The New Yorker controversy has past its half-life. So what’s the verdict?

Has the jarring image amplified the smears it intended to satirize? Has it helped the Rovian forces win a news cycle?  Has it reinforced the doubts of skittish swing voters?

I don’t think so.

I understand why people are having a strong reaction to the New Yorker cover. The image is, indeed, at first glance, hateful. Hateful and shocking.

Which is exactly the point.

Showing that he does indeed understand the awesome power of the internet, Senator McCain has invited his fervent online supporters to create their very own McCain campaign posters.

I just watched Obama foreign policy advisor Susan Rice hammer McCain on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. Yesterday, of course, McCain gaffed himself on the Today Show, saying "it’s not that important" when troops can come home from Iraq.  Rice related the blunder to McCain’s pattern of confused mistakes on Iraq and endorsed Wes Clark’s statement yesterday that McCain is, contrary to his reputation, "untested and untried" on national security.

I felt like a Red Sox fan must have felt in 2004. For years, I’ve watched democratic operatives get drubbed on these shows. Here was a strong performance that  cut against the grain of conventional wisdom in a strategic, successful way. Scarborough ate it up and defended Rice when his fembot sidekick wondered if the attack was consistent with Obama’s "new politics" and nice guy image.

On this day of sweeping post-mortems, I want to discuss a minor but mystifying element of the campaign that may soon be forgotten:  the penchant of Clinton staffers to imitate comic book villains. Penn, Wolfson, Ickes, "anonymous Clinton strategist" -- they seemed all too willing to announce, in advance, tactics sure to strike any decent Democrat as immoral and any thinking one as futile.  

Do you remember that scene from Austin Powers?

How will conservatives respond to Obama’s groundbreaking speech on race?  A column this morning by Michael Gerson shows how easily those who profit from division can refuse the invitation to embrace reconciliation.

Gerson, the master word smith who coined the phrase "axis of evil," calls Obama’s speech "one of the finest political performances under pressure since John F. Kennedy at the Greater Houston Ministerial Association."  

Notice the way this seemingly generous praise excuses the reader from having to think about what Obama actually said. For Gerson, Obama’s speech is not an authentic rethinking of race in America. It is just a new version of the familiar Kennedy speech, a tactic executed by an ethnic candidate "under pressure."

The stakes seem so high in this election because of the competition between political paradigms and styles.

Obama puts forward a new, inclusive paradigm, featuring a synthesis of online organizing and the traditional, Saul Alinsky kind. Hillary’s style, in contrast, seems to be a Frankenstein-like synthesis of Clintonian triangulation and Rovian deception.  Obama's style is deliberate, self-conscious and inspiring. Hillary's is reactive, unprogressive and, alas, clearly still formidable.

When I woke up this morning to the headlines, I feared the triumph of the Morris/Penn/Rove style.  

The Outlook opinion section of the Washington Post this morning features the headline "Women vs. Women" above side-by-side columns.  Given that polls show women split more-or-less evenly between the Democratic candidates, this struck me as a reasonable topic for the standard pro/con Sunday op-ed formula.

Fortunately, the Post has done something far more illuminating (and, alas, more traditional) than giving feminist supporters of Hillary and Barack an opportunity to air their views.  Turns out, "Women vs. Women" refers to the way both columnists attack their own gender, presumably with the nodding approval of male Outlook Page editor John Pomfret and his boss Fred Hiatt.

Join me below the jump for a look at these self-hating sexist screeds and for an alternate explanation of how gender is playing out in the 08 race.

The lead editorial in Sunday’s Washington Post is called The Obama Enigma.  Echoing a column by David Ignatius last week called The Obama Mystery, the editorial complains that Obama has failed in his duty to label himself  according to the conventions of our current politics.

When the Illinois Democrat talks about bringing together red and blue America, does he mean that he will persuade the red (Republican) part to come around to blue (Democratic) policies -- or does he mean that he will forge a new, centrist answer that will bridge the red-blue divide? Is he a liberal at heart who tacks occasionally to the center or more of a centrist capable of suppressing leftist instincts when political circumstances demand?

Here we see Fred Hiatt and the rest of the Post’s editorial board – the high priests of acceptable DC opinion, the wise men who endorsed Clinton’s impeachment and Bush’s war – working hard to assimilate new information.

Join me after the jump for a look at how their musings can help us understand Obama’s politics from a more progressive point of view.

Today on TPM, Greg Sargent reported that Obama’s advisers held a conference call this morning and said "we’re close to wrapping this up."

