Wes Clark is promising to not go away:

A little over a month ago, following my appearance on Face the Nation, the right wing freak machine took me out of context, attacked me, and just wanted me to "hit the road."

Well, I'm here to tell you: I'm not going away.

Contribute to WesPAC's "Hit The Road Fund!" Help us raise $25,000 by this Friday. . . . Contirbute to Wes.

You think the former Suprene Allied Commander of NATO who won the Kosovo Conflict might be an effective Democratic surrogate just about now? Think he can speak to the issues in an authoritative way? You think he would be a strong voice for discussing the Democratic position on the Russia-Georgia conflict? You think Dems NEED him? I do.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

GG: One of the things that's a little difficult to understand is this idea that Georgia miscalculated what would be Russia's response. . . . It is really a surprise that Russia reacted the way that it did?

CK: Well, it's not a terrible surprise, but I think you also have to look at things from the Georgian perspective. Over the last several years, Georgia has become increasingly convinced that it's a real partner of the United States, that the US would defend Georgia - practically regardless of what Georgia did - that Georgia was simply reasserting control over bits of territory that are still internationally recognized as Georgia's own. And so I think the Georgians' political elite, particularly the president and the people very close to him, probably convinced themselves of two things. One, that they could do this quickly and successfully, that is, re-take South Ossetia, and secondly, that if there were a Russian response . . . that the United States would somehow step in to defend them, and in fact both of those calculations have turned out to be wrong.

(Emphasis supplied.) Read the whole thing.

I have avoided like the plague the discussion of John Edwards' private life. But I am interested in the argument about the effect of John Edwards' campaign in Iowa. Howard Wolfson argued that if Edwards had not been in the race, Hillary would have won Iowa. Chris Bowers and Clinton hater Poblano say it would not have made a difference. I have no idea what would have happened the night of January 3, 2008 if Edwards had not been in the race, but to ignore the fact that John Edwards served as Obama's attack dog in Iowa, as Bowers and the Clinton hating Poblano do, when discussing his effect on the race, is absurd.

I always argued that the most important night of the campaign came on October 30, 2007, when Jack Welch's NBC boys Tim Russert and Brian Williams teed it up against Hillary Clinton. To wonder what would have happened in the campaign if Edwards had been out is like wondering what would have happened if Russert had not been at the October 30, 2007 debate. They both were there. Silly to pretend that we would have known what would have happened otherwise. But we are nothing if not silly sometimes.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

The latest manifestation of the fascination with the private lives of public figures got me to thinking how bizarre it really is that people seem to think they know or have some type of relationship with public figures, particularly politicians. It is the strangest of conceits among political commentaters and voters because it is, to me at least, so utterly ridiculous.

Ed Kilgore wrote a good piece about this about a week ago, before the latest brouhaha broke out:

The Drug Enforcemnt Administration releases statistics every year on drug seizures. In past years, as I wrote here, up to 98% of the marijuana plants they seized was unusable, non psychotropic "ditchweed."

What's "ditchweed?"

[It's] a term the agency uses to define "wild, scattered marijuana plants [with] no evidence of planting, fertilizing, or tending." Unlike cultivated marijuana, feral hemp contains virtually no detectable levels of THC, the psychoactive component in cannabis, and does not contribute to the black market marijuana trade.

NORML senior policy analyst Paul Armentano has an article today questioning why the DEA, this year, is no longer publishing "ditchweed" stats.

Good question.

I get e-mails and press releases daily from protest groups asking me to "come to Denver" and join them. Here's the platform of one of them (I'll tell you which one at the end):

If you think no government should be allowed to do what the Bush regime has done the past 7 years, come to Denver and join others building a movement to that end.

If you are sickened by your government waging an endless, illegitimate, immoral war and occupation in Iraq, with ominous and immediate threats on Iran, and you demand U.S. aggression in the Middle East stop now, come to Denver and say it loudly!

More...

Ralph Nader says he's "on track" to be on the ballot in 45 states in November and now polls at 5%. I just received an e-mail from his campaign advising he'll be speaking in Toronto tonight to promote the new documentary about him, The Unreasonable Man, and tell Canadians "what's at stake "for them in the election. He lists his positions on issues:

Ralph Nader is the only major candidate for President of the United States standing up to implement Canadian-style universal healthcare, a Dion-style Carbon Tax, and ending the war in Iraq with a full 6-month withdrawal.

