Night Light

Sorority of Horror: Dispatches from the Islamo-Fascism Front

By Allah!  You will confront the unbelievers and ... make frowny faces!

Today is Day 3 of "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week" Awareness Week.  There is much to report, including the recruitment of former Senator Rick Santorum into the ranks of anti-Muslim fighters. (Those who consider Santorum an intellectual lightweight in this area would do well to read his highly-respected treatise, "The Sexual Exploitation of Canines in the Muslim World.")

But our real headline comes from Wellsley College, the Massachusetts women's school that has become a front in the Clash of Civilizations.

Ex-Muslim author Nonie Darwish was not heckled, attacked, or confronted when she spoke there recently. Oh, no. The Jihadis are too smart for that. Instead, as Phyllis Chesler informs us, Muslim girls "rolled their eyes" - and several of them took "bathroom breaks."   

O, believers!  Your determination will turn the Ladies' Room into a citadel of freedom!

"They have perfected their intimidation and disruption techniques," says Darwish - techniques Chesler calls "mean girl" tactics. No. I'm not kidding. Read it for yourself. And lest you think that Phyllis Chesler's bigoted, she also informs us that Darwish is "dramatically thrilling (as so many Arabs can be)."

Also, this just in: Negroes sure can dance. 

But, you ask, where did these young women learn these bone-chilling techniques?

"They are Hamas-trained," says Darwish.

Laugh if you like, liberal appeasers, but the truth is finally out: Not only has Hamas infiltrated Wellsley, but Jihadists have seized all those Western institutions once know as "girls' schools." The Mahdi Army has Vassar. Hezbollah's got Sarah Lawrence. And Fatah, which has been on a run of bad luck lately, was left with the Western College for Women.

"Mean girls." How fiendishly clever! What could strike more fear into the heart of an unbeliever than the sight of young women in hijab acting like Lindsay Lohan? We'll do anything you want, Arab extremists! Just don't let them drive!

That's not all that's new with our freedom fighters on the Islamo-Fascist front.  Yesterday Mona Charen dismissed a peace letter to the Pope from 138 Muslim clerics. She says it wasn't good enough because they didn't protest terrorists and extremists by name, criticize Ahmadinejad, or affirm the right of non-Muslims to live in peace and dignity. If they had, Ms. Charen says sarcastically, that would have been "historic."

Oh, sure.  She could tell you all of those things have already been done - repeatedly - by Muslim leaders.  She could point you to this comprehensive list of Muslim fatwas and statements against terrorism, or let you know about the European Muslims who challenged Ahmadinajad over the Holocaust - but that would only encourage the  Wellsley hordes.  Mona knows better than that.

Don't combat terror with better intelligence, diplomacy, and police work.  Don't support moderate Muslims working to emancipate oppressed women in cultures where Islam is the dominant religion. Alienate them - or better yet, pretend they don't exist.

Experts who endorse building Muslim alliances and improving our intel capability obviously don't know what Phyllis Chesler does: The real threat is lurking in Ivy League women's dorms. The enemy's new tools are pouting, whispering, making faces, and going to the bathroom. Don't you know what that means? Terrorist tactics are now indistinguishable from the way teenaged girls and sorority sisters have behaved since time immemorial.

That's how clever these fiends are.

Are you still doubtful?  You won't be for long.  Rick Santorum explains it all in his new book, "God and Man on Dog at Yale." 

___________________

(via Whiskey Fire, who uses a line from my favorite Guided by Voices song as a title, and Atrios)

Hitchens' Weak Defense of "Islamo-Fascism"

Christopher Hitchens attempts to defend the term "Islamo-Fascism" in Slate today and falls far short of his goal. The term is, in fact, incorrect and counter-productive. Fascism, by commonly accepted definition, incorporates extreme statism, nationalism, and corporatism.

