Barack Obama's planned campaign rally and speech in Berlin on Thursday is roiling the German political class, reports Der Spiegel (article in German). Authorities in Berlin are preparing for a million spectators, which would instantly make Obama's speech the biggest political event in that country since unification in 1990. There are even plans to close down the street, a mile long, and replicate the setup during the World Cup with massive projection screens. Inevitably with a political earthquake of this magnitude, there's some controversy stoked by conservatives.

Obama will be speaking on the eastern side of the Victory Column - the Siegessäule - a monument to the Prussian victories in the wars of unification that preceded Bismarck's establishment of the Second Empire. The speech itself will be focused on the Trans-Atlantic relationship and give a preview of the foreign policy approaches of an Obama administration towards our NATO allies.

So what's the controversy?

Charles Krauthammer, the voice of wingnuttery - well, one such voice - on the Washington Post's Op-Ed page, offers some advice to John McCain today that the latter should heed. The headline says it all: Make the Election about Iraq.

The disconnect between what Democrats are saying about Iraq and what is actually happening there has reached grotesque proportions. Democrats won an exhilarating electoral victory in 2006 pledging withdrawal at a time when conditions in Iraq were dire and we were indeed losing the war. Two years later, when everything is changed, they continue to reflexively repeat their "narrative of defeat and retreat" (as Joe Lieberman so memorably called it) as if nothing has changed.

It is a position so utterly untenable that John McCain must seize the opportunity and, contrary to conventional wisdom, make the Iraq war the central winning plank of his campaign.

That's a fantastic idea.

Triangulation is alive and well, it seems. Hillary Clinton, descending ever deeper into the grotesque, today called out the Congress, the body of which she is a member and that is controlled by her party, to do something about gas prices.
Hotline:

"I believe it would be important to get every member of Congress on record," she said, per NBC/NJ's MIke Memoli. "Do they stand with the hard-pressed Americans who are trying to pay their gas bills at the gas station or do they once again stand with the oil companies? That's a vote I'm going to try to get, because I want to know where people stand, and I want them to tell us - are they with us or against us when it comes to taking on the oil companies?"

"Once again standing with the oil companies against us"? Is she high? >>>

Sweet.

Barack Obama, who has come under attack by his presidential rivals for describing small-town voters as "bitter," seems to be weathering the storm to this point as far as voters are concerned. He maintains a 10 percentage point lead over Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, 50% to 40%, according to the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking.

Well, actually, she's down one point from 41%, but that's gravy.

More >>>

Progressive activist and candidate Marcy Winograd alleged earlier today in a diary that the Obama campaign was purging Progressives from its California convention delegate lists.

By dusk on Wednesday, the California Obama campaign had purged almost all
progressive anti-war activists from its delegate candidate lists.  Names of candidates, people who had filed to run to represent Obama at the August Democratic Party National Convention, disappeared, not one by one, but hundreds at a time, from the Party web site listing the eligibles.  [...] Gone were strong women with independent political bases.

There's a purge going on, but it's not what Ms. Winograd suspects.

More >>>

Earlier, while doing the scant two minutes of research required to slice into ribbons a particularly insipid anti-Obama diary, I came across a fascinating piece of information.

Take a look at this map.

See that? That's Obama Country, people: America, from sea to shining sea. By one absolutely crucial metric, Obama is carrying the entire country with him.

More >>>

Ah, Google News: such a thing of beauty when you're tracking a story spreading like wildfire.

CNN: Clinton says she 'misspoke' about sniper fire

First Read: Clinton 'Misspoke'

CBS News: Starting Gate: Sniper Fire

ABC News: Footage Questions Senator's Account of 1996 Trip to Bosnia

Now, take a wild guess at just what's all over the morning shows? Oh no.

And the print media? Oh lord, yes, there's more >>>

The New York Times today writes about Hillary Clinton's online fundraising surge. The article is well worth a read, for several reasons.

"Go to www.HillaryClinton.com," she said, drawing applause and cheers from her throngs of supporters. "This is your campaign and your moment, and I need your support."

The prominent mention of her Web site was intentional, part of the Clinton campaign’s recent efforts to keep pace with Senator Barack Obama’s fund-raising juggernaut. The campaign has nearly doubled the volume of her e-mail solicitations, showcased her Web site more at events and intensified online advertisements asking for small contributions.

The article goes on with a discussion of the competitive landscape for the two remaining Democratic campaigns, interesting reading no matter how the contest ends.

