Coming Up on Sunday Kos ....

• georgia10 will explore the new face of activism and what it looks like for the millennial generation.
• DemFromCT will review recent polling on health care as it relates to the 2008 campaign, and the chances for health reform after the election.
• DevilsTower will take a look back at Freedomnomics, sockpuppetry and misleading economics.
• Think the Cold War ended? Think again. Plutonium Page will take us on a tour of one of the most contaminated nuclear sites on Earth... right here in the United States.

Gordon Smith has his story, and he's sticking to it, no matter that it's, well, a lie.

A few weeks ago, I posted on Gordon Smith's deceptive ad, in which he tried to claim that he was just like Barack Obama. He's a little like Charlie Crist who becomes completely heterosexual just before every election, but Gordon Smith miraculously becomes a Democrat before every election.

Local news programs have called him on it more than once. The latest is from a Eugene station, in which Smith once again claims the mantle of Obama-ism for his own.

This appears to be the Obama press release Smith is saying proves that he's just like the Democratic nominee for President.

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL), Richard G. Lugar (R-IN), Joseph Biden (D-DE), Gordon Smith (R-OR), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Norm Coleman (R-MN) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) today introduced legislation that would reduce U.S. gasoline consumption by nearly half a trillion gallons by 2028 and greatly decrease our dependence on foreign oil.

Yup, Smith really is singled out there, isn't he. He's in pretty good WINO company there, with Lugar who can never quite make up his mind to actually vote against the president, and Coleman, who's just as desperate to keep his day job as Smith.

Here's a reminder for Oregon voters, and especially for Gordon Smith:

Here's the Obama campaign's response to the ad:

"Barack Obama has a long record of bipartisan accomplishment and we appreciate that it is respected by his Democratic and Republican colleagues in the Senate. But in this race, Oregonians should know that Barack Obama supports Jeff Merkley for Senate. Merkley will help Obama bring about the fundamental change we need in Washington," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

And when he was actually in Oregon in May, here's what he had to say about Gordon Smith:

"Gordon Smith's problem is that he rarely breaks away from George Bush and the Republican agenda that I think has done this country great damage."

Just to set the record straight. The actual Democrat in the race is Jeff Merkley, who also happened to post here today on his opposition to the FISA bill.

Race tracker wiki: OR-Sen

Samuel Johnson famously wrote in 1775 that "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." In The Devil’s Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce made the appropriate correction: "With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first."

The past eight years proves Bierce’s thesis once and for all.  

The remorseless gangsters currently in charge of the executive branch aren’t the first American leaders to falsely define patriotism to include torturing, racketeering, warmongering, privatizing, fraud, fecklessness, betrayal, incompetence, injustice, absolutism, corporatism, cronyism and horses’ assism. They aren’t the first to wave the red-white-and-blue while committing sedition against the nation’s citizens by lying them into a war. Nor the first to spy on dissidents of that war. Nor to treat the veterans of that war with public accolades simultaneous to budgetary disdain.

Nor, it must never be forgotten, the first to commit war crimes under a patriotic banner.

But these particular scoundrels have managed one new audacity: cramming the full roster of such behavior into two presidential terms. For this Herculean effort, the cabal of grifters who took over seven-and-a-half years ago surely deserve medals.

To be fair, Bierce had a 135-year advantage over Johnson. He could look back at the history of a particular brand of patriotism – the American kind – which, like everything else American, our modern flag-wavers will explain to us benighted, is exceptional, unlike European patriotism, to them a lesser and ignoble kind. Jonah Goldberg told us just that in his Tuesday screed attacking Barack Obama’s patriotic bona fides. Goldberg himself is not exceptional. Most right-wing intellectuals are purveyors of what makes a true patriot and what does not in terms Il Duce would have loved, equating aggressive nationalism with patriotism, dissidence with treason, love of country with love of leaders. Such upsidedownism is a hallmark of right-think (liberals are fascists, according to Goldberg’s book and blog), so the attack on Obama – achieved by the most tendentious parsing of the Senator’s campaign speeches – is no surprise.

However, as Larisa Alexandrovna points out in her fine deconstruction of Goldberg’s essay, what he and fellow propagandists are about is not merely challenging a candidate’s love for country but rather demanding adherence of us all to Big Brother’s brand of patriotism, complete with spiffed-up Two Minutes Hate:

Make no mistake, this is a coordinated effort to deliberately replace substance with its symbol, meaning with an emblem, and essentially strip language down to nothing but trinkets. ...

For a people to be controlled, they must first be robbed of honest discourse and open debate. Distorting language and stripping it of real and honest meaning is the first tool and the best mechanism for transforming a democracy into an authoritarian state. An informed populace is a dangerous populace.

Symbols, however, and false-definitions can provide the appearance of information without the truth of it. Ideas, substance and meaning – all things for which a symbol is simply a representation and a word simply a type of symbol – are far more difficult to control. There is nuance in individual ideas. There are shades of agreement and disagreement and a whole spectrum of understanding and believing. Such a complex system cannot be controlled, and therefore, must be reduced to only its symbol and then distorted.

