The New Republic

President Bush is Batman. Really.

Isaac Chotiner — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 02:41:00 GMT

Or, rather, Batman is President Bush.

From Andrew Klavan in tomorrow's Wall Street Journal (I am not making this up):

A cry for help goes out from a city beleaguered by violence and fear: A beam of light flashed into the night sky, the dark symbol of a bat projected onto the surface of the racing clouds . . .
Oh, wait a minute. That's not a bat, actually. In fact, when you trace the outline with your finger, it looks kind of like . . . a "W."
There seems to me no question that the Batman film "The Dark Knight," currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.

Please, read the whole thing.

--Isaac Chotiner

The Earliest Transition Team Ever

tnr1.com — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:12:00 GMT

As Marc Ambinder reported this morning, the Obama campaign is putting together a post-campaign "transition team" to ease Obama from candidate to executive. Several Obama staffers confirmed to Ambinder that the campaign has begun transitional planning, though a formal announcement will not be made until the fall.

University of Chicago public policy professor William Howell, who specializes in presidential history, is shocked by how early Obama has assembled the team. "I can't think of another instance where this has happened," Howell said, and he thinks the difference has to do with our sped-up electoral process:

"For so much of American history, the conventions were real events. It was unfathomable that, when the action was all in the conventions, any candidate would form a transition team before the convention.

But he's smart to prepare. There are general challenges just in terms of learning--who are you going to appoint? What are the first days going to look like? So, it makes really good sense that he's forming this. I think those challenges are compounded by the fact that he's going to be assuming a presidency that's undergone radical changes by the Republican regime. The first days of the Clinton presidency, remember, were rough-going. And, like Clinton, we have a young candidate. Since there are going to be claims that he doesn't have the experience, to the extent that he can appear organized and on top of things, he wants to do that."

There's another way to look at this, of course. By planning his assumption of office before officially receiving the nomination, Obama sets himself up for accusations of presumptuousness and egotism. During his Berlin speech today, at which he was welcomed with seeming rapture, he spoke to the "people of the world" as if he were already president of the United States of America and all she represents. The McCain camp was quick to read some irony into this.

But if Obama does manage to conquer the general election, he'll be that much closer to legislative, administrative, and emotional preparation for the relatively demanding-sounding job: "President of the World."

--Nicole Allan

McCain's Lama Love

Suzy Khimm — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:07:00 GMT

While Obama basks in the glow of his European lovefest, McCain's also hoping for a wee sprinkling of international stardust. Tomorrow McCain will be meeting with the Dalai Lama in Colorado, where the Tibetan leader has been hobnobbing with the other bigwigs at the Aspen Institute. After lunching today at a--surprise!--German restaurant, McCain told the press that he's jazzed to meet the "transcendent international role model and hero."

Tomorrow's tete-a-tete is unlikely to generate a fraction of the frenzy that Obama has received this week, but it at least it will give McCain's Junior Varsity press corps a moment to recall where either of the candidates stand on China to begin with. On Tibet itself, the candidates hold pretty indistinguishable positions, both denouncing China's crackdown on Tibetan protestors earlier this spring. But though the Olympics creep ever closer, there's been near-silence on any China issues on the campaign trail--which is surprising, given the morass that is now the American economy. There hasn't been so much as a squeak from either candidate about the massive trade deficit with China--or even, more broadly speaking, the need for the U.S. to assert its "economic sovreignity" and regain its global competitiveness. Perhaps neither the McCain nor Obama camp wants to ruffle the feathers of their Asian frenemy too soon before taking office ... or at least before the opening ceremonies.

--Suzy Khimm

Move Where?

James Kirchick — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:54:00 GMT

The most tragic aspect of MoveOn.org is that it's a group with noble beginnings -- an online community for people frustrated by the circus that was the Republican attempt to impeach Bill Clinton -- that has since transmogrified into a preserve of the radical, pacifist left. Christopher Hayes's cover story in The Nation this week attempts to argue that the organization's current agenda is a logical outgrowth of its originating mission and that it remains "squarely within the mainstream of the Democratic Party." That may be the case for its views on things like energy and health care -- laudable goals, certainly -- but those issues are not what has animated MoveOn since 9/11, foreign policy and America's role in the world are. And it's these views that, while increasingly popular within the Democratic Party, are hardly representative of most Americans.