Fascism is a state-based phenomenon. Those who talk of "Islamo-Fascism" are encouraging a climate that fosters state-to-state warfare, although police and intelligence work will counter terrorism more effectively. But then, that's probably the point. Iraq II, anyone?

What's more, words matter - both for their inherent meaning and for their intended impact. Misusing a word for propaganda purposes should be antithetical to a society that values free and honest debate.

Let's conduct a quick analysis of the Hitchens argument.  He makes the following points:

1. That the conflation of "fascism" with religion began on the Left with its critiques of the Catholic Church's political role in countries like Spain, Croatia, and Slovakia.

True, but irrelevant. The political activities of some Catholic leaders in these countries more accurately reflected the accepted definition of fascism. The movements they supported were strongly nationalistic, emphasized centralized state control (as opposed to clerical control), and were strongly allied with corporate interests.

Hitchens also throws in the red herring that Muslims are not being treated differently from other religions in that those other faiths are also sometimes labelled "Fascist. " That may or may not be true, but it doesn't help answer the question at hand.

2. That Fascist movements and Islamic extremism both involve a "cult of murderous violence that exalts death and destruction and despises the life of the mind."

Probably true, and hateful, but still irrelevant. Birds, meteors, and F-16s all fly. Viruses, cluster bombs, and fatty foods are all bad for your health. That does not make them the same thing.

3.  That both fascism and Islamic extremism are "hostile to modernity."

This generality is demonstrably false.  Fascism has, in fact, been very pro-modernity at various times. Certainly the erudite Mr. Hitchens is familiar with Futurism, the Italian art movement that was closely allied with the Italian Fascist movement. Consider the following quote, from the 1910 Manifesto of Futurist Painters:

"We will fight with all our might the fanatical, senseless and snobbish religion of the past ... against everything which is filthy and worm-ridden and corroded by time. We consider the habitual contempt for everything which is young, new and burning with life to be unjust and even criminal."

Islamic radicals are clearly "hostile to modernity" in some ways.  Fascists?  Not necessarily.

4. "Both (movements) are chronically infected with the toxin of anti-Jewish paranoia ... leader worship ... the power of one great book ... sexual repression ... art and literature as symptoms of degeneracy and decadence."

True, and interesting.  But see "birds, meteors, and F-16s" above.  Both movements are clearly authoritarian, and their followers probably share many psychological characteristics. But words have specific meanings, and Hitchens knows that better than most. "Authoritarian Islamist" is a defensible phrase. But these qualities are not the defining characteristics of fascism. That word is being conjoined with "Islam" not to educate, or enlighten, but to inflame.

5.  "Both (movements) burn books and destroy museums and treasures."

Often incorrect.  Both Italian and German fascism built museums and protected (or stole) great works of art. Both movements share with Islamic extremism a great contempt for what they considered "decadent" art. But, again, while that tendency is totalitarian, it is not specifically statist or corporatist - both defining elements of fascism.

Hitchens goes on to gloss over the fact that Islamic extremism fails to meet the definition of fascism with this phrase: "There isn't a perfect congruence." That's putting it mildly. He offers no foundation for moving from this imperfect "congruence" to suggesting that it's "permissible ... to mention the two phenomena in the same breath and suggest they constitute comparable threats to civilization ..."

It's "permissible" to say anything in a democratic society. But ignoring the established definition of a word in order to coin an inflammatory neologism? Permissible, perhaps, but hardly defensible. Misusing terms for propaganda purposes does violence to reason and to informed debate -- precisely the qualities that should distinguish us from fascists and religious extremists, even if those two groups are not one and the same.

Bin Laden and the Neocons Do a Mirror Dance (While Most Muslims Stay Invisible)

                                        

In one of those strange moments of symmetry that have marked their respective histories, Osama Bin Laden and the neocons are both kicking off the week with a renewed dedication to their shared cause: a worldwide war between the Western powers and all of Islam. No surprise, really. It's in their mutual interest to make sure the rest of the world's Muslims stay invisible.