Symbols and words-as-slogans can be mass produced, mass delivered, and altered from their original meaning, until the symbol becomes its own thing and the substance on which it is based is entirely lost. ...

Patriotism is the word that authoritarians most like to distort and Goldberg demonstrates -- once again -- just how this distortion is created.

The distortion was clear when Goldberg plopped the phrase "patriotism problem" into his first sentence. Not just Obama’s problem, mind you. As putative nominee, the Senator is, of course, a real target, but he is also the right-wingers’ surrogate for citizens who dare claim that the United States needs more than a little tweaking around the edges. Citizens who deeply love their country, but recognize that, historically and now, it is a composite of the good, the bad, and the ugly. Who refuse to reiterate the latest version of my-country-right-or-wrong. Who acknowledge with condemnation that a jingoistic, exclusionary, authoritarian patriotism was in large part what helped make the United States "great" in the worst sense of the word. Who believe dissent to be the paramount patriotic behavior.

Who object to the idolatrous intermingling of militaristic nationalism with patriotism.

I can hear the hisses of those who – in the words of George Washington – practice the "impostures of pretend patriotism" and try at every opportunity to stifle dissent and fill the silence with propaganda. It’s the Fourth of July! How dare I disrespect patriotism on the very anniversary of the day 56 men signed what could have been their death warrant, the Declaration of Independence. Can’t there be just one day when we critics shut up, stand up and salute? Thus do the Goldbergians and other pretend patriots do as they have done throughout American history – confuse dissent with disrespect, critics with renegades, patriotism with obedience.

Fortunately, 15 years after the Declaration was signed, the Bill of Rights was adopted and, in its First Amendment, freedom of speech was enshrined. Allowing us all, so far, usually, to say what we want. In a disrespectful voice if we so desire.

That amendment is one reason I love my country and am a patriot.

I’ll admit, that’s damned hard for someone whose Seminole ancestors were killed in three wars by soldiers flying the stars and stripes, with amends and apologies yet to be made. But I call myself a patriot because patriots are rebels. That is not a cry for overthrow and the guillotine. It is an optimism that patriots can and must remake the United States, just as in the past it was repeatedly remade by dissidents who rejected slavery, women’s second-class status, workers’ impotence, racism’s reign. There is, it goes without saying, much left to achieve.

Nothing, of course, offends right-wingers more, seems more disrespectful and disloyal, than when we dissenters, our criticisms barely escaped from our lips, claim ourselves to be patriots. They go apoplectic when we say it’s not patriotism that we  disrespect but rather the pretenders who have made a fetish of it, twisted it and commodified it. These idolaters love the idea of dissent, the iconography of it, but jeer its reality. To them, patriots must be bootlickers. In extreme cases, jackboots. Proof, if more were needed, that even the word itself, "patriot," must be recaptured from those who have hijacked it.

They are not unlike Jersey City Mayor Frank Hague, who, in January 1938, said: "We hear about constitutional rights, free speech and the free press. Every time I hear these words I say to myself, ‘That man is a Red, that man is a Communist.’ You never hear a real American talk like that."

Chinese and Russian capitalism have cost the accusation "Red" its punch, but even in the age of the millennial generation, the "real American" canard carries weight. We’ll continue to hear variations on that theme against Senator Obama right up until November 4.

Nevertheless, Obama is a lucky guy. His patriotism, he said on Monday, was challenged "for the first time" when he began his presidential campaign. The first time? Many citizens didn’t make it past their 20s before they were called unAmerican by the pretend patriots.    

As Goldberg makes clear, much of what the idolaters and fetishists heard in Senator Obama’s speech in Independence, Mo., was an abomination, especially:

Now, we may hope that our leaders and our government stand up for our ideals, stand up for what's right, and there are many times in our history when that's occurred. But when our laws, when our leaders or our government are out of alignment with those ideals, then the dissent of ordinary Americans may prove to be one of the truest expressions of patriotism.

If you hear echoes of the Declaration in those lines, you’d not be alone. Music to the ears of those of us for whom the Declaration and Constitution are the flawed start, not the end of American ideals.

But while Obama struck many sweet notes Monday, he also seemed compelled not to be discordant in the arena which most epitomizes today’s pretend patriots, an empire fueled by the military-industrial-congressional complex. Whether he is not ideologically inclined or merely not yet ready to offer even an indirect challenge on this score will have to wait for his swearing-in. His proffered addition of 92,000 new troops – as Bob Gates has sought for 19 months, at an additional cost of $11 billion annually – is not a good omen.

In terms of elections, it’s understandable. Who can contest the patriotism of someone who says he will expand the military? Even the military of a country that spends more money on its armed forces than all the world's other countries put together? Why feed the age-old Democrats are weak on defense theme - itself a way to say Democrats are unpatriotic – by raising uncomfortable questions about the 118,000 U.S. military men and women in Japan, Korea and Germany? Will the day come when a president or presidential candidate divorces militarism from patriotism? Or will the pretenders always hold sway?

Sixty-odd years ago, George Orwell taught us how words are transformed to con the citizenry into accepting meanings which often are the opposite of their real meanings. In Notes on Nationalism, written in May 1945, he said that patriotism is "devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force upon other people."