After Clinton survived impeachment, MoveOn was largely dormant. Until 9/11. Recalling that dark period, Hayes shows us that the organization's approach to international terrorism and rogue states has always been one of "restraint" and deeply suspicious of American power:

The day after 9/11, [Eli] Pariser, then living in Boston, wanted to do something to help. When the local blood bank told him it was beyond capacity, he channeled his anguish and hope into an online petition he e-mailed to thirty friends. Earnest, plaintive and humane, it made the case for international leaders to use "moderation and restraint" in responding to the attacks, and called for employing "international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction."

MoveOn has since denied that it officially opposed the war in Afghanistan, but Eli Pariser, the group's Executive Director, openly opposed the war in Afghanistan, a military conflict supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans, and was hired to lead MoveOn primarily due to this anti-war on the Taliban web organizing. In his 2004 TNR article, "A Figthing Faith," Peter Beinart argued that MoveOn and Michael Moore should be booted out of the Democratic Party by people serious about America's role in the world, just as anti-totalitarian liberals booted communist fellow-travelers out of the party 60 years ago. The analogy pertains, but the Democratic Party, at this point, is far from saving.

Hayes purports to show that MoveOn.org is the modern equivalent of Richard Nixon's silent majority. To believe this, you have to believe that most Americans agree with the sort of pacifist nonsense above, and all the other assorted, conspiratorial, angry nonsense (like its demagogic "Not Alex" commercial) that appears on MoveOn.org on a daily basis. The group's claimed membership of over 3 million people, dutifully reported by Hayes, is surely inflated by the presence of people who signed up for their email alerts a decade ago, even the liberal blogger Hilary Bok admits that "membership in MoveOn means very little." To illustrate the group's galvanizing effect, Hayes finds a woman who was so absorbed by her hatred for the impending Iraq War that she "couldn't concentrate on her job" and became an active MoveOn participant. I don't for a minute doubt this woman's sincerity. But she's hardly representative of the average American. Reihan Salam gently concludes, "When people become so consumed by politics, there is usually a reason that is independent of politics," i.e. something psychological.

Case in point:

"The idea that MoveOn is like some foaming-at-the-mouth, swinging-from-the-trees liberal interest group is kind of a joke," says influential blogger Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake.com.

This is a peculiar sentiment coming from Ms. Hamsher, she of the Joe Lieberman-in-blackface infamy.

To be sure, MoveOn has a significant, albeit baleful, influence on the Democratic Party. Their position on abandoning Iraq when al-Qaeda was in control of Anbar and Shi'ite militias ruled in the roost in the south was strategic malpractice and moral idiocy. What bloodshed would there have been had we followed the advice of Eli Pariser two years ago? (Remember when MoveOn, impervious to reality, vilified liberal Democratic congressman Brian Baird for the crime of reporting positively on the surge last year?) Their attempts to claim that their position was somehow in solidarity with the Iraqi people was ridiculous.

While Hayes is right to claim that MoveOn has taken hold of much of the Democratic Party, he has no ground on which to stand when it comes to trumpeting the organization's influence over the course of American foreign policy:

Or consider this: to manage its lobbying efforts and programs for its more than 4 million members, the NRA has a staff exceeding 500 and a $15 million, 390,000-square-foot office building in Virginia. MoveOn has a staff of... twenty-three. And no headquarters.

This would be a compelling point were not the conceit of the article -- that MoveOn has made any discernable headway on its key agenda item -- false. The NRA is an incredibly successful organization, the measure being that it has actually accomplished tangible goals on its legislative agenda. It's so successful, indeed, that the very talk of gun control in this country has largely become obsolete. It may be true that MoveOn, as Hayes claims, has "pioneered an entire approach to conducting politics through the Internet that has been replicated and spun off across the country and around the globe." But it has most certainly not "permanently transformed the landscape of American politics." The animating principle of MoveOn for the past 5 years, the issue that has dominated its energies to the exclusion of pretty much all else, has been Iraq. On this vital issue, what can MoveOn define as "victory" other than earning a bipartisan, overwhelmingly-passed congressional resolution condemning it "in the strongest possible terms" for calling the greatest American military officer of his generation a traitor?

--James Kirchick

McCain's Midas Touch

tnr1.com — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:53:00 GMT

"Five years ago, the outdoor footwear company, Crocs, was started by a couple of entrepreneurs with a great idea, ingenuity and drive. This former small business now employs 600 people in Colorado alone, and sells over 50 percent of its products in 90 countries around the world."

--John McCain, July 7, 2008

"Shares of Crocs Inc <CROX.O> lost about half of their value on Thursday after the shoemaker slashed second-quarter and 2008 profit and revenue forecasts on an unexpected slowdown in business and weak reorders."

