Here are a few further reflections on the content and form. First, the most obvious: Obama presented himself to Europe as the anti-Bush, and at some risk.  He's going to be hammered by the rabid right simply for the line very early in the speech in which he says he is speaking as a U.S. citizen, and a citizen of the world.

Because in this culture, seeing is believing.

There have been a lot of arguments made defending this cover on the basis of freedom of speech, press, expression, which to my mind completely miss the point. No government or corporation either suppressed that image, or forced anyone to print it. That cover was printed because of an editorial decision, which in my view was a very bad and irresponsible decision. Bad enough that the editors in question should resign, because they don't have the judgment to justify their jobs.

Others have also pointed out that she could have picked many other election years to make her point that nomination battles go into June and beyond. But what makes the RFK example especially awful is that it doesn't even make sense.

Because had Bobby Kennedy lived beyond that horrific day I remember vividly, the 1968 Democratic nominee was still not going to be decided until the convention.  His assassination is irrelevant to her point.    

It's starting again on the questions of Hillary Clinton leaving the race, and the related question of who Obama will choose for vice president. I happen to believe that on both of these topics, the conventional wisdom will once again be wrong.

For example, there's an article by Dan Conley in Salon that Teagan Goddard's Political Wire calls a "must read," which suggests the kind of deal that Hillary might get in exchange for her support.  His major suggestion is money--a bunch of Obama cash to retire her campaign debt.  

Both campaigns are trying to set expectations, but clearly the Clinton campaign must regard any margin of victory as a huge vindication, and a reason to go on.

But an analysis on Bloomberg.com should bring a little reality check to the meaning of PA. Many have pointed out that it is almost impossible for Clinton to surpass Obama in elected delegates.  But one factor some in her campaign have suggested might break her way is the popular vote.  The Bloomberg report looks at that.  And it's conclusions are devastating.    

I say this because those responsible for the unnecessary tragedies in the Gulf, and the sickening fact that they continue, must be held accountable, and must be prevented from endangering more lives. This is a dangerous situation for the American present and future, and just about all the nation can do about it at this point is to break the Republican rule of the federal government by electing Democrats to Congress.

So I am going to be unapologetically political here.  What follows is my first draft script for a Katrina campaign ad, simple enough for amateurs to produce but designed for wide distribution. I've posted a version with photos at Dreaming Up Daily that gives a rough idea of what it might look like.    

It's time for Democrats to tell their story, and the first thing the party must recognize is that they need to tell it from the beginning.  That's where most good stories start, but there are real world reasons for what I mean.

From the beginning means: don't assume.  Don't assume voters know a lot.  Don't be condescending or phony, but just deal with that fact.  And understand the story they want to hear this election year.

We grow up knowing the simple formula for water: H2O. Yet for all our vaunted science and technology, we have no idea how to make it.  Our science knows a few things about it, but we don't know really what water is.

We can't build or manufacture or create water.  Our lives depend on the water that exists, that our earth as a complex system provides.  Water is in many ways the basis of civilization, and how water is shared is a primary creator and medium of culture.  But as the world's fresh water is increasingly threatened by what the modern world has done to the planet, water again becomes a test of our civilization and our future.  For many, it already is.  For the rest of us, it soon will be.

But another lie also emerged from World War II, when the kind of bombing we see today--from the air, on urban centers and civilian populations--was first done regularly, on a large scale.  The lie is that bombing is an effective, reasonable and legitimate method of waging war, whereas there are other despicable and illegitimate acts committed by uncivilized and ruthless enemies, called terrorism.

The truth is that bombing is terrorism, and it always has been.    

The Iraq war is becoming as long and agonizing as Vietnam--one poll says it is even more politically divisive.  Chuck Hegel said last week that the situation on the ground in Iraq is an "absolute replay" of Vietnam.  And there are other resemblances as well.

Rather than make comparisons for you, let me simply tell a few stories about that time that seem relevant to recent discussions here.

Such discussions, acrimonious and very emotional at times, were common in the decade beginning in 1965.  Before getting into the nature of those discussions, let me share what someone has recently told me about the mechanism of response in these situations.

The AP likes to keep it factual and punchy, if not short and sweet.  So here it is:

For the next week, much of the nation should expect more "extreme heat," the National Weather Service predicts.

_In the month of August, most of the United States will see "above normal temperatures," forecasters say.

_For the long-term future, the world will see more and worse killer heat waves because of global warming, scientists say.

After that, you might be inclined to look for stories about Scarlett Johansson, or American Idol (although given the above news, I can't believe people find much comfort in the statistic the Idolateers are fond of spreading around, that more people voted for the current Idol winner than ever voted for a President of the U.S.) But some of the details might answer your questions about what's really going on, which suggests what we really should be doing.

Via Teagan Goddard's Political Wire there's this:

Washington Wire highlights evidence of a growing long-term deep funk among Americans in the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll: "Among the six-in-10 Americans who say country is 'on the wrong track,' most see 'long-term decline.' More than two-thirds of those over 50 aren't confident life will improve for 'our children's generation'; 62% of those under 35 agree. Americans are especially gloomy about the environment, health care, public morals and housing costs; nearly eight in 10 expect college to become less affordable. By 47%-24%, Americans fear the quality of jobs in the U.S. will get worse."

It seems good for Democrats' chances, but is it?  Let me briefly suggest my doubts after the jump.

One is in the New York Times today. Peter Doran is the coauthor of a 2002 study that found some cooling in Antarctica, which deniers Michael Crichton and Ann Coulter (among others) have cited as proof that heating isn't happening, or that scientists don't agree, or that scientists don't know what they're talking about.

Here's what Doran says...      

"Brutality" means humans acting like beasts (or at least how humans interpret animal behavior.)  It carries with it the expectation that human beings in a civilized society should progress beyond this automatic behavior when it is clearly inappropriate and counterproductive, especially in the long term. It also implies an attitude about the value and sacredness of life. Progress used to include moving farther away from brutality to the rule of consciousness and more "human" means of solving conflicts.  

Brutalization is shifting individual and societal standards to accepting higher levels of brutality as normal and acceptable. In civilized humanty, it is retrogression.  So how in the world, early in the twenty-first century, did we get here?