Nationalism, however, is something else, he said, presciently zeroing on the pretend patriots of then and our own time:

All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts.

... Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage – torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians – which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by "our" side. ...

The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them. ...

In nationalist thought there are facts which are both true and untrue, known and unknown. A known fact may be so unbearable that it is habitually pushed aside and not allowed to enter into logical processes, or on the other hand it may enter into every calculation and yet never be admitted as a fact, even in one's own mind.

A patriot will defend what s/he loves without hatred or any notion of superiority. But nationalism demands a belief that others are inferior, which makes it aggressive by nature, the enemy of peace, and thus the enemy of patriotism. Nationalism frames everything in "us" vs. "them" terms.

U.S. nationalism pretending to be patriotism has led to imperialist wars, the slaughter of indigenous peoples, the repeated suppression of dissent. In times of global tension, nationalism masquerading as patriotism demolishes the capacity of people to assess the reality of threats as well as to object if they find those threats wanting.

To adopt the unconditional support the Goldbergians ask of us could never be an expression of love for our country, the core definition of patriotism. Indeed, it would be extremely unpatriotic. For who recklessly allows harm against that which s/he loves?

Fighting for a better country is what patriotic dissidents have done from the beginning of the United States. Arrayed against them and their high principles in every case were the pretend patriots, those for whom dissent was anathema, who saw attempts to expand the nation’s democracy as a violation of their rights, who labeled opposition to expansionism and imperialist war outright treason.

Despite the pretenders who engaged in naked aggression against abolitionists, suffragists, trade unionists, civil rights workers and others, these dissidents made America better. They remade America. In our time, they are lauded, but in their own, they were vilified, assaulted and even, sometimes, murdered for their audacity, for their patriotism, for their belief that the ideals in the Declaration were not pretend. We owe them. Not least to imitate their example and remake America once again.

• Swing State Project has been gathering 2Q fundraising reports as they come out.
• Florida Governor Charlie Crist is engaged. For the fifth time. (He was married once, for 6 months.) Obviously it's not like this could have anything at all to do with his vice-presidential aspirations.
• Matthew Yglesias explains how Cindy McCain's designer suits equip the McCains to understand the struggles of ordinary Americans. Jed Report's Google Earth tour of the McCains' 10 or so houses is another valuable reminder of how absolutely non-elitist they are.
• Al Giordano unravels the links between a McCain visit and a major hostage  release in Colombia.
• Ezra points to an article on Utah moving to a four-day work week due to energy use concerns.
• For most congressional candidates, the Fourth of July is a big day to gain visibility in local celebrations. For obvious reasons, Darcy Burner won't have that chance this year. We can't give her back the Fourth, but we can buy her some respite on the 20th and 21st and all the days until then by relieving her of the necessity to fundraise.
• The Bush administration extended the tours of 2,200 Marines in Afghanistan fighting in the bloody Helmand province because there are no troops available to send as reinforcements. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the JCIS, said on Wednesday that more troops are necessary but "I don't have troops I can reach for...to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq." - smintheus

You know your legal problems are bad, when you're spending more on your campaign manager's legal fees than he makes, and more than you're spending on campaign polling despite facing the two toughest challengers you've seen in nearly twenty years.

With an election-year corruption investigation looming, Rep. Don Young has tapped his campaign war chest to pay not only his own million-dollar legal tab but also to hire lawyers for his campaign manager, who is also under FBI scrutiny.

The Alaska Republican spent more than $35,000 between October 2007 and April on lawyers for longtime campaign manager Steven Dougherty. That's more than Dougherty himself made during that period and nearly as much as the campaign spent on political polling, according to campaign finance reports.

It's fortunate that Young has amassed such a formidable war chest over the years, as his campaign coffers are taxed on three fronts now. One, of course, is keeping him in Congress.

One is keeping him out of prison.

And the third, apparently, is keeping his cronies out of prison with him.

The payments, which are legal under federal law as long as they are associated with the candidate's official duties, are another indication of how the FBI investigation has become a drag on the congressman. Instead of coasting to a 19th term, Young is shelling out money to pay his bills and Dougherty's even as he faces a well-funded opponent in August's Republican primary.

The best part is, he's spending all his campaign money to defend himself from an investigation into, yup, his fundraising practices.

Young and Alaska Republican Sen. Ted Stevens are under scrutiny for their relationship with VECO Corp. executives, who have admitted bribing Alaska lawmakers to push legislation favorable to their oil field services company. VECO executives were, until recently, Young's largest contributor and hosted an annual pig roast fundraiser for him.

He's on the hook for over $1 million in legal fees so far, so I hope it was all worth it.

Young still has not been charged; nor has Dougherty, or Senator Ted Stevens, who is also under federal investigation.

Race tracker wiki: AK-AL

In April, as they were being buried under a flood of some 310,000 new Democratic voter registrations in Pennsylvania, state Republican leaders promised a major effort to win back voters after the primary.

But according to Pennsylvania Republican Committee Spokesman Michael Barley, the GOP will mount a "pretty aggressive voter registration effort right after the primary," to get those who have switched sides back into the Republican fold.