--Reuters, July 24, 2008

--Jonathan Chait

President of the World?

tnr1.com — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:53:00 GMT

While Noam and Mike have been debating the significance of Obama's Berlin speech today over at The Stump, Gerhard Spörl of Der Spiegel gives us this view from Europe:

It was a ton to absorb -- and what a stupendous ride through world history: the story of his own family, the Berlin Airlift, terrorists, poorly secured nuclear material, the polar caps, World War II, America's errors, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, freedom. It's amazing one could even pack such a potpourri of issues into sentences and then succeed in squeezing them all into the space of a speech that lasted less than 30 minutes.

So what still sticks? That Barack Obama is a passionate politician who is fixated on and takes very seriously his desire for a bit of uptopia and a better world. That he is an impressive speaker who knows how to casually draw his audience into his image of the world -- one who doesn't have any need to resort to the kind of cheap effects that tend to prompt the uproarious applause of an audience. That he is a typical American -- an idealist in the true spirit of the American success story who is now very casually making his claim to become something akin to the president of the world.

--James Martin

Live From The Obama Mosh Pit In Berlin!

tnr1.com — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:44:00 GMT

Berlin-based journalist A.J. Goldmann, who has written for The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, sent us this dispatch from Obama's speech today. Clck here to download a podcast of his dispatch.

Today none of the quotidian annoyances of Berlin life seemed to matter. Not the open ended strike by Berlin's public service, nor the maddening traffic changes brought upon by the never ending construction. All attention was focused squarely on Barack Obama's visit today.

Obama has been greeted here as nothing short of a political celebrity. This morning, the senator's picture was splashed across the front page of virtually every Berlin newspaper. Even the large circulation tabloid BILD ran an image of Obama directly above its topless cover girl.

It often feels that few people hold real jobs in Berlin, a city with an enormous number of artists, students, and unemployed. Still, it was surprising to see the crowds that lined up in the early afternoon.

People were admitted to Tiergarten--Berlin's massive central park--starting at 4 p.m. There was airport level security at the park's entrance, including metal detectors and thorough inspections of all bags and electronics. Near the security check was a station where Berlin-based Americans--of which there are roughly 13,000--could register to vote and tables set up by assorted environmental organizations distributing leaflets.

After security, the masses filled the wide Strasse der 17 Juni--the setting of the legendary and lewd Love Parade--until the imposing Victory Column, a kilometer later. In advance of Senator Obama's appearance, there was a performance by a mediocre reggae artist.

The weather was warm and mild as Obama addressed the crowd from the Victory Column, facing the Brandenburg Gate, with the sun setting behind him. Once the applause for the senator dies down, the thousands of spectators--many munching on bratwurst and drinking beer--remained behaved and respectful during his half-hour long address.

That crowd was a healthy mix of young and old, with a large number of Americans and Africans in attendance. Many wore Obama tee-shirts of various designs, some with his campaign slogan "Change we can believe in." Some were even draped in American flags, a sight none too common in Berlin, where the war in Iraq is largely condemned and anti-Bush sentiment runs high.

The natives greeted the speech with a surprising lack of cynicism. There were, however, two junctures where Obama was met with derision. The emphasis he placed on the war against drugs drew scattered boos, a reaction not too unexpected in a city where marijuana is partially legalized. His line about America having made its "share of mistakes" drew cheers and laughter from an audience that felt Obama had made the understatement of the century.

But all in all, the Berliners around me were swept up by the bravura performance and the inspired rhetoric, which was met with massive cheers. Even without simultaneous translation into German, Obama's repeated call for tearing down walls between peoples and nations resonated powerfully in this of all cities.

--A.J. Goldmann

(Photo Credit: Paul J. Thomas)

Comment of the Day: Bold Talk to Ex-Communist Crowd

tnr1.com — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:37:00 GMT

Noam was impressed by the rhetoric in Barack Obama's highly anticipated Berlin speech. But even though Obama expressed his love for his own country, Noam worried that the setting and the tone of the speech may be too post-nationalist for many swing voters. In the comments, primwallflow thought Obama was daring in his message in light of Berlin's history with communism:

I agree it was perfectly calibrated... it was certainly bold to deliver such an unabashedly pro-American/anti-Communist speech in a city that, let's not forget, was half communist a mere 19 years ago. And having lived in East Germany, I can tell you that communism is not a frequent punching-bag in popular political discourse, even among those glad the wall fell (and a fair number long for the DDR again, though I suppose no American president to the right of Eugene Debs would elicit much enthusiasm from them).

