will return home to the party, but I think it’s safe to say that the Democrats need these new voters pulled in by Obama’s candidacy.   

In short, Barack Obama has made the pie higher. 

UPDATE: Just in case there’s any confusion, the title is a Bush joke. 

More at memeorandum      

First of all, Jindal’s successes to this point are still mostly a game of expectations.  Beyond signing some important reform legislation in Louisiana, Jindal hasn’t really done much yet.  As Douthat points out, the Obama rationale doesn’t really apply to him.  He’s shoring up a ticket rather than defining it, which means he’ll need to fit McCain’s message and strategy.  Perhaps one could make the case that Jindal’s domestic health care resume compliments a foreign policy-oriented nominee, but not much else. 

And for Jindal, it could only hurt him to leave Lousiana now and become a marginal “national” figure.  Jindal is establishing a political base and a record of reform which could make him top ticket material one day.  Timing plays an important role in electoral politics, and we tend to publicly punish “rising stars” who overreach too early (see Dan Quayle). 

More at memeorandum