Bin Laden's just released a new video - man, this guy kicks out more product than Ryan Adams - just as a shaky cabal of radical rightists was launching something called "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week." As Barbara Ehrenreich points out, this loosely affiliated group doesn't hesitate to draw anti-Semites into what it claims is a pro-Israel platform. They also bring out ardent anti-feminists to argue that the global war they seek would protect women.

What they don't say is that the invasion of Iraq - the prime achievement of their movement - was an enormous blow to the rights of Muslim women in that country.

The very name "Islamo-Fascism" incorrectly uses the word "fascism," which by definition includes extreme statism, nationalism, and corporatism - all of which are abhorred by Islamic radicals. It's a neocon head game, designed to make dangerous terrorist fringe groups look like an existential threat to the West, like the Axis or Soviet Communism. They want you to think that Islamic extremists aren't just violent and horrible people, but that they can destroy our way of life.

That's the perfect justification for the authoritarian, citizen-spying, militarized, corporate world they seek to create. What's more, it's the perfect propaganda framework for that other big prize, an attack on Iran. That's why another mirror-dancer, Dick Cheney, is also busting a move this week.   He's keeping the war rhetoric hot.  And that's why President Bush used  the words "World War III" in reference to Iran last week.

"Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week" is another part of the heating-up process, to convince the American people (or enough of them) that war with Iran is part of a fight for our very survival. That's why Democrats like Hillary Clinton who voted for the Kyl Amendment played into the neocons' hands. Do they really think that their vote would result in "diplomacy"?

Still, fair is fair.  Since we mentioned Sen. Clinton, here's a reason to support her: If she's elected, at last our enlightened "Western" nation will finally have a woman for a leader - something an Islamic nation accomplished nearly twenty years ago. Yes, many women are terribly oppressed in some Islamic cultures, and we must fight that. But the election of Benezir Bhutto in 1988 proved that we're not fighting all Islam, just that segment of it that wants to drive women out of public life.

In the midst of all this, it was a perfect week for Osama to come out with his latest monologue. Yawn ... another static shot of him declaiming his philosophy. He needs a new director to liven these videos up. It's"My Dinner With Andre" stuff, not exactly boffo at the box office.

And that's worth noting - in the Islamic world, Bin Laden isn't doing great box office. Even in war-torn Iraq, Al Qaeda fighters are a tiny minority of the insurgents. Administration blunders have greatly increased Bin Laden's visibility and prestige, but he's still not getting a lot of traction among the world's 1.2 billion Muslims.

Plenty of Muslims seem to feel the same way about Bin Laden as most of us do: namely, that he's an asshole. Dangerous, yes. (He's killed people I knew and liked.) But an asshole just the same.

While imams aren't likely to use that language, many of them around the world have made anti-terror statements. They don't get the media attention they should, and you certainly won't hear about them from the crowd making noise this week. For example, you probably haven't seen this list of Muslim voices against extremism and terrorism, or this bumper sticker for Muslims who denounce terrorism.  And does this phrase ring a bell?

"Genital mutilation must be considered as criminal aggression against mankind."

Probably not.  But that's what 20 conservative Muslim clerics said in Egypt when asked to protest that practice. 

The great irony of misguided propaganda jihads like "Islamic-Fascism Awareness Week" is that they make us less safe. They focus on the wrong threats in fighting terrorism. If we're to fight terrorism successfully we'll need allies, friends - even intelligence sources - among the very party we're alienating with this petty bigotry.

And, it's funny. The neocons will "coddle terrorists" when it suits them. The Right doesn't seem to have a problem with the Bush Administration cozying up to the man who murdered so many Americans aboard the Lockerbie flight. In fact, there was hardly a whisper of objection when the Administration reopened its diplomatic mission in Libya in 2004.

So Bin Laden and the neocons are both seeking publicity this week . Bin Laden's tape, if it's verified, is a desperate attempt to seize leadership of the civil war in Iraq, and of Muslim unrest in the rest of the world. And "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week" will try to make it look as if he already is the leader of the Muslim world.