What worries me is that Obama isn't breaking out of his mold. There's been an inkblot quality about his appearances lately--to me, he comes across as compelling and eloquent; to the Cornerites, he's presumptuous, hubristic, and, I kid you not, embarrassing--and the lenses through which Americans view him are quickly ossifying. Not just his rhetoric but his imagery needs to be more persuasive. So I'm curious how the bona fide uncommitted voters will digest the speech.

Pace miceelf, if the networks show the waving American flags during their coverage tonight, then the man is golden.

Obama has so far done a good job on this trip; he has demonstrated that he has a broad strategic vision for America's future. Now he needs to come home and contrast his domestic policies with McCain. No time should be lost on this score.

Obama's Senior Thesis

Noam Scheiber — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:37:00 GMT

This (via Ben Smith) is very interesting:

Conservative provocateurs have been hunting for it. Investigative journalists have been on the prowl, too. Even a former professor has been searching through old boxes for his copy of it. But today Barack Obama made it official: He doesn’t have and can’t release any copies of the thesis-length paper he wrote 25 years ago while a senior at Columbia University.

“We do not have a copy of the course paper you requested and neither does Columbia University,” Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told NBC News. ...

So we turned for answers to the former professor who graded the now-elusive paper. His former professor, Michael Baron, recalled in an interview with NBC News that Obama easily aced the year-long class. Baron described the paper as a “thesis” or “senior thesis” in several interviews, and said that Obama spent a year working on it. Baron recalls that the topic was nuclear negotiations with the Soviet Union.

“My recollection is that the paper was an analysis of the evolution of the arms reduction negotiations between the Soviet Union and the United States,” Baron said in an e-mail. “At that time, a hot topic in foreign policy circles was finding a way in which each country could safely reduce the large arsenal of nuclear weapons pointed at the other … For U.S. policy makers in both political parties, the aim was not disarmament, but achieving deep reductions in the Soviet nuclear arsenal and keeping a substantial and permanent American advantage. As I remember it, the paper was about those negotiations, their tactics and chances for success. Barack got an A.”

Baron said that, even if he could find a copy of the paper, it would likely disappoint Obama’s critics. “The course was not a polemical course, it was a course in decision making and how decisions got made,” he said. “None of the papers in the class were controversial.”

For what it's worth, I also had a semi-strange experience involving the Obama thesis back in February. An aide happened to mention that Obama had written his thesis on nuclear deterrence. When I went back to verify it in a subsequent conversation, the aide told me he'd have to double-check. He subsequently e-mailed to say Obama couldn't remember whether it was his actual thesis or just a paper for a class, so it was probably best to drop the reference altogether. It wasn't a particularly big deal either way--just a minor detail in the context of a much larger piece--but it did leave me scratching my head a bit. I mean, who doesn't remember their senior thesis? Anyway, I hadn't really given it a second thought until just now. (Though we did call Columbia in search of a copy...)

Update: Alright, alright. Point taken, commenters. I agree that this is an exceedingly small deal. I'm not suggesting there's something sinister lurking in those pages. And I can understand why the campaign would be loath to produce the thesis even if it's completely benign, which I suspect is the case. The right-wingers are obviously poised to mine any Obama document for statements that can be taken out of context and distorted, and even the most sober-minded senior thesis is vulnerable to that treatment.

Still, your default posture as a journalist, rather than a partisan or an operative, is that you always want more insight into the person your covering. I don't think it's at all unreasonable for us to push to see a project that Obama labored on for a year.

--Noam Scheiber

China, Protector Of Freedom? Doubtful.

tnr1.com — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:01:00 GMT

As Beijing gears up to host this year's Olympic Games, we asked Perry Link, professor of East Asian Studies at Princeton University, to give us his perspective on how China is responding to the challenge. He will be guest-blogging for us over the next few weeks:

The Chinese government, speaking through the top security official for the Beijing Olympic Organizing Committee, has named three parks in Beijing where "the police will safeguard the right to demonstrate." Some have hailed this as a breakthrough.

Hmmm. The Chinese Constitution (Article 35) states that "citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession, and of demonstration." In theory this grand pronouncement covers all of China, all 9.6 million square kilometers. Now we have the "breakthrough" of rights being safeguarded in an area about one millionth the size of the whole.

