Yesterday's Washington Post contained an important op-ed by Zbigniew Brzezinski and William Odom entitled "A sensible policy on Iran" that I think sheds important light upon the difference between realism as a description for a simplistic singleminded pursuit of percieved self interest and true realism or as perhaps it should be termed given the corruption of the original term realism "scholastic realism."  What I mean by this is that a truly realist foreign policy would start with a realitic and complete assesment of one's adversary or percieved adversary in order to determine what outcomes are achievable and what policies are most wise.  Here is a link to the piece I refer to.  
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Realistic romance, please....

This is my first posted diary. So please be generous:

Consistently both the mainstream press and even left leaning blogs have let Camp Clinton frame the narrative, which states count, which win margins count, and all that. Folks here on Dailykos (elsewhere on Huffpost, etc.) have seen through this framing, but headlines should be reading "Despite victory in PA. Clinton cannot win." Instead the press is largely complicit in imagining a scenario in which Clinton could somehow take the election and I've heard a lot of buzz about how Clinton needs to win Indiana.

Or how she can stay in the race if she can only win Indiana.

Or how Indiana is her last hope.

But little mention of North Carolina, where Obama is the presumed favorite.

(Also posted at my own blog, Nothing New Under The Sun)

A while ago, looking in my old Merriam-Webster dictionary for something, I stumbled over the word "spoilsman" - something which I don't recall ever hearing used, in political blogging, during all these years. It's a curious thing that this concept has gone from modern political discourse, and that the rediscovery of the thing itself - "OMG! Look at all these fiscal connections to various industry! Look at these paybacks! How the hell do they get away with this!" has come as such a shock. But that loss does explain a great deal how corporatism has been allowed to creep in and control politics unchecked for so long, before and since Nixon took undisclosed donations from Democrat tycoons in exchange for promises to make sure the EPA was toothless...

So how does this affect today's landscape? (Call me cynical if you like, but prove me wrong.)

**I will try my best not to disclose the candidate I support, but feel free to guess**

By these two qualities I distinguish Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton.
 Hillary Clinton, bludgeoned by the world of politics, has become the most realistic of the candidates in the field, on either side.  Possibly the most realistic top tier candidate on the GOP side was Romney, though possibly Giuliani (excepting of course his idealistic view of FL).
 Barack Obama is the epitome of idealism.  His message of unity, change, and hope is a very appealing to everyone on both sides of the proverbial aisle.  His counterpart on the GOP side is Huckabee, with McCain and Paul also very similar.
 Edwards was also running as an idealist, but with more practical roots.  He is probably the counterpart to McCain.

There is no operational connection between polls and legislative power.

This is an attempt to unmask the paucity of thought implied in political "realism" as typically portrayed on DKos and elsewhere.  It concludes with a plea for "unrealism" in politics.  Realism has punted in Iraq, civil rights, health insurance, and education; can we expect it to do any better with climate change?

(crossposted at Docudharma)

Dear Kossacks,

Progressives are constantly being told that we "have to be realistic." In other words, we are told that we have to conform to other peoples ideas about what kind of change is possible.

We don't believe that the conservative forces in society should tell us what kind of change is possible. These forces have always told us that certain kinds of change were impossible, then after we fought for change, they told us that the changes were inevitable anyway. Look at the civil rights movement. Or the woman's movement. Or the antiwar movement. The list goes on and on.

Join us in not being realistic.

Are there limits to our greed?

This year the Democratic Party is faced with an embarrassment of riches in our Presidential field.  At no time that I can remember have we had a choice between three leading Democrats who both jointly and severally have represented the best of what the Democratic Party is about.

But at a time when we should all be grateful for what we have, too many people are not satisfied.  Like the wealthy miser who only sees the imperfection and not the jewel they look on what they have and think only about  having more -- more candidates, more perfection, more control.

more commentary -->

Chavez has just visited Haiti and was embraced by crowds, in many places where it's too dangerous for a Yankee to tread--now there's how people great a real liberator.  Why is it Chavez's regime--and Castro--are so bad and yet Haitian people love them in a way we would not see?

Government is the problem. Why? Because it is. Capitalism is the solution. Why? Because it is.