George W. Bush.  "Awareness Week."  Dick Cheney.  Osama Bin Laden.  It's mirror-dance time.  As Madonna used to say: 

"Strike a pose."

Campaign vs. Metacampaign: Obama at the Crossroads

National campaigns don't really take place in in crowded halls, lobbyist lunches, debates, or even in the media. While each of these are important, they only matter because they provide cash - or create images - that help influence and shape what takes place on the real field of battle: the human imagination.

•  

This may seem painfully obvious to some, yet its implications are subtle, and it's one reason why Barack Obama is so far behind in the polls. He is now going to be pressed to respond by changing his strategy, which he should. But if he changes in the wrong way the result could be fatal to his campaign. Should he go on the offensive? Sure - but only in a manner that fits his overall context, and only if he also finds several key issues that demonstrate he is the candidate of the future and its promise.

Polls and other quantitative measurements have their place, but campaigns suffer when they're emphasized at the neglect of the qualitative. Those qualitative campaign factors resonate on a number of conscious and unconscious levels, the way musical notes resonate with heard and unheard overtones. When they clash they make people uncomfortable.

In other words, a campaign isn't just an input/output model in the systems theory sense. It's also a work of art. It needs a literary or artistic coherence just as much as it needs an analytical foundation of policies and polling - and ideally, the two should operate in harmony.

For lack of a better term, let's go neologistic and call these overtones a "metacampaign." Metacampaigns aren't about policy. After all, campaign isn't just about itself anymore than a John Ford western is just about cowboys. If a "campaign" - the overt statements and policy positions of a candidate - conflicts with its own "metacampaign," the result is what anthropologist Gregory Bateson called a "double bind."

When Bateson used the term "double bind" he was describing the emotional trap family members are placed in when they're told something verbally (e.g. "I love you no matter what you do") that is contradicted by nonverbal messages. While this doesn't cause schizophrenia, as Bateson originally thought, it can certainly create problems. And it can exist in larger social groupings than the family.

While some of the reasons for Obama's current poll standings have been identified, there's been little or no discussion of the double bind issue. His campaign and his "metacampaign" have sometimes seemed out of sync. That's created a cognitive dissonance that can prevent people from becoming fully comfortable with him.

It's premature to suggest he can no longer win, as some Washington insiders are now saying (although if he doesn't act quickly that 'conventional wisdom' could become one more datum that gets fed into the public imagination.) But if reports like this one are accurate, his contributors are getting worried and are stepping up the pressure on him. That could cause him to replace one double bind with another by going on the offensive the way any traditional politician would.

The Obama "campaign" has made some understandable choices. Since he is African American and relatively young, they've elected to present him as conciliatory, as a unifier, and as a compassionate but cerebral figure. That makes good political sense, and it appears to suit his personality. But it's been done in a way that conflicts with his 'metacampaign,' which clearly identifies him as a figure of dramatic if not revolutionary change. Excess of caution, which might be seen as judicious in another candidate, reads as something approaching insincerity in Obama's case (even though it's probably exactly the opposite - to this outsider, it appears to reflect a genuinely judicious and contemplative nature.)

Fortunately for Obama, recent history gives us a precedent for handling this kind of campaign/metacampaign dissonance: Bill Clinton. If campaigns are works of art, Obama would do well to learn from the best artist of our time. Bill Clinton delivered the DLC message on many issues of substance, especially in his re-election campaign, yet managed to do so in a way that didn't conflict with his 'metacampaign' symbolism (which in many ways resembled Obama's.) He was able to preach centrism and still excite the electorate, because he was able to coordinate his change-oriented 'metacampaign' with his centrist speeches.

How can you talk about school uniforms and still appear dynamic? Bill found a way, by tapping into his own empathetic streak. Because he used school uniforms as an expression of warmth and compassion, rather than rigidity and control, this expression of social conversatism harmonized with the "new-style politics" image he conveyed.