And even there, the safeguarding will apply to foreign protesters only. No sane Chinese will imagine that expression of unapproved opinion on an issue that China's rulers consider "sensitive" (e.g., the June Fourth Massacre, Falungong, corruption among families of the top leaders, or independence for Taiwan, Tibet, or the Uighur nation) can be done without fearsome cost. Plainclothes police will be watching, as will cameras. The New York Times has reported that Honeywell, General Electric, and United Technologies "have all been aggressively pursuing contracts in China to sell advanced surveillance equipment from the United States."

For foreign protesters, the carving out of a few "free speech zones" will seem to fall into a pattern that cities hosting G8 meetings have used and that Athens adopted in hosting the 2004 Olympic Games. But for Beijing citizens, another pattern will come to mind. In 1978, when Deng Xiaoping wanted to show popular support for his reversal of Maoist policies, he briefly allowed free expression at a "Democracy Wall" on Chang'an Street in the Xidan District. After a few months, when Deng had heard enough, he decided to bottle things up. But he couldn't just close the Wall. That would be too big a loss of face. (He had to continue pretending that the Chinese people have "freedom of speech," after all.) So the Wall was "moved" to Ritan Park, where people had to sign in and give their addresses and work-unit names before posting anything. Anyone whose opinion was "incorrect" then got a visit from authorities.

The same Ritan Park is one of the three "protest zones" this time around.

--Perry Link

Am I Selling Americans Short re: The Obama Speech?

Noam Scheiber — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:58:00 GMT

My friends at the Economist, who always seem to cringe when I riff on the parochialism of the average American--have taken me to task for suggesting that the post-nationalist vibes from Obama's Berlin speech might not go down so well in Ohio:

It has been a bad eight years for Atlanticists, when many out there now assume European and American distaste for each other, and that European affection for an American must be zero-sum—that it will cost him an equal amount of affection at home. Or that an American's pride in his country is similarly zero-sum, costing him among Europeans. I don't think this image costs Mr Obama, on net. It is truly a churlish, and in my opinion rare, American who actually takes pride when an American president is protested, jeered and hissed at abroad.

Then, in a particularly low blow, the Economist-blogger introduces some numbers:

But since Mr Scheiber and I have opposite gut feelings about this, some data would be helpful. From Pew:

More than seven-in-ten Americans (71%) say that the United States is less respected by other countries these days, up from 65% in August 2006.

For the first time since Pew began asking this question in 2004, a majority of Americans now sees the loss of international respect for the United States as a major problem. The percentage of Americans saying the loss of international respect is a major problem has risen from 43% in 2005 to 48% in 2006 and 56% currently.

The most recent national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted May 21-25 among 1,505 adults, finds that majorities of Democrats (81%), independents (72%) and Republicans (60%) believe that the United States has lost global respect in recent years.

In particular, Republican opinion about international respect for America has shifted substantially over the past two years. A clear majority of Republicans (60%) now say the nation is less respected in the international community, an increase of 12 points since August 2006. Moreover, 43% of Republicans say the loss of global respect represents a major problem, compared with just 26% two years ago.

Fair enough. It's unquestionably true that most Americans want the rest of the world to think better of them. On the other hand, it's also true that, if asked whether they'd vote for a man whose father was Kenyan, who lived in Indonesia as a child, and who seems more popular in Germany than in rural Pennsylvania, a majority would probably say no. The second question is highly-selective about the information it includes and generally biased in the extreme. But it's the kind of question the GOP wants to put before voters this fall. In analyzing the Berlin appearance, I think you have to ask (among other things) whether it shifts the discussion--and voters' impressions--toward the first point or the second. My concern is that it shifts it toward the second.

--Noam Scheiber

Ich Bin Ein Ohioan

Ben Wasserstein — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:05:00 GMT

Even the AP seems bemused by the contrast between John McCain's latest choice of campaign venue and Barack Obama's global lovefest in Berlin. But is McCain's stagecraft really as pathetic as it seems? According to the latest Quinnipiac University polling, McCain is getting increased support in several key states--especially from men and independents. Perhaps a weiner schnitzel back home with a crusty old warrior who calls you a little jerk is a whole lot less threatening to your average American male than watching the big man on campus earth charm the pants off Old Europe?

Yes, John Kerry has proclaimed that it's safe to go back to France, but Obama might do well to skip petit dejeuner with Nicholas and Carla, and head O-Force One straight back to an International House of Pancakes.

--Katherine Marsh

So Where Is McCain From Again?

Michelle Cottle — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:56:00 GMT

This statement just out from the McCain campaign:

While Barack Obama took a premature victory lap today in the heart of Berlin, proclaiming himself a 'citizen of the world,' John McCain continued to make his case to the American citizens who will decide this election. Barack Obama offered eloquent praise for this country, but the contrast is clear. John McCain has dedicated his life to serving, improving and protecting America. Barack Obama spent an afternoon talking about it.