Republicans predicted success.

[Republican] party officials believe they can get as much as 40 percent of those who left this year back into the Republican fold after they’ve voted in the primary.

Not only did voters not return, Republicans haven't even mounted the effort they promised. Now they're talking about getting around to it some time this summer. Derrick Nunnally of the Inky reports:

In several counties, Republicans are just beginning to move to try to recapture lost ground...

In Bucks County...GOP leaders haven't yet begun a planned effort to shepherd home their lost sheep.

"We haven't pushed yet to send out letters and talk to them," said Harry Fawkes, Bucks County's Republican chairman for 36 years. "A lot of them, we're hoping, will come back. I can't predict it. We're going to try to do it."

Can't you just feel the enthusiasm? Scott Kraus reported in the Morning Call on June 28 (no link) that the state GOP is adrift:

In Montgomery County...a highly promoted GOP website set up to win back wayward Republicans disappeared after a change in party leadership...

"We do feel that within the summer months and as we get closer to the presidential election, and more volunteers come out, that is a big effort we will be pushing," Barley said.

As Republicans wait for volunteers who aren't showing up, the imbalance in party registrations quickly grows even greater. Between the April primary and the end of June, some 47,000 voters have registered as Democrats. In the same period, Republicans lost about 2,000 registrations.

The following counties (all but one in the south east) have added more than 3,000 new Dem voters: Allegheny, Philadelphia, Montgomery, Berks and Delaware. The gains in Bucks and Lehigh counties were not far behind.

Remember back in April when Republicans tried to dismiss the Democratic tidal wave as an artifact of Rush Limbaugh's gravitational attraction? Well, nowadays they're exploring other excuses.

"I'm just not sure that people consider registration as important as in the past," said Bob Asher, the longtime state Republican power broker. "There's just a lot more people that vote more of an independent streak and not necessarily a straight party, so they don't really feel that's important."...

The tide of Democratic registrations in the Philadelphia suburbs has not been matched by new independent or third-party registrations, suggesting that the change may be decidedly partisan. Montgomery County, for example, has gained about 1,000 more Democrats since April 22 than it has independent and third-party registrants combined.

Nobody but Republican leaders seem to be buying the argument that party registration no longer matters. The Morning Call (no link) quotes pollster Chris Borick on this talking point:

[Borick] said the continued Republican voter erosion shouldn't be shrugged off. The post-primary registration numbers continue a damaging two-year trend for the GOP.

Switching voters "have done this for a reason," Borick said. "That might be a broader statement of dissatisfaction with the Republican Party, the leadership and the [Iraq] war, but whatever it is, these people have taken the time to redefine themselves. I don't take that lightly."

Neither do Republican leaders in PA, you can be sure, otherwise they wouldn't be trying so hard to spin the bad news. So it's all the more remarkable that they've been unable even to begin to address their problems.

A new poll conducted by Scientists and Engineers for America indicates an overwhelming majority of voters prefer candidates who support research into science and technology, with emphasis on the three E's: education, environment, and energy. Nice to know, and in a sane world I'd be tempted to add a snarky "No shit?" But in the bizarro conservative fantasy world constructed by the Bush-McCain GOP, maybe it's we best count our few remaining blessings even as they vanish faster than dry ice on a hot summer day. Among the key findings:

Majorities across partisan lines say they would be more likely to support a candidate who is committed to these issues. However, Democrats express considerably more intensity than do independents and Republicans for a candidate who is committed to preparing students with the skills they need for the 21st Century, reducing the cost and improving the quality of healthcare, and addressing climate change and the demand for energy through public investments in science and technology.

Almost twice as many Democrats (65%) are "much more" likely than Republicans (38%) to vote for a candidate committed to preparing students with the skills they need for the 21st Century through public investments in science and technology education. Predictably, Democrats outnumber Republicans three to one (48% to 17%) when asked if they're much more likely to vote for a candidate committed to addressing global climate change through public investments in science and technology. Strangely a similar partisan pattern is seen when asked the same question about using science and technology to address the demand for energy. One interpretation of the above would be, apparently, a lot of Republicans still resist admitting they were wrong -- or more accurately were misled by sources they inexplicably continue to trust -- over climate change. And a sizable chunk seems to feel that either energy policy is fine as is, or that science isn't part of any solution.

Some of this may seem odd in the most technological nation on earth, but keep in mind the process isn't static; we're probably seeing the end result of some partidularly vicious recent iterations. In today's political climate, a sort of cultural selection regularly combs through the conservative base with every new shiny piece of evidence for [Insert Respective Field of Science Currently Under Right-wing Assault], leaving behind only those conservatives with the greatest immunity to invading intellectual pathogens from the insidious liberal vector called reality.

From the MASSACHUSETTS-ANNEXED FRONTIER TERRITORY OF MAINE...