Whether consciously or instinctively, President Clinton found a way to coordinate his campaign message with his metacampaign. The eye contact, the expressions of human concern, the lip-biting - people made fun of them, but they worked. They created harmony between his nonverbal and verbal messages, and brought his audience out of its double bind.

Should Obama start biting his lip? Hardly. Should he respond to falling numbers by going on the attack against Hillary, as he has begun to do? Yes - but carefully. He has to differentiate himself on both substance and symbolism. He has to take on her key differentiator - 'experience,' which as used by her campaign really means 'eight years of proximity to Presidential power.'

That means taking on the DLC-driven politics of the 1990s head-on. That means taking on lobbyists and consultants directly - including Blackwater lobbyists. And that means taking on the Big Dog - that is, Bill Clinton - in the right fashion. Obama's recent attack on "triangulation and poll-driven politics" is precisely the kind of thing he needs to do to gain ground. Yet Obama's kind of change should not be seen adversarial or "political," that is, based on old conflict paradigms. In other words, while his politics will essentially be progressive, he should be conveying this theme: Neither left or right, but up.

So he needs to confront the triangulation issue head-on, as he's doing. And Bill gave him a model he can now use against Hillary: When Bill thanked and "honored" President Bush in their debate for his years of service, it was a loving kiss of dismissal. Obama must eventually find a way to administer the same tender farewell to the former President and First Lady, without alienating them and their supporters, if he is to win the nomination.

But here is what's even more important than any adversarial strategy: Obama needs to introduce some exciting, new ideas that transcend the classic left/right paradigm. He could take on global warming as a cause that defines our national purpose, the way that the WPA did in the 1930's and reaching the moon did in the 1960's. He could adopt a new direction on national security that draws upon the best and not the worst of who we are as a nation.

And there's one issue where Obama has already drawn a clear policy distinction between himself and his rivals, including Sen. Clinton: healthcare. Obama can use the mandate issue, and healthcare in general, to differentiate himself as the "opportunity candidate," a position that fits with his youthful image and future-based orientation.

He also needs to show why he, and not Hillary, would be a better candidate against Giuliani. And lastly, he needs to show how he can excite the Democratic base before Chris Dodd or another dark-horse candidate takes that opportunity from him. (Sen. Clinton can neutralize this kind of threat from Obama and others by shifting her strategy and abandoning triangulation, which would also help align her campaign and metacampaign - but there's no sign at this point that she will.)

Obama needs to reframe his race with Hillary, and he needs to find those core issues that differentiate him from all his competitors. But he needs to act soon. Time is not on his side.

Dalai Lama Asks -- If Buddhist Doctrine of 'No-Self' Is Wrong, Who Are These People?

 Evan Vucci, AP Photo

As most sentient beings in North America know by now, The Dalai Lama was on Capitol Hill today. Congress gave him a medal, and he encountered President Bush for the second day in a row. Perhaps it was a good opportunity for His Holiness to explore the Buddhist concept of anatta, or Non-Self.

Anatta says that personal identity - the self - is actually an illusion. Instead, each of us is an aggregation of different factors (biological, historical, karmic, experiential, etc.), intersecting to create the false sense that we exist as distinct beings. The Buddha compared the self to a chariot: Is the "chariotness" in the wheels, the axle, the seat ... or not in any single place at all?

Study of anatta is intended to lead to the kind of ego-less state that doesn't usually go along with a career in politics.

Maybe anatta helps to explain why His Holiness is so conciliatory toward the Chinese, and why he's so accepting of all these American politicians and their foibles. Each of them, according to Buddhism, is behaving as they do because he or she is a point at which multiples forces intersect to create a set of behaviors. Without awareness and training, they are bound to act as these forces dictate.

From the New York Times:

(The Dalai Lama) said that he felt "a sense of regret" over the sharp tensions with China unleashed by his visit and the honors conferred upon him.