Ah, another classy installment in the John-McCain-is-the-American-president-America-has-been-waiting-for campaign narrative: Come on, people! We don't need no stinking "citizen of the world" in charge. We need a real American who spends his days talking to Americans about American things.

--Michelle Cottle

Today's Polls: McCain's Gaining, But Why?

Nate Silver — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:32:00 GMT

New Quinnipiac polling in four states contains pretty good news for John McCain.

In Colorado, Quinnipiac has McCain ahead by 2 points, 46-44. This is the only Colorado poll in which McCain has led all year, save for an oddball results from the GOP-affiliated firm TargetPoint Consulting back in early April. Obama had led by 5 points in Quinnipiac's prior poll of Colorado, taken at the height of Obama's post-primary bounce last month.

Obama maintains his lead in the other three states in this box set, but it is smaller than before in each instance. In Michigan, Obama now leads by 4 points after having been 6 points ahead in June. In Wisconsin, his lead is down from 13 points to a still-healthy 11-point margin. But in Minnesota, the tightening is far more substantial, with Obama's lead going from 17 points to just 2.

Rasmussen also has numbers out today from another swing state, New Hampshire, where Obama holds a 4-point lead -- broadly in line with the recent UNH and ARG surveys -- after having led by 11 in June.

I hope that there is no longer any question that this is more than just statistical noise. Yes, there are individual results we can critique. It's hard to imagine Obama running 9 points stronger in Wisconsin than he does in Minnesota, for instance. And Quinnipiac's results from Colorado are a little odd, as Obama leads among independent voters and does as well as McCain does amongst his party, but trails slightly overall (Quinnipiac does not weight its results by party ID). Our model is designed to account for this noise in a variety of different ways, and for the moment, it doesn't take the possibility of a McCain win in Minnesota seriously, and still regards Obama as a very narrow favorite in Colorado.

But our model is also designed to evaluate trends, and there is an increasingly large body of evidence that Obama is now polling somewhere between 3-4 points off his peak numbers. In the grand scheme of things, that doesn't mean all that much -- it means that perhaps 1 in every 60 strangers you encounter on the street has switched from Obama to McCain within the last month. The more relevant question is where the downtrend dates from. If you look at our tracking graph, it seems to have started -- or at least steepened -- coming out of the July 4 holiday, when some of the Obama is a flip-flopper narrative began to take root. I am less convinced that Obama is getting an anti-bounce out of his trip abroad, and would remind you that there is a lagged effect before certain stories take hold, particularly in the dog days of the summer when the public's attention span for campaign coverage is limited.

The alternate hypothesis is that this is simply a reflection of McCain's greater investments in advertising in the early campaign, something we'll explore at greater length soon.

--Nate Silver

Obama in Berlin

Michael Crowley — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:31:00 GMT

I caught the second half of Obama's speech in Berlin today. What I heard was unsurprising, but elegantly wrought and delivered, and the stagecraft was perfect. And whereas the weather conspired against John McCain this week, Obama was greeted with sunshine. (Three-pointers and blue skies--a metaphor for this trip so far.)

One minor thing that I tripped over: There's maybe something potentially hubristic-sounding about addressing your remarks to "people of the world." Or maybe that just sounds to me like something from an alien-invasion movie....

Also, the crowd response was slightly less frenzied than I'd expected; on TV, at least, the cheering seemed hearty--but not full-out Beatlemania. (The applause was especially wan, for instance, when Obama cited the need to stop Iran from acquiring nukes.)

--Michael Crowley

Obama's Berlin Speech

Noam Scheiber — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:23:00 GMT

Rhetorically, I thought it was one of the better speeches of the campaign--the exact right combination of love for America and plea for international cooperation. The closing riff was, not surprisingly, the high-point:

I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we’ve struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.

But I also know how much I love America. I know that for more than two centuries, we have strived – at great cost and great sacrifice – to form a more perfect union; to seek, with other nations, a more hopeful world. Our allegiance has never been to any particular tribe or kingdom – indeed, every language is spoken in our country; every culture has left its imprint on ours; every point of view is expressed in our public squares. What has always united us – what has always driven our people; what drew my father to America’s shores – is a set of ideals that speak to aspirations shared by all people: that we can live free from fear and free from want; that we can speak our minds and assemble with whomever we choose and worship as we please.

