"Reason becomes unreason, abundance torment"
Goethe, Faust, Part I, Scene 4

It is only reasonable to look for a new approach when the old one was failing.  And looking for new approaches the Clinton campaign did. It is only welcome when a politician shows an abundance of principle and resolve. And Hillary showed a wealth of toughness and spine, indeed.

Which they took then to the Faustian level, only to end up as a hotbed of unreason and as the torment of the Democratic primary season.

They were taken over and eaten up by the same "the ends justify the means"-mentality that has brought to you the Paul Weyrichs, Ralph Reids, Rush Limbaughs, Bill O'Reillys, Tom DeLays, Karl Roves, George W. Bushs und - ultimately - Dick Cheneys.

Which is why praising her efforts and making a legend of her candidacy in the end is a disservice to your nation. It lends credibility to, and makes a role-model of, a tactic that has so badly undermined political and public life. This is why I dare ask those of you, who still admire the toughness and defiance of her and her campaign, for some self-reflections below the fold...   (and forgiveness for my harsh introductory words right on the spot)

Frank Rich's column in the NYT may well have been a deadly blow to the Clinton campaign. Because here it is, out in the open:

Hillary Clinton's campaign proves the point of her opponent: Experience is nothing without judgement. Experience is worth nothing, when it stems from an era that's coming to an end.

She claimed she was ready on day one. But her campaign proves, that she was not ready for a primary challenge, she saw coming for over a year. She claims, that actions talks louder than words. But her campaign did not take the right actions and can offer no solutions to her.

They got it wrong. And they did it themselves.

More below the fold...

Negative campaigning needs to accomplish two things:

• The negative must to stick with the candidate
• The voter must have a positive feeling after not buying into/breaking with the candidate

The second point is basically the reason, why the first point is so important: If the negative doesn't stick with the personality of the candidate, but spills out to the voters - well, it's not a good idea to insult the people, you want to actually reach.

That's why going negative on Dean or even Kerry did work. And why going negative on Obama just might not. Even if (or should I say "when") Republicans will join the fray in earnest.

More below the fold...

Now that the "plagiarism" thing has officially been booed off stage, and the "just words" meme just won't stick, we'll probably see the "lack of experience" meme be beaten to death over the course of the next months.

Just to spare that poor line such a prolonged and cruel fate, let's just finish it off swiftly and gracefully:

Experience doesn't matter. It's the judgment that makes good or bad decisions.

Experience without Judgement is failure bound to happen.

Donald Rumsfeld was an experienced Secretary of Defense. That didn't keep him from totally bungling his mission. Alberto Gonzales was an experienced attorny (ok, just let's assume for the moment). That didn't keep him from failing the American people. Hillary Clinton is an experienced politician. That didn't keep her from making bad decisions. [...complete this list in the comments].

So if someone yells "EXPERIENCE!" just counter with "Judgement?!"

This is an appeal to all Kossacks who will never ever vote for candidate X, should he or she make the nomination:

Please consider adopting a European. Please vote for a Democrat on our behalf. Even if you, personally, could never ever persuade yourself to vote for him or her (whose name you will never ever utter again...). Yes, please.

See - we were biting our nails in 2004, only to wake up to the unbelievable yet unescapable truth that American voters actually had managed to vote for George W. Bush again. Please - just don't make us wake up again in November, having to realize that you just did it again...

So, have your flame wars. Get mad at each other. Write your GBCW diary. Promise to stay at home in November.

But, please, please, vote for the Democratic contender in November. If not for yourself then on behalf of one of us. Thank you.

Behind the NYT subscription firewall, Nicholas D. Kristof in his column The Big Melt does a good job in framing the bogus 'controversy' about Gobal Warming with:

If we learned that Al Qaeda was secretly developing a new terrorist technique that could disrupt water supplies around the globe, force tens of millions from their homes and potentially endanger our entire planet, we would be aroused into a frenzy and deploy every possible asset to neutralize the threat.

and

Critics scoff that the scientific debate is continuing, that the consequences are uncertain — and they’re right. There is natural variability and lots of uncertainty, especially about the magnitude and timing of climate change.

