george on my mind

stephanopoulos:	you’ve now met with president obama many times, at least fifteen meetings and phone calls —
medvedev:	sixteen times.
stephanopoulos:	sixteen, ok, i knew it was fifteen, i wasn’t sure about the sixteenth. ah, what do you make of barack obama the man?
medvedev:	he's a very comfortable partner. it’s very interesting to be with him. the most important thing that distinguishes him from many other people — i won’t name anyone by name — he’s a thinker. he thinks when he speaks.
stephanopoulos:	[laughing] you had somebody in your mind, i think!
medvedev:	obviously i do have someone on my mind, i don’t want to offend anyone.

(hat tip to think progress)

we know what that means

too polite to plainly parse mccain's ad strategy for what it is, too cowardly to call a spade a spade, so to speak, this week panelists jake tapper, george stephanopolous and george will get politely schooled by david gergen on what he, donna brazile and everyone else in america already knows:

tapper:	... that's not fair. the media has been very vigilant on the attacks against obama that are race-based. whether it was, uh, questions of things that clinton and clinton supporters said, or the scurrilous ads coming out of various state republican parties, the media has been viligant — vigilant — but by the same token we're allowed to say "hey, wait a second. you're lumping in mccain making racial ads, uh, attacks, when it's clear he hasn't done it."
gergen:	i-i-ah ... [sighs] i think that donna's got a point here. everybody knows he's black, but there has been a very intentional effort to paint him as somebody outside the mainstream — other — he’s not one of us ...
steph:	mostly below the radar screen —
gergen:	it's below the radar screen. i think the mccain campaign has been scrupulous about not directly saying it, but it's the subtext of this campaign. everybody knows that. and when he said — there are certain kinds of signals. as a, as a native of the south, i can tell you, when you see this charlton heston ad, 'the one,' that's code for, 'he's uppity, he ought to stay in his place.' y'know we, everybody gets that, who is from a southern background. we all understand that. when mccain comes out and starts talking about affirmative action, 'i'm against quotas,' we get what that's about. we understand where that's coming from ...
steph:	i answered the question —
will:	[pointing to steph] he was asked about that!
gergen:	i understand that, but i'm just telling you that gets across, and so it's not unfair for him to sort of bring up the fact: "hey everybody knows i'm black. what are you talking about?"
steph:	hey george, that may be his only strategy ...

if stephanopolous is referring to mccain's strategy, that's something else that everyone already knows.

alberto piñata

and lo, a new talking point is born ...

(video courtesy of talkingpointsmemo.com)

time for a change

well, it's primary day in connecticut and the country finally gets to see if democratic and independent voters there want a new senator. although lamont has enjoyed an amazing 13-point lead in the polls over the last week, that lead was halved over the weekend, and polls have been known to be wrong anyway. lamont's "netroots" supporters have been careful to temper their enthusiasm, having bitterly tasted defeat too often before.

i've been trying to step back and look at the race in more fundamental terms, beyond the particular issues being argued in it. in most regular elections the voters are offered two choices: the incumbent or the challenger; the status quo or change.

and right now the entire country is disgusted with the direction the white house and congress has taken the country, and nowhere is that truer than in connecticut, one of the bluest of the blue states. the country is aching for change. it's a fundamental dynamic that seems only today to be getting the emphasis it really deserves:

americablog: people are frustrated. they're tired of the republicans and their arrogance, their failed policies, their incompetence, and their inability to learn and grow from their mistakes. that is why the blogs came about, and it's why we've been successful at getting a voice. we are tapping into that frustration and, yes, anger, and channeling it towards an effort to change things for the better. and that, my reporter friends, is what is happening in connecticut and across america. joe lieberman is a victim of the anti-incumbent, anti-republican times in which we live. he is not a victim of the peace movement. he is not a victim of the iraq war. he is part or the larger passion play that is taking place across the country against the incumbent party in power. republicans control the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government. americans believe our country is heading in the wrong direction and we, rightfully, are finally holding those running the country accountable, in addition to those who enable and embrace them.

mydd: luis, a poll worker who came out for some fresh air, said "lots of democrats today!" — the polling place had separate doors for the republican and democratic primaries, and i could see fewer than 1 out of 10 voters were going in the republican door. luis said he's seen a lot of new voters and young voters today. "they want change."

for all his vaunted experience in politics, lieberman strangely has been either unwilling or unable to recognize or respond to that basic dynamic. he's lost touch with his own constituents. he's been taking them for granted.

this race shouldn't have been a contest. it's been lieberman's to lose all along, and he will. what finally convinced me was lieberman's last big media statement, his "closing argument", which he delivered as a speech on sunday in east haven.

in it he reiterated his record and ticked off his democratic bona fides. but not once did he say the magic words: i'm going to change.

lieberman insists that he's been good for connecticut for 18 years and connecticut needs him to continue to do what he's been doing.

he even insists that he hears the criticism:

what i will say is this: i not only respect your right to disagree or question the president, i value it.

but just how does he demonstrate that? he never explains how his constituents' views influence his behavior, if at all. i get the impression of joe patting a boy on the head, telling him, "i know you're upset — i really, really do — you just need to understand your daddy knows what's good for you."

so it comes as little surprise, according to markos of daily kos, that lieberman omitted these words from his planned ending for that speech when he finally delivered it:

if after hearing the truth about where i stand on iraq, you still want to cast your vote solely on that one issue, then i respect your decision.

lieberman apparently had second thoughts about legitimizing that rationale for the voters.

and when asked early sunday for his position on iraq by george stephanopolous on abc's this week:

gs:	you're right that iraq is the number one issue, there's just no question —
jl:	— there's no question about it and you see not only — you see it in the opinion polls.
gs:	and you said in the debate [with lamont on july 7] that iraq is better now than a year ago. do you still believe that?
jl:	it is better now ... it- it- it’s better and worse if you’ll allow me to put it that way ...

joe just can't let go of his support for the failed occupation. even while suffering the damage it's done to his career — which explains his fumbling bush-like doublespeak.

so joe's not gonna change his tune or his behavior, and he expects connecticut voters to simply accept that.

and they will, but only for a few hours longer.