In gentle language and conciliatory tones, he congratulated China on its dynamic economic growth, recognized its rising role on the world stage, but he also gently urged it to embrace "transparency, the rule of law and freedom of information."

The Chinese were not appeased by gentleness and conciliation. They called the event a "farce," pulled out of a multi-state conference on Iran, and threatened further diplomatic consequences. That's unfortunate, since the Administration has been hoping they would put diplomatic pressure on Burma - in part to protect the Buddhist monks there. (There's a whole lotta interconnectedness goin' on, once you start looking for it ...)

The White House tried to downplay any symbolism that might be inflammatory, and I think they were probably wise to do so. (Hmm ... is his Buddhist tolerance rubbing off on us?) On the other hand, there was enjoyment to be had in this statement from Press Secretary Dana Perino:

"We in no way want to stir the pot and make China feel that we are poking a stick in their eye."

Good thinking. The only thing worse than having your eye poked with a stick is having your eye poked with a stick that was just used to stir a pot. Painful - and messy, too. But it's easier to have compassion for Dana Perino if you believe that karmic forces are what make her mix metaphors like that.

Martin Scorsese and Richard Gere were with His Holiness today, too.  Makes sense.  If you really want to understand anatta, there's no better place to start than the movie business. If there is no self, after all, how can your agent ask for a percentage?

We can kid - it's in our nature - but underlying it all is an overwhelming sense of tragedy. And there's a lot to be learned from the way the Dalai Lama handles conflict with the Chinese. He doesn't lower himself or get personal ... but he doesn't surrender, either. That's not bad for somebody who, at least on a metaphysical level, may not really exist.

"Hillary's Rove" Comes Through for Blackwater

Have we just had a taste of how influence might be wielded under a Clinton II Administration? In a very successful week for its most notorious client, Mark Penn's firm was able to get Blackwater CEO Erik Prince several major television appearances. Lob-ball questions were included at no extra charge.

Democrats have waited years for a consultant that can play the media as well as the GOP can. Unfortunately, most of them had hoped it would be for a better cause. And even if there's no connection, Mr. Penn's continued leadership of Burson-Marsteller - and the firm's indiscriminate choice of clients - creates a serious perception problem in a time when voters are yearning for change.

It makes sense that 60 Minutes and other news shows would offer Prince prominent spots, and would hit the talking points he and his PR firm want them to hit. After all, Hillary could be the next President of the United States. Who wants to get on the bad side of the man so many are describing as "Hillary's Rove," especially this early in the election season?

The sometimes-formidable Lara Logan offered a soft venue for Prince's unverifiable denials of the mass shooting in Iraq - denials that contradict both eyewitnesses and the United States military. (The State Department and the FBI are stonewalling the military and freezing them out of the investigation - presumably so they can prepare a more politically-influenced report). 

Excerpts from Logan's interview can be found on the CBS News website, under the implausible title "Blackwater Chief Welcomes Extra Oversight."

Here's a typical hardball Logan question: "So, when you hear the Iraqi government complete an investigation in record time, I think, a matter of days and pronounce you 100 percent guilty, what's your reaction?" Logan asks. Did that Iraqi investigation really conclude in record time? The implication is, of course, that it was a rush to judgment. Yet the Pentagon has also drawn some of the same conclusions already. Were they hasty, too?

As if that's not enough implied "hating the troops," there's this Prince quote (not challenged by Logan): "I'm glad the FBI's investigating. I am glad they can be a neutral party." So the military isn't "neutral"? Apparently, Blackwater considers Gen. Petraeus "General Betray Us" when it comes to investigating them.

To be fair to Logan, she does follow up with a question about the military's report, and Prince responded with more unchallenged troop-bashing: "I think before, before the military starts releasing reports like that they should probably wait till the Justice Department completes their investigation."

