The first half of today's show was about patriotism, and it was juicy. The second was about Barack Obama's shift to the center and John McCain's Campaign Shake up.

A substantive discussion amongst the panelists about what patriotism means. Bob Scheer expounds on George Washington's farewell speech; Tony Blankley talks about how the theme plays out politically; Matt Miller shares thoughts by Peter Beinart of Time Magazine that the right says "America's great," the left says, "Here's what would make America great;" and Arianna Huffington mentions the USA Today poll that says 2/3 of Americans think that protesting is patriotic. Are Obama's moves toward swing voters going to win him votes or just the animosity of his base? And will John McCain's campaign recover its footing with new guy, Steve Schmidt, at the helm.

So we know the nominating process is almost over, and Hillary Clinton won't be the nominee. There is a 90% chance it will be Barack Obama as the nominee this year. He may win this election, because not only do the current issues favor him, the issues which were once used to demean black people like him, and galvanize white support for the Republican party, like crime, welfare, and the death penalty have been neutralized and taken off the discourse table on the national political scale. The Democratic Party is now trusted on economics, after having its economic legacy near destroyed by Jimmy Carter, and while even tho the Bush economics are really bad, the American people are more likely to trust us not just because we can complain about Bush, but OUR party has had a President to show what good economics, like balancing the budget and keeping the dollar strong look like.

Peter Beinart wrote a great piece in Time which says what needs to be said:

...As it shows Clintonism the door, however, Obama Nation should remember something: without that pair from Arkansas, it wouldn't be here. The 1990s weren't always pretty, but for Democrats, they were deeply necessary. Because Bill Clinton threw his body into the line, wrecking the Republican Party's intricate defenses, Obama today has the political room to run.

For starters, Clinton deracialized American politics. He didn't deracialize it completely, of course. But knitting together a coalition of blacks and whites is easier today because Clinton restored the Democrats' credibility on economic issues and took three of the most racially toxic issues in U.S. politics--crime, welfare and affirmative action--off the table.

When Michael Dukakis ran for President in 1988, crime was perhaps the biggest issue in the campaign. It splintered his coalition, pitting blacks who saw the death penalty as racially unfair against blue-collar whites who demanded a hard line against crime and too often associated that crime with blacks. Today, by contrast, roughly 1% of Americans say crime is their top issue, and no one even knows what Obama's position on the death penalty is. For Obama, that's an enormous boon, and Bill Clinton deserves a lot of the credit. His policies--especially his bold proposal for 100,000 new cops--helped bring down the crime rate. And by embracing the death penalty, he eliminated one of the GOP's best wedge issues. That embrace was ugly at times, as when Clinton flew back to Arkansas during the 1992 campaign to oversee the execution of a mentally retarded man. But it was politically shrewd. And because Clinton did it then, Obama doesn't have to now.

Clinton also removed the word welfare from America's political lexicon. In the mid-1980s, when pollsters conducted focus groups with Reagan Democrats, they found that when they talked about government help for the needy, voters saw it as welfare: taking money from whites to give to undeserving blacks. That attitude was hugely unfair, but it was a political reality. Clinton changed that when he reformed welfare in 1996. By making it brutally clear that people who didn't work wouldn't get much help from Washington, he made it harder for Republicans to tag Democratic antipoverty programs as handouts to "welfare queens."

...The Clinton presidency restored the Democratic Party's reputation for economic management, which Jimmy Carter had nearly destroyed. By almost 20 points, according to the Pew Research Center, Americans today trust Democrats over Republicans to guide the economy--a huge boon to Obama in what looks like a recession election. Obama owes much of that advantage to George W. Bush, of course. But he owes some of it to Clintonism too.

If Clinton had been more principled, if he had been less of a panderer, if he had tried to be purer than his political opponents--if, in other words, he had been more like Obama--he might have opposed the death penalty, vetoed welfare reform and unambiguously defended affirmative action. He might also have gone with his liberal base, not Wall Street, and chosen economic stimulus over deficit reduction in 1993. And had he done those things, Barack Obama would probably not be in a commanding position to become the next President of the U.S. So as they bid Clintonism goodbye, Obama fans should show a little gratitude. If Bill weren't the person they revile, Barack couldn't be the person they love.