In the same way, terror experts aren’t sure about the magnitude and timing of Al Qaeda’s next strike. But it would be myopic to shrug that because there’s uncertainty about the risks, we shouldn’t act vigorously to confront them — yet that’s our national policy toward climate change, and it’s a disgrace.

Just to give you a heads-up on a nice way of framing. Nothing more to see here.

Dial +49 89 3791 4058  and you'll be connected to a microphone on the Vernagt Glacier in the Austrian Alps, where you can listen to the sound of the melting glacier. This is part of the art installation call me! of sound artist Kalle Laar. Depending on the weather, you could hear a dribble on chilly days, the mumbling of a small creek on warmer days and the rush of a river on hot summer days. Right now, it sounds like a river.

It's like checking back to a sick friend and getting an update on his condition ... "uh oh, it's sounding even stronger now".

Which you might find an interesting way of communicating the abstract and scientific concept of Global Warming on an emotional level. At least the scientist there do.  More below the fold...

Why is it so hard to end this war? Is it, because it is a source of profits for so many people? Or, at least, a few but influential ones?

Four years after the start of the war, all those pleas for "staying the course", "more patience" or even "avoiding disaster" leave an increasingly bad taste in the mouth. What if those simply were code words for "don't stop our war, don't touch our profits" - presented as either as a noble cause or a thinly veiled threat?

We wonder, why it is so hard to end the war. But have we ever asked, what the incentives were to those who have the power to end it? It turns out, there are none. Not only do neither the industry nor the administration bear any real burden - they actually profit from a steady and prolonged level of war. The market is a powerful, if morally blind, force.

So -  what could actually serve as an incentive to end a war quickly under the reality of a market economy?

Sorry for this short diary.

But if you follow that link to a research document of ING wholsale bank called Attacking Iran - The market impact of a surprise Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities (Warning: Big .pdf-document) you may find a good primer into a non-political take on the issue.

Which basically is (see below the fold):

If you were to write the speech for George W. Bush, in which he probably will want to sell "The Surge" to the nation - how would you try to hide the fact, that doing now what might have worked three years ago, does not mean it will work now?

You probably would need to imply, that somehow we can go back to square one to start over again. And that a discussion about why more troops are needed now, not from the beginning, just was sour grapes. But you should try to get into this discussion, because having your opponents ask why it hadn't been done before, somehow implies that it would have worked - and that it will work now. So you could actually trick your opponent into strengthening your message.

How could you counter that approach? You would need to make absolutely clear, that the situation in Iraq has changed so much, that even if more troops had worked in 2003, they probably won't make a difference in 2007. You would need a tangible metaphor.

How about: You cannot save a broken sculpture by sending more masons and more chisels.

This story is already old news (but the only recent in English I found):

http://service.spiegel.de/...

It appears, that one of the suspects has been snatched, and a second attempt of a terrorist attack has been foiled by good ol' police work (and - admittedly - a real measure of luck. The first bombs didn't detonate, and then the suspect was identified by a shop owner at Kiel main station).

So far, no panic here, but the general feeling, that it's all about efficient police work, without throwing freedom and liberty out of the window.

No - not Government. Terrorism!

I was thinking for a while now, how to counter that "War on Terror" catch-phrase. Make no mistake. It's a powerful one. It's probably the most powerful tool of deception left to this administration.

It still resonates deeply with very positive emotions of heroism, dedication, protecting your loved ones, service for your country, helping others and general sacrifice for the greater good .

But - could "Starve the Beast" actually work to counter that?

Q: Why did you vote against increasing minimum wages?

A: I voted against the estate tax cuts.

Q: But you voted against increasing the minimum wage!

A: No, I voted against cutting the estate tax.