The Declaration of Independence: Brittle Parchment of Liberty

If you are going to sever ties to your Commonwealth through bloody struggle, it is considered polite to write down why. Nobody wants to get three years into a revolution only to realize the whole thing was a Three’s Company-esque misunderstanding. The Declaration of Independence was the laundry list of grievances stating America’s case for freedom. Its accusations against the King ranged from egregious ("He has plundered our seas, burnt our towns and ravaged the lives of our people") to the trifling ("Sometimes when he sees us at a party he acts like he doesn’t know us"). But proud men would not take up arms against the Crown solely because the King had "erected a multitude of new offices." The authors of the Declaration knew they would also have to appeal to man’s higher nature, to stir men’s souls. They needed something with some zazz. Enter a hot-shot tobacco executive from Virginia, Thomas Jefferson.

His task would be to synthesize the unique brand message of America down to something that would captivate the hard to reach "12-28 ragtag militia" demographic, all the while not offending traditional "Butterchurn Moms." His first attempt at a Preamble was:

-
AMERICA. A is for All the tea they taxed. M is for the Minutemen they shellaxed..."
-

It tested poorly. But his rewrite would be win-win:

-
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
-

In a scant 35 words, Jefferson had given the nation the kind of positive brand identity that tendered moot the issue of whether or not we had to live up to its ideals. Still, knowing the inherent contradiction between their noble words and the reality of a slave-owning nation, Jefferson and the Founders wisely decided to strike from the Declaration of Independence the phrase "or your money back."

---From America (The Book): A Citizen’s Guide to Democracy Inaction

Happy 232nd Birthday, America, We The People luv ya.  Cheers and Jeers starts in the Commonwealth of There's Moreville... [Washington's sword: Swoosh!!]  RIGHTNOW!  [Liberty Bell: Gong!!]

Abbreviated July 4 edition. Happy holiday from Daily Kos, the home of American patriotism in the best sense of the word (now get out and do some field work).

Eugene Robinson:

Anyone who took U.S. history in high school ought to know that one of the five men killed in the Boston Massacre, the atrocity that helped ignite the American Revolution, was a runaway slave named Crispus Attucks. The question the history books rarely consider is: Why?

Paul Krugman: Well, we now know what McCain really stands for: Karl Rove's third term. I don't think the press will buy it. And, btw, this may not only be the week that Obama finds his inner self again, it may be the week I do, too.

Charles Krauthammer: Let's see, here are my talking points... where are my glasses? Obama not a patriot, he's a Democrat? Check. Obama and flag pins? Check. Jeez. It's July 4^th, Karl, no way I'd have left that one out. Obama a flip-flopper. Check and check. Obama's no liberal? WTF? He's got the most liberal voting record... okay, okay, orders are orders. Check. Get off my lawn! No, that's not in the column, I'm yelling at the kids outside. Man, this is not fun.

E. J. Dionne Jr.: Obama's efforts on faith-based efforts are reasonable, sensible and likely to work both politically and administratively.

Michael Gerson: Obama's efforts on faith-based efforts are reasonable, sensible and likely to work both politically and administratively. I said it first.

Victor Davis Hansen: I'm okay with torture, I'm a neocon. But you've never seen torture like this: watch me mangle every metaphor from sports to the classics as I try to explain why McCain is Liston and Obama is Ali. No, no, Liston lost, so McCain can't be Liston. I got it...  McCain is the tortoise and Obama the hare. Stay with me, people, I'm on a roll.

According to Rasmussen,

In 2004, the Democrats began the year with a 2.3 percentage point edge over the GOP. That grew to 4.0 points by March before moving in the Republican direction for the rest of the year. By Election Day in 2004, the edge for Democrats was a mere 1.6 percentage points.

In 2006, the Democrats began the year with just a 1.6 percentage point advantage. That grew to 6.1 percentage points by November.

And now?

During the month of June, 41.0% of Americans considered themselves to be Democrats, 31.5% said they were Republicans and 27.5% were not affiliated with either major party.

This marks the fifth straight month that the number of Democrats has been between 41.0% and 41.7%. During that same period, the number of Republicans has also stabilized, ranging only from 31.4% to 32.1% (see history from January 2004 to present). Prior to February of this year, neither party had ever reached the 39% level of support.

This is the background for the media-driven narrative that Obama and McCain are in a "statistical dead heat". They are not, of course, but to say so would spoil the narrative.

The "statistical dead heat" nonsense was CNN. Frank Newport from Gallup has a more sensible take on summer polling:

We know at the moment that for the most part Obama is maintaining a very modest lead over McCain, ranging from 2 to 7 points in the weeks since Hillary Clinton made it final that she was ending her quest for the presidency. This is equivalent of a first quarter lead of a few points in the Super Bowl.  It's better to be ahead than behind, most coaches would agree.  One has to give Obama the early edge. BUT!  Stay tuned.  There's a lot to come in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters. And polling is our best scorecard.

Polls aren't predictive in July, but those who read them ought to know how to interpret them. A case in point from ABC:

There has been little change in the polls in the weeks since Obama defeated his last Democratic challenger, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. The latest Gallup polls give Obama a slim 46-44 lead over McCain.

"It's actually very, very close," Stephanopoulos said.

Although not quite that close. Stephanopoulos reported that both camps believe Obama actually has a lead of five to eight percentage points. But Republicans are surprised that the Illinois senator's lead isn't bigger, because McCain is burdened by the unpopularity of President Bush and a sputtering economy.