I hope you Obama supporters remember that. For all of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton's faults, they restored our party's credibility that Carter destroyed, and neutralized the racebaiting issues like crime, welfare, and death penalty the GOP once was able to use. Those issues are no longer used against Democrats, which is why they fight now for elections, and had to steal an election in 2000 even after a bogus scandal, losing the popular vote. They only barely beat us in 2004 because Kerry didn't do what Clinton told him to do on gay marriage: triangulate, and he also ran a horrendous campaign. Yes, the third way was very necessary to getting elected in 1992 so we could take the GOP issues away and end the era of Republican landslide elections, because this is politics, and sometimes, one cannot stick to principle and win. We didn't need a repeat of 1988, with Willie Horton and being soft on crime. People voted for Bill because they didn't want Bush back, but didn't want another Jimmy Carter either. Triangulation was VERY necessary as it helped to ensure for future elections, and give Bill Clinton a commanding victory against Bob Dope. This is why no matter who you supported in this primary, we MUST honor the Clinton's political greatness.

PS: don't use the Perot myth, exit polls show the pro-abortion pro-gays anti-Nafta candidate took equally in both '92 and '96. And being moderate is not why we lost in 1994, those were congressional scandals, and the GOP only kept Congress past 2002 because of 9/11. Dems got back seats in 1996, 1998, and 2000, a record.

UPDATE: Since posting this diary early this morning, Democrats have come forward with a plan on Iraq that appears - for the first time - to be binding. This is a solid (though certainly not perfect) step, indeed. Let me add two things: First, in the last week, we've seen how these proposals can get floated and then undercut. Second, when such plans do get undercut, they often get undercut by the same anti-democratic factions outlined in this diary - factions that we as progressives will have to continue to work to pressure if this plan, or any other, is going to pass. Oh, and one final note: To those automatons who are so blinded by partisan rage that they can't see the need to pressure Democrats, I say that this new announcement by Democrats is a vindication for all of us who have tried - like studious movement participants - to hold both parties' feet to the fire.

One of my idiosyncratic little hobbies of late is to keep a tally on statements by Washington politicians and pundits that are express an open hatred for democracy. This hobby is a subset of a bigger collection of quotes I collect that show how Washington politicians are entirely divorced from the political reality they purport to be experts on - a classic example is Sen. Chuck Schumer's hilariously moronic declaration that strengthening the Patriot Act is politically good for red state Democrats (thanks for your helping make the Montana Senate race that much harder, Chuck!). I'm not exactly sure why I focus on this, other than because it is important to always remind ourselves just how different - and hateful - the Beltway is towards the country it purports to represent. Today, we get a beauty from South Dakota Rep. Stephanie Herseth (D).

In the Washington Post's solid writeup of the debate over Iraq in the House, a faction of Democrats continues to attack the very Election 2006 mandate they were vaulted into office on: opposition to the war. Justifying her opposition to bills that would stop President Bush's military escalation, we get this from South Dakota's lone House member:

"I don't think we should be overreacting to public opinion polls."

I give Herseth credit - her use of "overreacting" deviously implies that there are just a few very recent polls here and there showing negligible opposition to the war, and that Serious People in Congress should never "overreact" to the supposed fleeting whims of the American people. But, of course, the American public has been strongly critical of the Iraq War for almost 4 years now.

Bumped--Chris

The New Republic was one of the strongest and most aggressive voices pushing for the invasion of Iraq. Their editor, Peter Beinart, led the charge, attacking Democrats who dared to question the move. He and the magazine have yet to seriously consider how easy it is to advocate for a massive military operation based on lies when the advocates themselves never have to face the blood-and-guts consequences of their advocacy. Now, of course, the New Republic and Beinart would like everyone to forget their record, as Beinart pushes a new book trying to position himself as a "liberal" foreign policy guru and a chest-thumping "hawk." But at least one Army lieutenant catches Beinart and his magazine in some dishonest and grossly self-serving editing.

