You think McCain is screaming at a staffer about this right now?

Someone should make it a hobby to insert gotchas into Wikipedia. We could get McCain talking about the panda crisis in Tehran if we're good.

2: Someone call Rick Mercer

1: a staffer or possibly his slippers.

This one struck me as who-gives-a-shit? (The excerpts are not that close.) But my political instincts are so out of step with the country that this will probably be one that finally gets traction.

McCain's in traction? I just knew he was in poor health.

Yeah, I don't really give that much of a shit, JP, it's mainly funny to me because it's just so frikkin lazy to copy from a wikipedia page. The serious way to spin this is "wait, McCain was supposed to be the substantive one?" but it's more a cheap laugh.

Eight!

I offer the people a choice: talk about addiction and recovery, or bust on John McCain. The people have spoken, and they're totally lame.

Would have figured the McCain team as a Conservapedia kind of guy

7: You are right, it is good for a chuckle.

||
Now this I really like; Senator Akaka from Hawaii ripping into Cokie Roberts on her "exotic" Hawaii BS.
|>

You think McCain is screaming wheezing at a staffer about this right now?

Seriously, I would love nothing more than to hear him grind out, "one of the things that makes America great, citation needed," in a speech.

9: The people Some commenter named FL on the other thread haves spoken

Actually, folks, we need this to get traction, because otherwise the media take on the domestic politics of this situation is "McCain was right from Day One, whereas Obama and Bush (!) both have shifted to McCain's way of thinking."

This actually needs to become 2008's "invent the internet" or "flip-flop." I want to see the Democratic candidate for County Commissioner in Iowa to say things like, "Does my opponent really think that, or did he just get it from wikipedia?"

This is one of the best gaffes to drop into Dems' laps in years - it's too minor for McCain to really respond (what's he going to do - give a speech explaining that they don't neither steal research from wikipedia?), yet easy to understand, and easy to transfer to any other context. It's also valuable because McCain actually has demonstrated cluelessness (Iraq/Pakistan border, Czechoslovakia), and so it's a (potential) weakspot even without such a juvenile mistake.

"John McCain needs to know the facts before his aides read up on them on wikipedia."

14: See, you're good, JRoth. Maybe start calling him the "Wikiman".

Ideally, it's all surrogates and DNC ads up until the fall, then, the first time McCain fudges something in a debate, Obama unloads the, "Just because you read it on wikipedia, Senator, doesn't make it true."

Dammit, I already registered my objections to this charge on two other blogs, only to find it here as well. Plagiarizing for political speeches is fine, wikipedia is a perfectly good source for the kind of information it was used for here, and the first two aren't the kind of thing you'd need even the most competent President to be aware of without looking them up first.

On the other hand, JRoth's theory on how to use this is sort of persuasive.

It's not the plagiarism really; it's the source that's hilarious.

Right. It's not the plagarism, it's that when an international situation pops up, the McCain campaign is searching wikipedia rather than calling whichever of McCain's advisors is a genuine expert on the area.

Ooh, JRoth has this one.

the McCain campaign is searching wikipedia rather than calling whichever of McCain's advisors is a genuine expert on paid shill for the area

paid shill for the area

Well, that's the funniest part. I think that actually has to be part of the more sophisticated surrogate push-back - "Of course McCain came down hard against Russia from Day One - his top foreign policy advisor is a lobbyist for Georgia, [just like his top campaign manager* was a lobbyist for DHL before they bought out and shut down Airborne Express in Ohio]**. What I can't figure is, why, with Georgia's top US lobbyist on staff, they needed to go to the wikipedia*** for basic background on the place. I guess that's what passes for straight talk these days."

* Or whoever he is

** This tangent for skilled surrogates only - a Carville or Bill Clinton could pull this off; Wesley Clark couldn't (examples only in terms of rhetorical skill/television adeptness)

*** The slightly awkward "the wikipedia" construction does a couple things: innoculates the speaker from seeming too geeky, while subtly imputing to McCain unfamiliarity with the newfangled intertubes

On the other hand, JRoth's theory on how to use this is sort of persuasive.

Ooh, JRoth has this one.

Thanks. OK, now someone send a link to this thread to someone at Obama's media operation/war room.

wikipedia is a perfectly good source for the kind of information it was used for here,

Not if you're trying to establish your foreign policy prowess it ain't.