So, it's not actually "very, very close", and neither camp thinks so. In a hardly-surprising comment, ABC reports that the political camps read the polls the way we do, and not the way Stephanopolous does.  

Okay, despite Stephanopolous' opinion, Obama maintains a small but significant lead. But then that means Obama should be winning by more than he is, right? Well, another interpretation (since it's always Republicans who are surprised Obama's lead isn't bigger, despite the LA Times/Bloomberg and Newsweek polls who had the lead at 15) is that Republicans know how much McCain sucks as a candidate and can't believe he's not losing by more. Still another is that like 1980, until they get to know the new guy better, voters will reserve their opinion until the race is nearer the vote. But that's okay because it sets up the next media narrative: scrappy underdog John McCain is about to make a comeback.

And so the new narrative is primed and in place (and it’s the same as an old narrative): McCain could actually do this thing. (Actually, while the polls remain tight, right now he’d settle for not being counted out -- but he’ll take what he can get.)

You've got all the elements: a new story line with the disciplined Rove protege taking over messaging in the McCain camp, a desire for a close race, an expected attack barrage... and here we go, 2004.

Of course, there are some problems with that. State by state, Obama's doing better than the narrative says. Obama is about to go abroad and get all the good press of "well-received overseas", including by state leaders weary of George W. Bush, and in direct contrast to McCain's "what the hell is he doing in Colombia instead of Akron?" trip. The economy sucks, and McCain will try and convince American voters the party in power is not to blame. And until the polls say that McCain, the candidate with no communication skills, is actually communicating with voters, there's no comeback.

On issues that matter? Maybe the media will talk about them, maybe they won't. Maybe they'll just mark time:

According to Bill Schneider, CNN senior political analyst , the flip-flopping charge may not resonate as much with voters this year as it did in the past.

"So what if voters think both candidates are flip-floppers?" asked Schneider. "After eight years of George W. Bush, voters may welcome some pragmatism and flexibility in their leaders. Times change."

But don't worry. The media is fired up, even if the voters are not. John McCain's base will make sure you hear the story the way it needs to be told. Otherwise, you might get the wrong impression about who's leading in the polls. An Obama lead, my friends, is not the narrative the media is working from.

Happy July 4, everyone!

This evening's Rescue Rangers are Yashua, ybruti, Got A Grip, dadanation, YatPundit, and joyful, with shayera as editor.

• MA Voter highlights the joys of volunteering in Community Service: Impact from the inside out. (ybruti)
• donnasicko finds little to celebrate in SiCKO Effects: A Birthday Wish from Your Insurance Company. (joyful)
• Jeff Huber explains how he lost his last drop of respect for pundit class in the traditional media in Mission Accomplished ala Lieberman and Schieffer. (Got a Grip)
• In a moving tribute to the people of New York, ArthurPoet describes their Path of Service: WTC - 9/13/01 - 1/2 Mile No, W.S.Hwy. (ybruti)
• pmorlan examines an important example of the common phenomenon of our traditional media clucking away as they knit the scandal du jour while ignoring the rampaging elephant destroying the room in Clark & Taguba - A Media Tale of Two Generals. (Got a Grip)
• What at first blush seems to be just too blatant to be true actually is borne out by the facts in dhonig's troubling diary FOX News Anti-Semitism. (dadanation)
• In a moving tribute to the people of New York, ArthurPoet describes their Path of Service: WTC - 9/13/01 - 1/2 Mile No, W.S.Hwy. (ybruti)
• Detroit Mark shares a sense of healing at the impending end of the BushCo Reign of Terror and the hope of a better president in I Can Not Tell A Lie: I've Never Felt More Patriotic. (Got a Grip)
• Just in time for the 4th of July weekend, Milos Janus Outlook carefully disentangles fact from fantasy in Remembering Our Roots by looking at the actual religious perspectives of many of the famous "Founding Fathers (and Mothers)." (dadanation)

jotter has High Impact Diaries - July 2, 2008.

noweasels has Top Comments: Duck & Wabbit Season Edition.

If you enjoy Diary Rescue, please consider joining the Rescue Rangers. It's a great way to become more involved with the Daily Kos community. Did we mention it's rewarding and fun? To volunteer or learn more, please contact us (don’t forget to tell us your screen name) at: dkos.rescuerangers@gmail.com

We do too much "heroification" in America, according to James W. Loewen, author of Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong (a book that ought to be on everybody's shelf).  Like me, he thinks the word hero has been cheapened, ending up more often a description for football quarterbacks who throw perfect last-minute passes than for, say, the passerby who risks her own life to pull a child from a flooding river.

Heroification describes what textbooks, too many teachers,  and the likes of Lynne Cheney have done to historical figures such as the deeply racist Woodrow Wilson and a multitude of other notable Americans. The process of heroification not only turns the notorious into role models but many people who actually deserve the praise pressed upon them into one-dimensional stereotypes without flaws. As if we couldn't stand to see our heroes as human beings who don't always get things right, who, in fact, sometimes behave deplorably and hypocritically.