 Here's an excerpt from a piece by Second Lt. John Renehan in this week's Chronicle of Higher Education:

"In 2004, shortly before I left for basic training, The New Republic ran a piece in which Peter Beinart, then the magazine's editor, bemoaned the increasingly narrow demographics of those who serve and the consequent emergence of 'two countries' -- one that serves, and a second, more-affluent one that thinks of service as a thing done by other Americans. Notably, Beinart admitted his own mixed feelings on being a member of the nonserving elite, wondering aloud what he might say when a child of his someday asks, 'What did you do in the terror war, Daddy?' Impressed, I wrote a letter to Beinart praising his frankness and noting my own decision to join the military -- one prompted by similar callings of conscience. Then I offered him what I called a 'public-spirited challenge': One of The New Republic's own should serve, and the magazine should write about it...It was a naïve sort of thing to write. My girlfriend took a look at the letter and said, 'You know they're never going to print this, don't you?' I did. But they did print it -- with a notable omission. My 'public-spirited challenge' had been excised, leaving only praise for Beinart."

The netroots have labeled people like Beinart and his "hawkish" friends in the punditocracy as members of the 101st Fighting Keyboard Brigade - authors/insiders/operatives who are "very enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it." The fact that members of the 101st would resort to selectively editing an Army lieutenant's sincere letter to the editor in order to dishonestly heap praise on themselves and avoid facing the tough questions about their behavior tells you all you need to know about how unprincipled these people really are. In their comfortable bubble, war is all just a fun little political game based on Washington's false definition of "strength" as a politician willing to sit in their guarded, air conditioned Beltway office and call in airstrikes and ground assaults - regardless of the consequences for the targets or America's national security.

The main vehicle for idea dissemination in America is the book. It's not that people read a lot of books or anything like that, but books are a sort of credential that you are a Very Important Person. Especially if your book has footnotes. Having a best-selling book gets you onto TV. It gets you onto academickish panels, onto the radio, and into the Op-Ed pages. It gets you lavish speaking fees. And book sales are a key driver of how accessible these different public forums are to you.

For a long time, the right-wing movement, through figures like Ann Coulter and Bernie Goldberg, has pushed its toxically authoritarian ideology into public discourse through relentless marketing of these books. They have Fox News, AM radio, Newsmax and the right-wing internet, direct mail firms, and conservative book clubs. This drives up these book sales, which in turn drives the author of the book into the mainstream public airwaves. In a sort of parallel structure, corporate elites dressed up in liberalish clothing, like Tom Friedman, Peter Beinart, Alan Derschowitz, Peter Beinart, Tim Russert, Maureen Dowd, etc. have squatted in the mainstream media channels and used their constant presence on TV and on prestigious Op-Ed pages to act as the 'other side' in this fake debate, which in turn drives up their own book sales and increases lucrative speaking fees.

Genuinely liberal books have largely been ignored by a press that isn't interested in its own failures and role in the political process. This of course means that those genuinely liberal authors have not gotten the TV and radio time that movement conservatives and movement elites get on a consistent basis. There are exceptions, of course, but the system really does have an informal firewall against progressive political arguments.

All of this makes the work that Jennifer Nix (publisher of How Would a Patriot Act) is doing compelling, because she is taking the blogs and using them to break down this firewall by promoting books that have genuinely progressive political arguments.

Now, the proof is starting to arrive in the form of book sales. Let's look at the intellectuals emerging from the blogs versus those emerging from traditional DLC pathways. I don't have great data on book sales, so don't count the figures here as completely finalized.  They are from Nielsen Bookscan, and there are some problems with how they calculate sales.  Nevertheless, it's quite instructive to compare the sales rates and relative marketing pushes that four books have received over the last two months. All of these books came out at roughly the same time.

First is our DLC control group, The Good Fight by Peter Beinart. Beinart has been on all the major TV shows, and his book has been reviewed in The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker, etc. He received a $600,000 advance for his book, which means that there is a substantial marketing and promotional budget behind this product. Publishers are betting on this book's success.