21:Right. Which puts Lab's snobbery credentialism or calling for authoritative "sources" into question. I know I should listen to Democratic foreign policy experts a,b, and LGM rather than to Republican Foreign Policy experts x, y, & Kagans because we're the good guys and they don't know what they're talking about, but I would rather go to Wikipedia than try to sort thru the bullshit.

Pre-sorted bullshit is better, and more power to McCain. Now to go to Crooked Timber and try to sort thru more FP bullshit.

OK, now someone send a link to this thread to someone at Obama's media operation/war room.

Done.

(OK, I exaggerate slightly, but I did send it to my friend in the Obama campaign. Hi, Eli!)

24:This is what gives the Perles and Ledeens and Kagans whatever power they have.

I am not sure if Dmitri Simes has shown up at Clemons yet. I have my favourites;Bill Kristol has his; some on either side are excessively qualified.

But lets not try to pretend that the experts are necessary or useful to amateurs trying to do anything but confirm their biases.

God this is awful.

Kaplan is pretty sure that Bush and team encouraged Georgia to attack S. Ossetia, and that they did it in the belief that they'd get meaningful American support, even though that would not have been possible and Bush didn't even try.

It seems likely to me that this is going to be pumped up to be part of the McCain campaign. I don't see how McCain can make Obama look bad without dragging himself down by making Bush look worse, but Rove is a magician.

Yeah, Bob, FP experts are so bad that it's better not even to have any.

Yeah, Bob, FP experts are so bad that it's better not even to have any them all.

I am very serious about the democratization of knowledge.

Here's the most recent CT thread on Georgia. Actually, it is about "Territorial Integrity and Self-Determination". It doesn't even approach usefulness without the links & comments. But somebody could take Henry as the only necessary expert on the subject.

Putin has been planning this since Kosovo. In an effort to have more nations in the Coalition, Bush may have promised more than he could deliver to the Georgians. Seems history isn't over yet.

Ok, so maybe you agree:we need ten, twenty, a hundred disagreeing experts to understand something as complicated as the present Georgian crisis. Who can do that? Can Obama or McCain even do that? No, they will pick their own subset of assholes that confirm their biases. In order to gain gravitas, Obama has Samantha Power & a dozen others. Y'all are impressed?

The rest of us can search for consensus. Wikipedia is designed to create and provide the consensus.

I don't even know how coherent a thought this is, but, at this point, I kind of feel like sanctions against Russia have to be on the table. I guess, from what I've read, that Putin wants a puppet state, rather than flat annexation. As of now, I think we have to consider such a result a fait accompli, and not even try to undo it. BUT, I think that we need to say - privately, through diplomatic channels - that an outright annexation, or a de facto annexation (there are puppets and there are puppets), would mean sanctions.

I know Russia has oil, and that Europe is afraid to piss them off, but shit, how does Europe feel about a Russia that has no qualms about re-annexing Georgia, Ukraine, Armenia, and all the 'stans? I'm really not comfortable with the idea that Russia could, under any pretext, go in and take over any of its neighbors (hello, Baltics!) with no consequences whatsoever. I know - blah blah US history blah blah banana republics, but seeing as how I don't like the US being imperialist either, I don't see why I should be happy about imperial Russia.

The reality is that, whatever happens, Ukraine and the rest are now on notice that they remain independent nations at the pleasure of the Putin. Thanks, Bush.

JRoth- I fail to see how any US President could stop the Russians, as you point out. Bush may have tweaked the tail of the bear, but he didn't make it mean and hungry.

What do you mean Bush isn't going to do anything: he's given the Russians at least two stern talking-tos. No could forsee that these measures would be insufficient.

____ is pretty sure that Bush and team encouraged _____ to attack _____, and that they did it in the belief that they'd get meaningful American support, even though that would not have been possible and Bush didn't even try.

boy does this seem familiar....as if there was another major uprising against an oppressive power that was catalyzed by tacit support from a President Bush, who then realized he couldn't follow through...

I'm a big defender of Wiki, but I would hope that a Presidential candidate had better sources of information.

I wish you'd forget the performance art shit.

34.3: Kind of the nature of things for small, weak countries that border big, powerful countries, isn't it? We don't have the power to make Russia leave Georgia alone. All we can do is try to make Russia want to leave Georgia alone, or at least behave in a more lawful way toward the people of Georgia. I'm no Wikipedia, but carrots seem more likely to do that than sticks. Ineffectually waving sticks at Putin just makes him stronger.