These are the aspirations that joined the fates of all nations in this city. These aspirations are bigger than anything that drives us apart. It is because of these aspirations that the airlift began. It is because of these aspirations that all free people – everywhere – became citizens of Berlin. It is in pursuit of these aspirations that a new generation – our generation – must make our mark on the world.

The framing of America and Europe's shared mission in the war on terror was also extremely deft, as Frank Foer noted while we were watching:

This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it. This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it. If we could create NATO to face down the Soviet Union, we can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York. If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope.

The idea of the war on terror as an ideological and existential struggle, a la the Cold War, is a common theme among conservatives (particularly neoconservatives). But somehow it seemed like a perfectly natural Obama-esque theme today, with his emphasis on our shared interest in winning. Suddenly the war on terror was the Berlin airlift and the Marshall Plan, not Star Wars and the Minuteman Missile.

My only concern was the atmospherics. Every pundit I've heard opine on this has held up the imagery as the most valuable take-away for Obama today. I'm not so sure. In addition to looking a little too much like a mega-campaign rally for some voters' taste (as vice-presidential wannabe John Thune said beforehand, the votes you need to win are in America, not Germany), I worry that the combination of the visual and some of the rhetoric--"Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen--a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world"--was a little too post-nationalist for the typical American swing-voter. I'm not sure you win the presidency without being seen as an unambiguous nationalist.

It wasn't the speech per se--which, as I say, was perfectly calibrated. It was the impression a voter might get from a stray line or two, against the backdrop of a hundred thousand adoring Germans, that makes me slightly queasy.

--Noam Scheiber

Michigan, Minnesota, and Maliki

Noam Scheiber — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:27:00 GMT

Chris Cillizza writes up a somewhat disturbing-for-Obama Quinnipiac poll showing him basically tied with McCain in Michigan, Colorado, and Minnesota. I don't believe Minnesota is tied (most other polls show Obama way up there, and it's culturally and demographically similar to Wisconsin, where Obama still has a healthy lead), but the results are in line with a general tightening trend in key battleground states, so they can't be dismissed.

One of the reasons for what we're seeing, suggests Cillizza, is Iraq:

McCain's campaign has hammered home the idea that Obama was mistaken in his opposition to the surge of U.S. troops last year and is wrong now about his proposed 16-month timetable for withdrawing troops.

Voters in all four states seem to agree. Asked whether they would prefer a "fixed date" for withdrawal or to "keep troops in Iraq until the situation is more stable," majorities in all four states preferred the latter option despite the fact that similar majorities in each state say that America was wrong to go to war in Iraq.

Those results suggest that while Obama's initial opposition to the war plays well with voters, his plan to remove troops from the country within 16 months of taking office as president is less well received.

I agree. But that's also why the Maliki endorsement of Obama's withdrawal timetable is so important. My read of public opinion on Iraq is that Americans don't want to stay any longer, but they don't want to "lose the war" either, as vague a concept as that is. Prior to Maliki, McCain could say Obama wants to concede defeat at the very moment we're starting to win, which played to the latter sentiment. But Maliki's statement tells Americans there's no tension between leaving and winning. You can leave now and still claim victory, which is what they really want, and which is what Obama is offering.

A quote from Tom Davis in yesterday's Washington Post gets at this dynamic another way:

In private, said Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), Iraqi leaders continue to tell U.S. officials that they want and need U.S. forces to stay. But Davis admitted that because of Maliki's comments, "there are some members who feel, because of what is happening out there, a little hung out to dry."

Now that Maliki is assuring Americans they can leave without suffering defeat--the avoidance of which is the only reason to stay--it becomes very tough politically to opt for staying (even though, as Davis suggests, the on-the-ground reality might recommend it).

--Noam Scheiber

Latinos for Obama, Big-Time

Michael Crowley — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:17:00 GMT

Not the first time we've seen this but a new Pew poll has him crushing McCain in the demographic, 62-29.

(Hat tip: Abramowitz.)

--Michael Crowley

Hubris Watch

James Kirchick — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:56:00 GMT

From yesterday's Politico:

At a morning background briefing, reporters parried with senior advisers on the characterization of Obama’s speech Thursday in Berlin as a campaign rally. The outdoor speech at the Victory Column could draw thousands of people, similar to the size of Obama events in the United States.

“It is not going to be a political speech,” said a senior foreign policy adviser, who spoke to reporters on background. “When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally.

“But he is not president of the United States,” a reporter reminded the adviser.