More >>>

We've all seen them: the anguished protestations by primary partisans, vowing not to support that horrible, repub-lite other candidate. That other candidate can't win in November, you see, and if we briefly entertain the implausible notion that maybe they can, well, it won't be a victory worth having, because that other candidate is unworthy at best, a danger to the Republic at worst. Under these circumstances, a victory by your candidate is a requirement for the continuation of the great experiment that is America, whereas a victory for that other person, orc-like in their depravity along with the benighted individuals who support them, is simply a step into the abyss.

That's really a load of horse-shit.

>>>

The New York Times points out another indicator of Democratic strength and corresponding republican weakness: the two top Democratic campaigns are going on air in the February 5th states (even John Edwards is considering a multi-state ad buy), while the piteous republicans, alas, remain mired in Florida. The advertising person in me sees a beautiful branding opportunity.

A coast-to-coast onslaught of presidential campaign advertisements began rolling out this week, with Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton already spending millions on commercials in Feb. 5 nominating states on a scale more reminiscent of a general election.

The spots represent something of a test of the messages that each believes could eventually register with a national audience.

Here we go. Barack Obama, in an interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal, said some things of Ronald Reagan that were not quite to the taste of some people who happen to support other primary candidates (as, indeed, I do as well). Long story short, the Illinois Senator credited Reagan with a fundamental re-alignment of American politics. Clearly, this witch must burn.

The background to the story is at TPM, here. Stoller has a transcript, here.

Now, predictably enough - it is the silly season after all - the lamentations of rival partisans rend the very heavens in their anguish. It is to weep.

Dennis Kucinich, perennial gadfly of the Democratic Party, has been barred from the Texas Democratic primary by a Federal judge.

The reason? The Texas Democratic Party requires all candidates on its Presidential ballot to sign an oath that affirms they will 'fully support' the eventual Democratic nominee; this requirement is stipulated in the party's by-laws.

"I, ____________ of ________________, ________ County/Parish, ___________, being a candidate for the Office of President of the United States, swear that I will support and defend the constitution and laws of the United States. I further swear that I will fully support the Democratic nominee for President whoever that shall be."

Kucinich refused. Then he went to court to make that refusal stick. Yesterday, he lost his case.

Much has been made of John Edwards' decision to accept public financing for the Presidential primary.

The agonizing, much of it nakedly self-interested by supporters of other candidates eager to wipe out a rival, has been deafening. Some of it has even been sincere. Nonetheless, it's been open season on John Edwards for a while now, and the campaign's decision to use public financing has given ammunition to those already looking for it.

I think y'all are missing the forest for the trees, and making the same mistake you always accuse Congressional Democrats of making: you're hesitant to take a stand, even reluctant to try something potentially transformative.

I'm not, and here's why.

An argument one can occasionally hear being made runs like this: a woman or a black man would enter the general election for the Presidency at a disadvantage due to (supposedly) widespread misogyny and racism. Under this logic, of the top three, being a white male, John Edwards is presented as the best candidate. This argument was made in a particularly irksome troll diary the other day, and a little digging uncovers it elsewhere on the internets.

There are many, and many good, reasons to support John Edwards, as I do. This, however, is not one of them, for the simple reasons that it's morally reprehensible, that the candidate disdains it and that, lastly, it's not supported by actual polling data.

Details over the fold.

Cindy Sheehan:

"The Democrats will not hold this administration accountable, so we have to hold the Democrats accountable," Sheehan said outside Conyers' office after the meeting. "And I for one am going to step up to the plate and run against Nancy Pelosi."

Profoundly bad idea. Here's why.

We've seen, since the forcible capture of power in Gaza by the terrorist organization Hamas three weeks ago, a series of arguments being made defending the legality of and offering justifications for the Hamas putsch.

Now, on its face, that argument would seem to be execrable to Progressives, given that we are wedded to the idea of the rule of law and constitutional government. But since these arguments keep on cropping up, it's time to examine them more closely.

Odd things happen when you're not running for President on a platform of competence, independence, and rising above all that sordid partisanship you say the country needs less of. Odd things such as, say, a New York Times story laying out in pitiless detail how you lavishly support the most reactionary, corrupt republicans you can find, the ones who are widely considered to be the biggest obstacles to progress and good government in their neighborhood.

Michael Bloomberg's appeal to Independents and Democrats, if this story gets out widely, is going to vanish. He's not as independent as he says he is. Just for starters, he's helping to block campaign finance reform in New York State, to the tune of a cool $750,000 since October of 2006. Gay marriage, too.

The ugly details over the fold.

Well, this is interesting. The DSCC just sent out an email to its list with a message from Senator Chuck Schumer, one that starts with the words "I'm outraged". Chuck wants you to end a message to George Bush about that Scooter Libby business. Great idea, but it's also an opportunity to send a message to Chuck Schumer himself.

Full text and petition over the fold.