34: I don't quite understand where "any pretext" comes from? Didn't the Georgians force the issue here?

Carrots are tasty.

I wish you'd forget the performance art shit.

Fuck off, asshole. I have been watching the FP "experts" of both parties kill the little brown peoples of the world for 45 years, and I am serious and sincere in my disrespect.

but I would hope that a Presidential candidate had better sources of information.

This wasn't a mistake of ignorance, but of judgement. Henry at CT is an expert, and he is vague and "nuanced" as usual, but apparently he wants to "stand up to the Russians" in some way, as a "matter of principle." Of course, Henry is concerned about the freedom-seeking peoples of Eastern Europe. Too bad that is where the battle will take place, as it is taking place this week.

I grew up in the bigtime era of "liberal interventionism." Fuck all mavins and pundits, sages, wise men and experts.

I meant "no one could have forseen" -- with a Condi tone of voice.

Fuck you too, Bob. I don't like the FP people either, but having a Presidential candidate relying on Wiki is a bit scary.

In order to change the game you'd need to have your own foreign policy person who had different ideas.

Matt Y is all righteous tonight about Bush's "bluster"

Let's go back say, a month. How many of the "liberal experts" opposed selling arms to Georgia or helping provide military training, or having an American base there? Did MY post about Georgia, saying pull the bases out, Saakashbili is a jerk?

A lot of what is going on is hindsight and ass-covering.

Matt Y is all righteous tonight about Bush's "bluster"

Let's go back say, a month. How many of the "liberal experts" opposed selling arms to Georgia or helping provide military training, or having an American base there? Did MY post about Georgia, saying pull the bases out, Saakashbili is a jerk?

A lot of what is going on is hindsight and ass-covering.

--

46: No disagreement there. I just thought your Wiki schtick was annoying.

Did MY post about Georgia, saying pull the bases out, Saakashbili is a jerk?

I think there was actually a post questioning the wisdom of some of our actions on the Russian periphery--I seem to remember reference to our military bases; maybe to fly zones---a couple of years ago. It might have been pre-Atlantic.

how does Europe feel about a Russia that has no qualms about re-annexing Georgia, Ukraine, Armenia, and all the 'stans?

Why would Europe be particularly upset about the Russians dealing with people they don't want moving into their neighborhoods? Are the 'stans big markets for BMWs?

A lot of what is going on is hindsight and ass-covering. Absolutely right. The Georgians were total fools for tweaking the bear right now and expecting the US to prevent them getting a bad clawing in return.

48:I just thought your Wiki schtick was annoying.

It is not a schtick, I am quite serious.

I wish Wiki was bigger and better, with more links. But, for instance, because of the consensual nature of the articles, a Wiki article on monetary policy is more likely to point you toward Marxists, Austrians, Minsky, heterodox economists than a Brad DeLong post. Brad DeLong, if you want only one source to give you an unambiguous answer with authority, is favored among a certain crowd. "Brad Delong said it." But BDL ain't the "truth."

There is no comparison. I use blogs for opinion & analysis, knowing that bullshit rules, but I use Wiki for the core "facts"

Ya know, you either buy into the Internet & blogosphere or not, the democratization of knowledge or not. Who do I go to for movie reviews? IMDB comments. How do I find the truth about the Georgia-Russian war? Too fast for Wiki, so check...the blog comment sections.

The word went out today that the Russians had taken Gori.

Somebody on the ground in Gori, in a blog comment, reported that he saw no Russian troops.

The Georgians say they are honouring the cease-fire. I think at the UN this is accepted as a fact. People in Tkinshvili(?) say they are still being shelled.

Do I want President Obama to get his info from a Powers morning briefing or an hour in the Web? I know who I trust.

Cleanup on Aisle 52!

Sorry, had to go eat dinner, so quickly:

I'm going on the theory - backed by circumstantial evidence - that Bush (indirectly) led the Georgians to believe that the US would "have their back" in the event of Russian hostilities. In reality, there's nothing whatsoever we can do in the event of Russian hostilities. So that should have been the message - direct and indirect - from Bush to the Georgians. It's clear that message was not delivered.

In Georgia, the Georgians clearly offered ample pretext. My concern is that, with the Georgian precedent, the Russians won't wait for a legitimate pretext next time (eg, next time there's a stolen vote in Ukraine, the tanks will roll in to ensure that the "rightful victor" will be able to take office).