Despite his flaws, my number one personal hero is - and has been since I was 14 - Frederick Douglass, the runaway slave whose persistent eloquence was one of the leading factors persuading Abraham Lincoln to bring black soldiers into the Union Army. Without them, it is uncertain that the Union would have survived. As historian Eric Foner wrote a few years back:

At an Independence Day meeting sponsored by the Rochester Ladies' Anti-Slavery Society in 1852, the former slave Frederick Douglass delivered one of the nineteenth century's greatest orations. His theme was the contradiction between American slavery and American freedom.

Douglass did not mince words. He spoke of a government that mouthed the language of liberty yet committed "crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages"; of patriotism reduced to "swelling vanity"; of hypocrisy destroying the country's "moral power abroad." Although slavery is gone, Douglass's critique remains as relevant as in 1852. But so too does his optimism that the days of empire are over, and that in the modern world abuses cannot permanently be hidden from the light of day. Douglass, not the leaders of a slave-holding republic, was the genuine patriot, who called on his listeners to reclaim the "great principles" of the Declaration from those who had defiled and betrayed them. That is a truly patriotic goal for our own Fourth of July.

Here is what Douglass said 156 years ago, with obvious resonance for our own time.

Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?

Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions! Then would my task be light, and my burden easy and delightful. For who is there so cold that a nation's sympathy could not warm him? Who so obdurate and dead to the claims of gratitude that would not thankfully acknowledge such priceless benefits? Who so stolid and selfish that would not give his voice to swell the hallelujahs of a nation's jubilee, when the chains of servitude had been torn from his limbs? I am not that man. In a case like that the dumb might eloquently speak and the "lame man leap as an hart."

But such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity, and independence bequeathed by your fathers is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought light and healing to you has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me by asking me to speak today? If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let me warn that it is dangerous to copy the example of nation whose crimes, towering up to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the Almighty, burying that nation in irrevocable ruin! I can today take up the plaintive lament of a peeled and woe-smitten people.

"By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down. Yea! We wept when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there, they that carried us away captive, required of us a song; and they who wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How can we sing the Lord's song in a strange land? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth."

Fellow citizens, above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions! Whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are, today, rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them. If I do forget, if I do not faithfully remember those bleeding children of sorry this day, "may my right hand cleave to the roof of my mouth"! To forget them, to pass lightly over their wrongs, and to chime in with the popular theme would be treason most scandalous and shocking, and would make me a reproach before God and the world. My subject, then, fellow citizens, is American slavery. I shall see this day and its popular characteristics from the slave's point of view. Standing there identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine. I do not hesitate to declare with all my soul that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this Fourth of July! Whether we turn to the declarations of the past or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of the Constitution and the Bible which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery-the great sin and shame of America! "I will not equivocate, I will not excuse"; I will use the severest language I can command; and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, shall not confess to be right and just....

For the present, it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the Negro race. Is it not as astonishing that, while we are plowing, planting, and reaping, using all kinds of mechanical tools, erecting houses, constructing bridges, building ships, working in metals of brass, iron, copper, and secretaries, having among us lawyers doctors, ministers, poets, authors, editors, orators, and teachers; and that, while we are engaged in all manner of enterprises common to other men, digging gold in California, capturing the whale in the Pacific, feeding sheep and cattle on the hillside, living, moving, acting, thinking, planning, living in families as husbands, wives, and children, and above all, confessing and worshiping the Christian's God, and looking hopefully for life and immortality beyond the grave, we are called upon to prove that we are men!...

What, am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to their masters? Must I argue that a system thus marked with blood, and stained with pollution, is wrong? No! I will not. I have better employment for my time and strength than such arguments would imply....

What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass-fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy-a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States at this very hour.

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms- of the Old World, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.

While this is a message intended for Alaskans, it makes sense for the entire West, not to mention the country.

The Begich plan includes:

• Standing Up Against Government Interference - including warrantless wiretapping, the assault on habeas corpus, the pursuit of Real ID cards, and retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that illegally helped the federal government spy on Americans.
• No Surveillance on Law-Abiding Americans – Begich opposes efforts since 9/11 to take advantage of public fears, bypassing the courts and Congress to eavesdrop on Americans.
• Repeal the Patriot Act – Begich believes national security resources should be built on human intelligence and Special Forces that will identify and respond to real threats of terrorism, not monitoring what books Americans read.
• Restore Habeas Corpus – Begich called the Military Commissions Act, passed in 2006, the lowest point in our country’s response to the threat of terrorism. The Act suspends habeas corpus for millions of Americans, and that right needs to be restored.

That Begich is implementing civil liberties as a core element of his campaign shows how important these issues are to Western voters. It's a message that resonates particularly well out here in the Western part of the country. That's why Jon Tester wasn't hurt but was helped when he said that he didn't want to see the PATRIOT Act weakened, he wanted to see it repealed. It's why Gov. Brian Schweitzer has been able to lead a successful revolt among governors against the the Real ID act. It's why Gary Trauner is standing so strong against FISA in his red state of Wyoming.