An "is it true?" question was offered in order to elicit this statement: "No one under our care has been killed or injured." Remember that: you'll hear it again. (The ability to lay down indiscriminate blasts of deadly fire without legal restraint probably helped them accomplish this goal.)

Then the real stroking begins. "I know you said the loss of innocent life is a tragedy," Logan asks. "Do you regret it, do you wish it never happened?" What's the guy going to say? No? "Absolutely," says Prince. But then he wanders off-script, so Logan helpfully steps in again: ""People want to know from you," said Logan, "they know about the terrorist bombs, they know about the loss of huge civilian casualties, Iraqis have lived through all of that. When I talk to them they want to know from you, from Blackwater, that you wish those people had not been killed that you wish innocent people didn't have to die as a result of anything that you're involved in."

"It is absolutely not our wish that any innocent civilians should ever die," Prince says. 

Charlie Rose's interview included a few more tough questions - but again, the talking points were all touched upon, as when Rose asked this now-familiar question: "No State Department official that you have been guarding has been killed or wounded?" "That is correct," Prince answers.

Then there's this Rose question: "Do you think there has been knee-jerk reporting about what happened on September 16?" And this one: "I realize that you are Americans, working for Americans, to protect America. That's the way you see it?"

Unsurprisingly, Prince allows that yes, that is in fact how he sees it.

Lara Logan and Charlie Rose are good at what they do, so what other explanation can there be for these gauzy, soft-focus appearances? As for Mark Penn, the Clinton campaign's argument is that he's not involved in the Blackwater account. Really? He's the CEO. Nothing happens there unless he wants it to happen. (The Clinton campaign also maintains that the Blackwater engagement ended recently, although no dates were provided.)

The Rose interview turned up a couple of other new talking points. One was Prince's suggestion that Blackwater might be the ideal force to resolve the situation in Darfur. Another was the idea that Prince only contributes to the GOP because he likes their tax policy. But here's my favorite:

Charlie Rose:  So you're not the largest private army in the world --

Erik Prince: By no means. Terribly inaccurate. We have a big database. We're a -- you know, imagine the security work that we do, okay? As a very robust temp agency.

Yep, that's it. They're just Kelly Temps with M-16s. Instead of filing and answering phones, they're wasting Arabs and forcing civilian cars off the road with their Humvees.

"Hi, I'm the new temp from Blackwater.  How do you like your coffee?"

As for the Clinton campaign, they're letting this issue fester. That should give her supporters - and other Democrats - pause. The best way to address the problem would be to insist that her chief strategist take a leave of absence from his corporate job, and to act forcefully to ensure that the campaign's leaders avoid either the substance or the appearance of impropriety.

(NOTE:  Some text in this post was changed for clarification purposes.)

Hillary's Achilles Heel: It's Not What You Think

source:  Gallup

Hillary Clinton's critics like to argue that her high polling negatives mean she's unelectable, and Gallup's recent poll will reinforce that notion. But they're wrong. A Hillary Clinton candidacy may endanger the party's chances in 2008, but "negatives" aren't why. Although pollsters Frank Newport and Joseph Carroll write that Clinton is "one of a group of starkly polarizing figures" and Joe Biden's using those negatives as an argument against her candidacy, that's not her biggest obstacle.

It's all in the numbers, as Mark Penn would say. Being a "polarizing figure," even a "stark" one, won't necessarily prevent Hillary from becoming president. Those Americans who disapprove of her are a minority, and aren't an impassible barrier to victory. In fact, the Democrats weren't going to win most of their votes anyway. Instead, the gravest threat to Sen. Clinton's chances lies within her own party, and it's not disapproval -- it's lack of enthusiasm. 

Like the song says, we're talking about the passion.

If Rove and the Republicans have demonstrated anything, it's that it only takes a tiny majority to win (excluding, of course, what Al Gore calls that "little known third category"). Can Hillary win with her high negatives? Absolutely. According to Gallup, 48 percent of the electorate has a negative opinion of her, 48 percent has a positive opinion, and the remaining 4 percent are in play.