As for carrots, we have lots of economic carrots - I said "sanctions," but that shouldn't be taken to mean "Iraq-style, child-starving embargo." Think "kicked out of the G-8," or "sanctioned at the WTO." Russia has wanted integration in the international economic structures, but they also want to eschew internationalism when it comes to bullying their neighbors (again, I understand the US is guilty of the same - I wish someone would sanction us). So the "carrot" is continued membership-in-good-standing. So be it.

Ya know, you either buy into the Internet & blogosphere or not, the democratization of knowledge or not.

ROFL :>)

Cleanup on Aisle 52!

I think bob's pretty clean, JRoth. Bearded, perhaps, but clean, I'm given to believe.

What scares me is when a week from now Putin is musing to himself, "well, that was easy." What happens then? I suspect that a similar moment happened in the heads of the American foreign policy elite in 1991, and that this was an important step on the road to our current predicament.

Anyone hear McCain in a speech today call the Russian president "MED-vuh-dev"? No hint of a y sound or even a sort of mushy sound in the middle to make it seem like you're trying, John? It's a hard name, but come on.

"Med-YEH-dev" is about as close as I've been able to get.

the Russians won't wait for a legitimate pretext next time

I think--though maybe there are reasons to believe otherwise--that this is a mistake along the lines of the various dystopian fantasies about Iran. The Russians rolled Georgia in Ossettia. Beyond that, nothing seems clear. And, as we found in Iraq and the Russians found in Afghanistan, it's one thing to win a battle and another to hold the territory. I can't see why Russia would want to chance all the various ills of war absent provocation. The belief that they would, from what little I've read, seems to be premised on the (credible) belief that Putin a cold bastard at the head of authoritarian state. I don't think that's enough to build the next step in the model.

Please pretend 58 follows the rules of English grammar. Thank you.

Oddly enough, I was talking to some Russians last week, and they mentioned something about Medvedev. I couldn't for the life of me figure out who they were talking about.

The combination of 58 and 60 might serve to expand the definition of Hartman's Law (last paragraph, for the laziest among you) to include pronunciation.

The problem is that for some mysterious reason the letter in the Cyrillic alphabet which is pronounced "yo" 100% of the time is transliterated into our language as "e".

We might as well transliterate R as P, or N as H.

54: Okay, I'm with you on deploring, etc. I don't think it's going to do much to alter the current Russian mindset though. They have a long history of seeing boots on the ground as the ultimate reality. I'm not sure they're wrong.

This makes me a bit nervous. George has a macho problem. Vladimir has a macho problem. George might not have an army he can toss into this mess but he still has lots of air power and some "senior analyst" has already mentioned a "no-fly zone".

63: You say poTEMkin, I say puhTYOMkin; let's call the whole thing off.

re: 58

Easier to just refer to him as 'Pooh'.

65: Oh yes, it doesn't help that their letter "E" is also translated as "E". Their letter "Ye" is usually translated as "Ye", but sometimes it's "E" too.

On the general topic of the campaign, stinging comment from JMM:

[The HRC campaign memos show that the charged language was no accident] How do you think McCain's memos read?

Only the deeply naive or the deliberately oblivious -- which regrettably includes the greater number of the people covering the campaign -- don't know the answer to that question.

Following on 68, this is another good line for surrogates - this weekend, the non-Georgia buzz will be on these memos. It's a very simple line to say, "These memos show that the racial codewords people thought they heard in the primary were no accident. What do you think McCain's memos say?" You even get a nice followup referencing the McCain campaign's "shocked! shocked!" response to those who see race in his ads. I understand why people get defensive about accusations of racism, but this is such a close analogue that you'd have to be blind not to recognize it (once it's pointed out). "Of course they deny it! They can't admit it. But once this campaign is over, we'll see the memos, and everyone will admit what, in their hearts, they know."

I know that the Rs will deny, and will say that McCain is more honorable than HRC, blah blah, but it's a losing argument that mostly appeals to dead-enders. MOTR voters already think that McCain has been frivolous in his campaign so far; I don't think it'll take a big push - if applied in the right manner - for them to see it as nefarious as well.

On the other hand consider this:

The goal is not so much to stimulate white racism per se (though that would be a nice bonus) as it is to provoke charges of white racism. In fact, overt charges of white racism aren't even necessary for the strategy to work. All that was required was for Obama to make an indirect allusion to race--his remark that he doesn't look like the Presidents on the currency--in order to trigger McCain's charge that Obama is the one who's "playing the race card."