These are absolute truths.

If somebody suggests using the government to solve a problem, here is the answer: That's socialism. And socialism is evil.

If someone suggests regulating a market, here is the answer: That's impeding capitalism. Capitalism is good. It should not be impeded.

A message to my friends and colleagues (and you are both) who argue for things such as (1) that we should impeach Bush now, (2) that we should defund the Iraq war now, (3) that we should refuse to support nominated Dems who are so conservative that they will compromise with Republicans, etc.

Bad things will happen in the future.  Plenty more may die in Iraq.  We may bomb Iran and kill millions.  We may never take a step towards solving global warming.  Bush may try to declare martial law due to a flu pandemic.  He may try to cancel the 2008 election.  Democrats may roll over and fail to stop Republicans from enacting truly atrocious policies.  Democrats may often be too cozy with monied interests.  Even if some of this doesn't happen, things comparably bad to most of it inevitably will.

I've taken a radical view at times and I've taken some solace from the notion that when bad things happened I would at least be able to look back and say that I was right.

No, when any of that happens, you will not get to tell the rest of us that you were right.

This diary is about why, if that is part of what you imagine about politics, you should give it up.

(more)

God, they never let go. Gideon Rachman, the FT's hardline euroskeptic conservative is at it today:

The world may regret the end of the neo-con era

The neo-cons were reacting against what they regarded as the amorality of a Kissinger and the weakness of a Carter or a Clinton. They were right to point out that detente was too ready to write off the liberation movements of eastern Europe. And they were right that the west was too slow to intervene militarily in the Balkans in the 1990s. (...) They led to a dangerous over-confidence in the efficacy of military force and the speed with which a democratic system could emerge to replace totalitarianism.

(...) The militaristic and unilateralist elements of neo-conservatism clearly need rethinking. Americans also need to think harder about the social and historical underpinnings that make democracies work. The danger is that the backlash against neo-conservatism could lead in the wrong direction - and take America back into isolationism or a cynical abandonment of the promotion of democracy. If that were the case, the rest of the world may end up regretting the demise of neo-conservatism.

Cross-posted at Political Moneyball

Speaking before the American Legion's meeting in Salt Lake City yesterday, President Bush again trumpeted his plan for the Middle East as both necessary and in America's best interest. In what was - in my opinion - a darn good speech, the president invoked Thomas Jefferson, alluded to the tyranny America successfully fought in WWII and the Cold War, and uttered the word "victory" 14 times. Despite the compelling argument and plainspoken prose - no extended metaphors or flowery imagery here - the president once again failed to grasp the reality of the situation. The speech, in short, was more of the same: Stay the course, Fight them over there, Unified Islamic worldview, etc. It was a speech we've all heard before.
If you follow me over the fold, I'll explain why Bush's idealism is hurting the left.

Israel has failed in its mission to destroy Hezbollah in Lebanon. So, what should the United States and Israel do now?

The United States and Israel need to embrace reality, cease operations in Lebanon, and halt the planned war with Iran.

MORE below.

Digby predicted it. Greenwald nailed it. Buckley is blubbering over it. The great walkback is hotly underway to repudiate the disastrous George W. Bush as a conservative and hang him out to dry among the "Trotskyites" and other librul scum.

Politically, Bush is a radioactively hot potato that movement conservatives are trying to toss away and everyone else is trying not to catch. The left-right dichotomy is the game that both sides are playing politically, but it isn't the only dichotomy at play. In fact, a different and little-mentioned dynamic is far more useful for making sense of this administration, and even for predicting many of its actions.

This is my first diary here in a long time - I've been writing over at Street Prophets, and this is cross-posted there.

But I figured you guys would be interested in seeing it, maybe.

Tinfoil hats on, folks - and also, keep your hands and feet inside the car at all times - some of these animals like the way you taste.

Charles Krauthammer, for the second week in a row, has turned his dripping venom against another Republican. This time, he has turned his fangs against former Bush I National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft.

Krauthammer knows very well that the GOP is in tatters from the recent run of bad news. So, he is now on a self-righteous crusade to restore order by whipping reluctant Republicans back in line with the same kind of venom that right-wingers so often use on Democrats.