By contrast, Glenn Greenwald, David Sirota, and Eric Boehlert have had much less attention for their books.  Boehlert wrote a book on a subject that is insane if you want to get your book reviewed by a largely hostile press corps; he titled his book 'Lapdogs' and aimed it at the press.  Greenwald's book sold entirely through blogs, radio and word of mouth before any 'formal' reviews happened.  Sirota, the most press savvy out of the three, has not had nearly the amount of TV attention as Beinart, and I would imagine all three have had almost a negligable amount of money put towards promotion in contrast to Beinart's book.

I've included in these stats the book title and author, the number of mentions in Google News, the number of books sold, the publication date, and the current Amazon sales ranking.  This should give us a fairly good approximation of how much attention the book has gotten and how fast it is selling.

How Would a Patriot Act? by Glenn Greenwald
9 Google news mentions
9,573 books sold
Publication date: May 15, 2006
Current sales rank: #408

Hostile Takeover by David Sirota
19 Google news mentions
10,207 books sold
Publication date: May 2, 2006
Current Amazon.com sales rank: #948

Lapdogs by Eric Boehlert  
21 Google news mentions
3,259 books sold
Publication date: May 9, 2006
Current Amazon.com sales rank: #4,858

The Good Fight by Peter Beinart
78 Google news mentions
5,645 books sold
Publication date: May 30, 2006
Current Amazon.com sales rank: #3,375

Beinart's book came out after Hostile Takeover and How Would a Patriot Act, but it is selling worse at this point than either of them. The Good Fight has at least four times as many Google News mentions as either competitor, and while I don't have a clear metric, Beinart has obviously had a lot more television exposure.  And even aside from the book, Beinart's name is mentioned at least three times more often in Google News than either Sirota or Greenwald.

What does this mean?  I'm not sure.  Certainly, Lapdogs hasn't sold as many copies as Beinart's book, though if you take into account Beinart's fourfold advantage in media appearances in print (and much greater advantage in TV appearances), it's surprising Lapdogs isn't being blown out of the water instead of selling approximately 60% of what The Good Fight did.

There are a couple of possible conclusions here.  One, neoconservative books by self-hating liberals aren't popular anymore.  Two, the blogosphere is a more important sales vehicle for books (and therefore ideas) than the traditional reviewer cartel.  Three, movement liberals are beginning to thirst for ideas, and the internet is providing a place for emerging writers to work them into longer form.

In terms of conclusion one, there's little doubt that self-hating liberalish authors who spout neoconservative ideas are on a dead path. Kevin Phillips, whose book has sold very well by using the same mixture of traditional TV appearances, print reviews, and blogging as Beinart did, is doing very well. Beinart's The Good Fight? Not so much. I'm not sure about number conclusions two and number three, though something is going on in the blogs to sell more books and satisfy a liberal yearning for longer form works.  There's clearly some transference of authority from a top-down corporate press corps to more democratic markets for ideas.  How much is not clear, since it's not like these are the Da Vinci Code numbers, but the fact that the DC press is shocked by what's going on in Connecticut and the blogs aren't suggests that the blogs are more in touch with popular sentiment.  So I guess I'm saying that these sales numbers aren't a surprise.  And next time, publishers should give their $600,000 advances to Glenn Greenwald, David Sirota, or Eric Boehlert, and media bookers should book them on their shows.

I participated in a conference call last Sunday evening with George Soros.  He is putting out an important book called The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror in which he describes how reality can be manipulated and distorted by political actors, and the consequences of doing so.  I enjoyed his comparisons between financial bubbles and political actions, and his discussions of his foundation activities over the past thirty years.  Now he's coming into the internet sphere, the new arena of public discourse.

Personally, Soros is... surprisingly cool, a sort of supersmart grandfatherly wise man.  Amanda on Rocketboom interviews him here.  It's very much worth watching.

I'll be blogging more about the ideas in the book and Soros himself over the next few weeks.  His book, along with those of Will Marshall and Peter Beinart, represent a real opportunity to rethink our approach to the world.  It's neat that Marshall, Beinart, and now Soros are coming into the blogs to do so.

Peter Beinart writes a good analysis of the situation. Yes, I did just write that.