At first I thought this was a tactical mistake. Yes, Obama had a good night on the Potomac, but campaigns should always manage expectations. Never guarantee victory when the winds of fortune can change. I recalled the wise, droning voice of Tom Brokaw on MSNBC last night, saying "Never count the Clintons out."

Then I did the math.  

Doug Kendall, over at Huffington Post, has focused like a laser on the danger facing our party.

Analyzing a news article that shows that neither candidate has any hope of securing the nomination via pledged delegates alone, Kendall writes:

Last cycle, I worked in Iowa for four months as a field organizer for Howard Dean. This year, I support Obama. Given what I learned in 2004, I’ll be shocked if Obama wins the caucuses this evening. Many of the Iowans telling pollsters they’re for Obama will either not show or change their minds at the last minute.

Iowans – even Iowa Democrats – are fundamentally conservative. They like what feels safe, what affirms their own identity, what won’t embarrass them when they pick a corner of the middle school gym to stand in with their neighbors. When it comes down to it, a cerebral black man from Hawaii via Indonesia wont "feel right" for some reason they can’t put their finger on.  

"I like that Obama," many Iowans will say.  "But I’m just more comfortable with Edwards. His wife is so nice.  John’s fighting for people like us!"

Here are a few things about Iowa that you won’t hear in the news reports and punditry.

DC Vote is hosting a national call-in day to help the DC Voting Rights Act overcome a filibuster.

Just call 1-866-346-3008 and you will be patched through to your Senators.

DC Vote is working with Common Cause, People for the American Way, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, DC for Democracy and dozens of other groups to generate a wave of calls.

This is critical. 57 Senators have committed to supporting cloture. Seven more at least are persuadable. Yesterday, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton urged Reid to bring the DC Voting Rights Act to the floor before the August recess

The DC Voting Rights Act will provide a voting member of Congress to 600,000 residents of DC for the first time ever. Let's seize this opportunity for a progressive victory!

Kerry won Vermont with 59% of the vote, so the House seat vacated by Bernie Sanders should be an easy pick up, right?

Well, probably, but the Progressive Party in Vermont has some support and has fielded spoiler candidates in the past. Anthony Polina took 24% in the race for Lt Governor in 2002, handing the election to a Republican who won with 41%.

The best thing Democrats can do is unite behind a strong candidate early. State Senator Matt Dunne does not have much name recognition yet, but he's clearly a rising star in the party who can hold this seat for Democrats for a long time to come.

One of the most interesting primary races this season will play out this Tuesday in Oklahoma.  Kalyn Free is taking on an establishment candidate about 2 clicks right of the DLC - Dan Boren, the 31 year old son of former governor David Boren.

Free has strong progressive positions on labor and education and an admirable biography.  A native American (the district has one of the largest Native American populations in the country), Free put herself through college and law school before becoming, at 23, the youngest lawyer ever hired by the Justice Department.  She made her reputation prosecuting crimes against women and children. She's an Emily's List featured candidate, a Dean Dozen candidate, and a 21st Century Democrats "Ten for Tomorrow" candidate.  

I was just listening to Billy Kristol on Marvin Olney's To The Point show.

The pugnacious warmonger sounded downright deflated.  He hammered Rumsfeld for inadequate troop strength in Iraq and complained about a "vacuum" of presidential leadership.  

Olney asked, Then why are you voting for him?

Kristol said, I wonder that myself sometimes.

Poor boy.  His war isn't going well so now he's got turn on fearless leader to save face.

An eyewitness  account  appears amid the smug punditry at Slate:

The fighting was still going on. Iraqis on the road told him it was too dangerous to go forward, that the Americans were targeting every vehicle, any kind of car. The explosions were continuous. He came across a man in a car with his family. The man asked him to take his family--five women and a multitude of small children--to relatives in Gurma. The women did not want to leave their father. They were crying, "We want to stay with you, we would rather die together." For half an hour this conversation continued, and then the father left them, promising to follow in a couple of hours. He walked back to his own car. Before he got to the car he was shot in the head.

This is what the warbloggers mean when they say "get tough" with the Iraqis.

The AP reported  today that one of the contractors killed in Fallujah starred in "Combat Missions," a reality show that pitted special forces vets in tests of skill.

It always seemed to me that reality shows thrived precisely because Americans were having a problem with reality, a sort of reality deficit.  Before 9/11, it was hard to say what really mattered;  afterwards, denial became necessary.

I don't want to get into the debate about whether we should mourn for these guys.  But what does it mean when a tv merc is burned to death in a war with fictional premises?