That means she only needs to do two things. The first is to win over some of the 4 percent who are undecided about her, while perhaps changing the hearts and minds of a few disapproving voters along the way. She can do that. She's a feistier and more likable campaigner than some people realize, as she proved in upstate New York.

The other thing she needs to do is ...

Hillary's Blackwater Connection

A lot of negative things have been written in the blogosphere about pollster Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton's increasingly-powerful advisor. Penn's critics have focused on his firm's union-busting work. They've also attacked his insistence on promoting a strategy of so-called "centrism," even as supposedly "centrist" policy positions - especially regarding Iraq - become increasingly unpopular. And now we learn that the PR firm he runs, Burson-Marsteller, has been hired to repair Blackwater's reputation.

Which raises a question:  If they're so good at PR, how did Burson-Marsteller manage to make themselves such a potential public relations disaster for their most famous client? After all, the firm helps "drive strong corporate and brand reputations for its clients," according to its corporate webpage.  What will this link with out-of-control mercenaries do for Sen. Clinton's "brand reputation?"

Did the New York Times Gets Played By Clinton's Campaign?

Here's the kind of coverage a campaign can't buy, from the New York Times blog (UPDATE: The post has been altered since we wrote this and a new paragraph's been inserted - but without noting the change or acknowledging the original oversight - see below):

A fundraising analyst, Costas Panagopoulos of Fordham University, said this morning that the Clinton fund-raising total is likely to convey an impression of superiority to voters than Mr. Obama will have to battle against.

"Clinton's blow-away third quarter fundraising total is likely to have, among other things, a profound psychological effect on voters," Mr. Panagopoulos said. "It will give the impression of growing Clinton strength -- both in terms of dollars and number of donors."

"Obama also raised impressive sums," he added, "but he may be seen as languishing relative to previous quarters. Obama's lackluster third quarter intake, relative to previous quarters, reflects, at least in part, waning enthusiasm for his candidacy and diminishing prospects for an Obama victory."

Wow. Pretty damning indictment of Obama's prospects, wouldn't you say? But here's something Patrick Healy, the author of the post, fails to inform his readership. From Mr. Panagopoulos' bio page on his website:

Dr. Panagopoulos was selected by the American Political Science Association as a Congressional Fellow during 2004-2005, and he served in the office of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY).

That should have been worthy of at least a mention, don't you think? After all, Mr. Panagopoulos describes Obama's campaign as "lackluster," "languishing," and suffering from "waning enthusiasm" and "diminishing prospects."

Mr. Healy should have asked whether his expert had ties to the Clinton campaign. failing that, Mr. Panagopoulos should have volunteered the information - even if this is his truly unbiased opinion.

Oh - and, for the record, the Panagopoulos bio doesn't say that he's a "fundraising expert," although he may well be. The subject's not even mentioned. This raises the question of how Mr. Healy found him in the first place. Was it a referral from Clinton's campaign? His readers deserve a clarification and explanation.

One last item: The Times piece says that "in recent weeks Clinton advisers and donors had asserted that he was probably on track to beat her again because his campaign was publicizing his success at recruiting new donors." Isn't that the old Rove trick of lowering expectations when you know you're going to do well?

Just a thought.

UPDATE: Mr. Healy's blog entry was altered some time after we posted this. This paragraph was inserted between the "Clinton's blowin' 'em away" quotes and the "Obama's lackluster" quotes:

Mr. Panagopoulos worked in Mrs. Clinton's Senate office in 2004-5 as a congressional fellow of the American Political Science Association; he said he is not supporting or advising her or any other candidate in the 2008 race.

It's common practice when blogging to note such changes and corrections, to avoid the appearance that you're trying to mislead your readers. The post as originally written would not have noted this analyst's potential conflict of interest.

And we still don't know how Mr. Healy found him in the first place.  As Atrios would say,  "time to convene a blogger ethics panel."