Yeah, what Labs said. As much as I want people to acknowledge the McCain camp's racially coded messaging, any talk of racism is probably a loser for Obama or his surrogates. It'll have to be the press -- Joe Klein and others who are turning on the wrinkly guy -- who do the heavy lifting on this one. Which means that not much will get done. Oh well. That's the price of doing business in a majority-white, racist nation. After Obama wins, he'll purge the crackers.

I wonder if Obama just said something like "I apologize for being more popular than my opponent," if that would put the McCain videos in the exactly right ridiculous light.

72 might just work.

70: Yeah, I think Obama's got to just grin and bear it. And so, for the most part, do his supporters. Fortunately, McCain is still older than the idea of elections, and he really is a neocon. If the media weren't committed to making this a horse race, this thing would be over already. I still think Obama wins it.

Speaking of FP advisors, which we weren't recently, can somebody get BHO to send Zbig off back to the old FPA's home. Diagnose terminal Godwinitis or something?

72: Yes, some kind of zinger. Have people seen the latest? Voiced (but not very prominently) are the words "hot chicks dig Obama". FL is right that they need to stay the fuck away from the racial dog-whistle side of it and puncture it for its vapidity in some way. They are trying the "attack the strength" tactic in the sense that Obama's popularity is one of his strengths ( D'oh! and what else can you do when no one wants to come hear your guy) and I am sure they want to at least keep this running until the convention where they will tie it into the stadium speech. But at some level everyone knows this is all malarkey and all but the 25% dead-enders will admit. If Obama can come up with a quick deflating zinger, they can use it for mocking the desperate inanity of McCain for the rest of the campaign.

This "celebrity" line must be polling well for McCain right now, but am not sure it has legs.

JPS - not sure that link goes where you intended it to (though it's interesting.)

"I apologize for being more popular than my opponent,"

"You're popular enough, John."

77: You're right I grabbed the one for the post below. Here is the one to the ad.

--

79: Wow.

But count me with Tim, ari and labs. Being offended isn't a winning political strategy.

If Obama is going to counter-attack (which I think he should, eventually), his counterattacks should be designed to get McCain whining about, say, Obama portraying him as a confused old man.

--

Thank goodness the ubiquitous misspellings stop me before I get far enough in to understand the trolly intent.

68: To be fair, we still haven't seen the Obama memos that discuss 16th century political tracts.

Only the deeply naive or the deliberately oblivious -- which regrettably includes the greater number of the people covering the campaign

The information divide, between those—of us—who keep up with this without much effort, and those who can't/won't see it is vast right now. I've had surreal conversations with family and friends lately.

Obama's new celebrity ad. Not bad.

83: I'm not sure if the persistence or the inanity is more impressive.

Jesus Freaking Reversed Image in a Mirror, the WaPo hits rock bottom with a "get this presidential candidate of my lawn" article that is worthy of the Onion. Entitled "In a Changing Corner of Pa., a Glimpse of Obama's Age Problem".

"Kids today have been given everything they want, and don't have to work for it. They have no respect for authority," said Rutherford, standing at the bar at the Elks lodge here. "They'll make remarks right to the face of the [mall] cops. I get to the point where I want to do something," he said, cocking a fist as if to threaten a punch. "But the police say we can't, that we just have to stand there." It makes him worry for the country. "I see it going the Roman way."

I just thought "And what changing corner would that be? Lancaster, where there is a terrifying influx of Latinos? Or Reading, where there is a terrifying influx of Latinos? Or Hazleton, where the terror of Latinos led to unconstitutional laws and made the national news? Probably Lancaster, no reporter wants to travel to Reading and they've all forgotten about Hazleton."

88: And in fact I just now noticed that just below the article I am prompted with:

From Our Partner the ONION
Nation's Poorest 1% Now Controls Two-Thirds Of U.S. Soda Can Wealth
Obama, Clinton, McCain Join Forces To Form Nightmare Ticket
Desperate Hillary To Obama: 'Next Vote Wins'
More Stories From The Onion

WaPo webmarketing algorithm pwns WaPo writers, Film at 11.

89: yeah, Lancaster.

For Apo.

""I see it going the Roman Appian [W]ay."

Guy's gotta little too much lead in his viaduct.

Spammers busting through the brilliant W-lfs-n defenses! Oh no! I am terribly disillusioned.

I want to say - thank you for this