If Democrats are really serious about turning the purple mountains majesty blue, particularly in this election, they should be paying attention to the messages successful Democratic candidates out here are sending: privacy matters, civil liberties matter to Western voters.

Hopefully, Mark Begich will be able to join his fellow Western Senator Tester on the floor next year, leading the charge to repeal the PATRIOT Act, restore habeas, and maybe even try to undo some of the damage the Senate is set to do on FISA next week.

Race tracker wiki: AK-Sen

This is a flood of delicious news. A flood.

Here are the Cook Political Report's latest race ranking changes.  

From "Solid Republican" to "Likely Republican":

AL-03, Mike Rogers
CA-46, Dana Rohrabacher
FL-09, Gus Bilirakis
FL-18, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
ID-01, Bill Sali
IN-03, Mark Souder
IA-04, Tom Latham
KY-02, Ron Lewis (open seat)
MN-02, John Kline
NE-02, Lee Terry
NV-02, Dean Heller
NJ-05, Scott Garrett
NC-10, Patrick McHenry
OH-07, Dave Hobson (open seat)
PA-05, John Peterson (open seat
PA-15, Charlie Dent
TX-07, John Culberson
TX-10, Michael McCaul
VA-05, Virgil Goode
VA-10, Frank Wolf
WY-AL, Barbara Cubin (open seat)

From Likely Republican to Lean Republican:

FL-08, Ric Keller
FL-21, Lincoln Diaz-Balart
PA-03, Phil English
WV-02, Shelley Moore Capito

From Toss Up to Lean Democratic:

NY-13, Vito Fossella (open seat)
NY-25, Jim Walsh (open seat)

From Likely Democratic to Lean Democratic:

PA-11, Paul Kanjorski

Wow.

That's an astonishing number of changes, first of all, but I'm equally amazed by the particular districts on this list. Most of the rating changes involve long-shot flanking races, the kind of races that would never be competitive in normal years, but happen to have unusually strong Democrats running this year, in an unusually favorable climate for Democrats. Some of these districts - like ID-01, IN-03, KY-02, NC-10, and TX-07 - are just wildly Republican, and many of them didn't even feature competitive races in 2006.

Many of those races added to the "Likely Republican" category won't be especially competitive this fall. But some of them will, and a few might even be Democratic pickups.

Even if it's just for this cycle, in the perfect storm of 2008, Democrats are making inroads into areas they have written off for years. The world is grown so good, it seems, that we are making prey where angels have long feared to tread.

So my plans for the Fourth fell through when gas prices killed the journey of houseguests to my abode. Let me live vicariously through your plans.... What do you guys have on deck for the holiday?

And guess what? He's not beside himself with fear that disagreement with his position will cost him the election.

Here's the key part for me:

Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.

I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country.

To no one's surprise, Obama doesn't appear to be in need of defending. He's quite at ease with the fact that there will be disagreements within the family, and doesn't feel compelled to tell anyone to sit in a corner. In other words, he can handle it just fine. Just as his most ardent defenders doubtless knew in their hearts that he could, though they felt moved by the strength of their support to do so, anyway.

Could it be that he in fact does feel the pain very deeply, but dare not let on, for political reasons? Certainly possible. But that would leave us in a very awkward situation, having to consider why our nominee simply can't be straight with us. I prefer to think he's just got a considerably thicker skin than people who don't run for President of the United States, and really means it. Don't you?

On the substance, I continue to disagree with the gloss of the exclusivity provisions. But it should be noted that if a president intends to ignore the law, there's really no way to draft such a provision sufficiently, so it's not a matter of tweaking it or improving it. You either recognize that exclusivity is just so many words so long as we've got a president who is willing to believe he has the "inherent power" to trump any law, or you don't.

I'm also unimpressed by the promise of the report of the Inspectors General, largely because I've been unimpressed with the response of the Congress to all previous such reports, not to mention their inability to actually enforce their own subpoenas.

I'd also note that the promise to conduct a thorough review of all surveillance programs once sworn in is very welcome, though that's not the same thing as saying there will be criminal prosecutions, as some have insisted would be the case. Indeed it might be rather foolish for him to commit to such an investigation before taking office and having the opportunity to review the evidence and the circumstances from the inside. It'd be satisfying as all hell, but I don't think we're going to see that kind of a pledge. As such, future arguments over this issue should probably not turn on promises or even vague hints that such prosecutions are in the offing. They're not, at this point, and though we'd all love to see them, holding out the possibility that they might come through should not be taken as a substitute for a substantive position in favor of the bill. It's a last resort, if anything, and a long shot on top of that. You can't consider your argument won if you're clinging to that sort of a distant possibility.

It was good of Senator Obama to address the subject, and to take notice of the fact that the group of supporters asking him to consider a different position on the upcoming FISA bill had quickly become the single largest group organized on his web site to date. He's not a United States Senator and the Democratic nominee for President for nothing. And neither are the organizers' efforts undeserving of attention.

The substantive differences remain largely unresolved, and likely will remain so. But if Obama wasn't OK with that, he probably wouldn't have run for president. And if you weren't OK with it, you probably wouldn't be participating on blogs.