--James Kirchick

The TNR McCain Slideshow

tnr1.com — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:45:00 GMT

A few weeks ago, we posted a slideshow of all of the Obama-related art that has appeared in the magazine. And so, here, in the spirit of fairness, we've done the same for McCain. These are our drawings, cartoons, and illustrations of the senator from as early as 1996--and they're all linked to the articles they appeared with. (An index of our McCain stories over the years can be found here.) So, has the artist's pencil been kind to Johnny Boy over the years? You be the judge!

--Nicole Allan

McCain Not Hurting Where It Counts

Jason Zengerle — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:42:00 GMT

Echoing Judis and Chait from yesterday, here's more evidence that, despite the media's and even the weather's bias against McCain, voters aren't that down on him. The latest Q-Poll has McCain gaining ground in four battleground states:

Colorado: McCain is up by a nose 46 – 44 percent, compared to a 49 – 44 percent Obama lead June 26;
Michigan: Obama tops McCain 46 – 42 percent, compared to a 48 – 42 percent lead last time;
Minnesota: Obama edges ahead 46 – 44 percent, compared to a 54 – 37 percent Obama lead;
Wisconsin: Obama leads McCain 50 – 39 percent, compared to 52 – 39 percent.

--Jason Zengerle

Bush III Watch

Chris Orr — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:00:00 GMT

From CNN:

John McCain — whose campaign launched an ad this week blaming Barack Obama for high prices at the pump — said Wednesday President Bush's new push for offshore oil drilling deserves the credit for the recent drop in crude oil prices.
"In case you missed it, soon as the President announced that we were going to end the moratorium on offshore drilling the price of a barrel of oil went down $10," the presumptive Republican nominee said at a Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania town hall.

Whatever the validity of the claim (there's considerable reason to doubt it), this strikes me as another political misstep by McCain. The trick for him is to find ways to reassure the conservative base, with whom Bush is still popular, quietly--at behind-closed-doors fundraisers and the like--while making a broader public pitch that he's a "maverick" who "stands up to his party" and "offers new solutions." The last thing he wants is to go out of his way to undermine his gas-prices pitch (which has been, to date, perhaps his most significant pander to the center) by associating it with a president whose job approval is stuck at under 30 percent.

--Christopher Orr

Poll Mysteries, Cont'd

Michael Crowley — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:59:00 GMT

Emory prof Alan Abramowitz zeroes in on those tracking polls I've been, well, tracking over the past few days, and questions their reliability.

And/but, It's worth noting that Obama now has four-point leads in both the Gallup and Rasmussen, bringing them more into line with other national surveys, including today's new NBC/WSJ survey showing Obama +6. (Get your full poll fix at RCP.)

P.S. From the same site as Abramowitz's piece, pundit extraordinaire Larry J. Sabato on "The Myth of the Toss-Up Election."

--Michael Crowley

Plan B for McCain?

Michael Crowley — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:58:00 GMT

In lieu of the real thing....

--Michael Crowley

Jim Gilmore in Hot Water

tnr1.com — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:21:00 GMT

Wuh-oh:

Former Virginia governor James S. Gilmore III, the state's Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, submitted false information on two financial disclosure forms that hid his ties to a government contractor embroiled in a legal dispute over allegations that two of its executives had conspired to defraud the federal government.

On the forms, the first filed in June 2007 for his presidential campaign and the second in May after he joined the U.S. Senate race, Gilmore said he was on the board of Windmill International. Gilmore, who signed his name attesting that the information on the forms was "complete and correct," reported that Windmill International was based in Nashua, N.H. But Gilmore was on the board of a Virginia-based company also called Windmill International. The two companies are not affiliated.

Of course, he's insisting it was a clerical error and not an intentional effort at deception. But I think this piece of information largely rules that out:

Gilmore also reported that Windmill International is a "veterans contract group." Richard L. Manganello, founder and chief executive officer of the New Hampshire company, which describes itself as a contracting firm run by veterans, said neither he nor his business has had any ties to Gilmore ... "I don't recall ever hearing of Jim Gilmore." The Virginia-based Windmill describes itself as "a leading consultancy for financial and government services, as well as project management in Central and Eastern Europe." The description, on its Web site, does not mention veterans.

The Virginia group, in 2005, reported Gilmore as its vice president. Furthermore, he's still listed on their website as part of the "team!" This really deserves the Eliot Spitzer Award for Staggering Stupidity for the month of July, or maybe the whole summer. Who on Team Gilmore thought Googling to find another random company called "Windmill International" would be a clever idea?

--Eve Fairbanks