Over ten million Americans say they will vote for him, and another 20 million say they would if they thought he had a chance of winning. He's on track to be on the ballot in 45 states, and has a shot at getting in the Google Presidential Debates to be held in New Orleans this September.

With 5% and 10 million votes, he can't win. I wouldn't mind seeing him debate Bob Barr, but he's surplusage when it comes to McCain and Obama. I doubt he'll have the spoiler effect he had on the 2000 elections.

That is CNN's headline. And strictly speaking, it is true. But obviously it is a ridiculously misleading description of the situation. But that does not really matter. As Matt Yglesias writes (btw Matt, who I often disagree with but ALWAYS read, an interesting blogger you must agree, is now at Think Progress), American Media coverage is pretty irrelevant to this situation - something the Georgian President seems not to understand:

Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, perhaps seems to have been confused by the fact that he gets great press in the U.S. and Vladimir Putin gets terrible press. Thus, he made the puzzling decision last week to escalate the “frozen conflict” by launching an attack aimed at retaking South Ossetia. Russia, predictably, is now retaliating with results that look set to be disastrous for Georgia.

Putin could not care less what Fred Hiatt thinks of him. Someone may need to inform the Georgian President of this. As Stalin once asked of the Pope, "how many divisions does Bill Kristol have?"

Speaking for me only

The Russia-Georgia conflict gives John McCain another chance to play "experienced hand" versus Obama's novice. Obama has already chosen his VP and most of us assume it will be Kaine, Bayh or Biden.

If he has chosen Kaine, he will be having second thoughts. These developments should favor Joe Biden, but the school of thought that does not want the "change" meme diluted will be up in arms about it - additionally arguing that it hurts Obama to acknowledge his inexperience.

It will never happen, but Hillary Clinton is an obvious choice here. Why? Because while she projects experience, unity will be seen as the reason for picking her. Obama will not be projecting concern or weakness regarding his inexperience. But Obama simply does not want Clinton on his ticket, no matter how much sense it makes.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

The conflict in South Ossetia between Russia and the Georgian Republic continues to blaze and spread:

Georgian and Russian troops fought fierce battles overnight. . . [I]n a sign that fighting could escalate on a second front in the west of Georgia, Russia issued an ultimatum to Georgian forces to surrender in and around the western pro-Russian separatist enclave of Abkhazia.

How does this relate to Iraq? Let's ask Bill Kristol:

Today, the Vladimir Putins and Hu Jintaos and Mahmoud Ahmadinejads of the world — to say nothing of their junior counterparts in places like Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma and North Korea — are no more likely than were Soviet leaders in 1924 to be swayed by “moral influence.” . . . [I]n one respect, an auspicious year for freedom and democracy. In Iraq, we and our Iraqi allies are on the verge of a strategic victory over the jihadists in what they have called the central front of their struggle. This joint victory has the potential to weaken the jihadist impulse throughout the Middle East. On the other hand, the ability of Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas to get away with murder (literally), and above all the ability of Iran to pursue its nuclear ambitions effectively unchecked, are setbacks for hopes of peace and progress.

Bill Kristol sees a connection between Iraq and Georgia. But not the right one. Our invasion of Iraq has utterly destroyed the United States' moral and REAL influence in the world. Who will listen to us? Who would be insane enough to listen to the Bush Administration on "morality" or anything else for that matter? The Georgian President did and look what is happening to him. More. . . .

The LA Times thinks Obama blew it here. I don't, I agree with him. America is not what it once was and all our children deserve better The question he was asked: Why is he running for President.

Republicans have tarnished this country's image during the past 8 years. America can do better. We have a chance to do better with Democrats back in control of the White House and Congress. Good for Obama. He spoke the truth.

Ralph Reed, pal of Jack Abramoff is holding a fundraising event for John McCain.

“John McCain believes in a strong national defense, a smaller, more accountable government, steady economic growth and opportunity, the dignity of life and traditional values,” wrote Reed, whose 2006 campaign for lieutenant governor sank under the weight of evidence detailing his relationship with Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff — much of it uncovered by McCain’s Indian Affairs Committee.

Giulianni and Ralph Reed were close too. Anyone remember Reed's treatment of women in his recently published novel? Publisher's Weekly described it this way: [More....]