Ah, you misunderestimate things. Now that they have been picked by a black man, they are absolved of all racism. As the Good Left teaches, it's impossible for minorities to be racist. So, the security working group members are all clean now. Or as the Senator is half-black they're at least half-clean. Oh, there I go being half-racist again.

Ya want change? Well, there it is.(such as it is)

"If you think life's jolly rotten, then there's something you've forgotten; and that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing"
&
"This is supposed to be a joyous occasion, let's not bicker and argue about who killed who"

I didn't know much about some of the people on Obama's list. But Albright isn't exactly inspiring.

Some of Matt's commenters seem to have a higher opinion of Samantha Power than most of us here and are disappointed that she's not on the list. To me she would be an improvement over Madelaine Albright, but any jerk smart enough not to brush off the deaths of half a million kids would be an improvement over her.

And Sarah Sewall--a Harvard human rights person who helped write a counterinsurgency manual? What is it with Harvard and human rights? I do not think the words mean what they think it means.

which is the unsoaked one? enquiring minds wanna know.

At least Obama has assembled a list consisting mostly of dead people. I know, some will tell you that Nunn, Christopher, etc, are not dead, but that's making fun of the dead and I don't like it.

Why isn't McCain on the list? I don't get it.

Curtis LeMay should be on that list. Dead, but his spirit lives.
Was Warren Christopher ever alive? Is there evidence to suggest so?

In fact, by presenting the image of a peace party, Democrats may be better able to make war without public opposition. This line of thought, however, can lead to believing that rightwing Republicans are coordinating their statements with leftwing Democrats. It just doesn't work that way. There is no such grand coordination. There is no such thing as a belief shared by all members of a party, much less multiple parties. In the end, there are only individuals, and their motivations are those of a party almost exclusively when they see supporting the party line as in their individual best interest.

I have to disagree with this statement somewhat. I don’t believe that there is a conspiracy between the Democrats and the Republicans but I do believe that there is a belief shared by almost all politicians of both parties and that is the belief in American exceptionalism and the belief in America’s right to lord it over the rest of the world because we are so exceptional which in fact we are not exceptional. It explains much.

In fact, Perrin recounts in his book having sworn never again to support a Democratic candidate, and later recounts volunteering to work for the Kerry campaign. Swearing never to support anyone of a particular party can be as foolish as swearing never to support anyone of a particular race or gender, and caries with it many of the flaws involved in swearing always to support everyone of a particular party.

Equating Dennis swearing never to support a Democratic candidate with not voting for a person of particular race is a straw man argument. I have never read anything in Dennis’s essays that even remotely suggests a racist attitude. And so what if Dennis changed his mind about supporting a Democrat, it seems to me Swanson is using his own argument against himself here which is you should never swear to not vote for a particular party or gender or race and then criticizing Dennis for not sticking to not ever supporting a Democrat.

Also Swanson says all the politicians that have seriously worked for peace have been Democrats but why is he leaving out Ron Paul who is definitely against imperialism? And the statement about Andrew Jackson killing Indians does not make much sense to me either. That we slaughtered Indians when we first arrived here and continued to do so well into the 19th century and continue to screw them today is not irrelevant. It is part of our past albeit a not very pleasant one. To accept that we did what we did is very much relevant because it is those same attitudes which gained popularity during the manifest destiny era that prevails today in American exceptionalism which has led to American imperialism, the two go very much together.

Rob said .."there is a belief shared by almost all politicians of both parties and that is the belief in American exceptionalism and the belief in America’s right to lord it over the rest of the world.."

Exactly!

Dennis points out on his blog over and over that the game is rigged and all the hoping that the Dems are different is a ruse. The Dems play the bait and switch better than anyone while the Reps just bait.

Ron Paul WAS the anti-imperial peace candidate and was tar and feathered with the rasicst label. Dennis Kucinich was pushed aside by party insiders and the progressives did'nt bat an eye

Instead Obama is considred the peace candidate even though he has not supported any anti war position and we are supposed to believe his warmongering is only a ploy??

what is the definition of delusional?

I've read Swanson - who I'm sure is a nice enough fellow - being as indignant and outraged as anyone else at perceived Democratic betrayals.

Reading his critique of Savage Mules reminds me of a guy with marital problems who says to his friend, "My wife is such a psycho bitch!" And when the sympathetic friend nods his head in agreement, the guy gets visibly angry. "Call my wife a psycho bitch again, and I'll beat your ass like a Saturday omelet."

The problem is that there weren't and aren't and won't be any Democratic betrayals, at least not as Swanson and other Dem Loyalists think of the term. Their entire political foundation is predicated on the assumption of a contract between Democratic politicians and voters. But that contract does not exist. It's myth, pure and simple.

Even after nearly eight years of witnessing Democrats go above & beyond in their assistance to, and defense of, Bush-Cheney, Inc., Democratic voters cling to this fatal assumption as though life on earth would cease without it. They will reinvest in it forever because, for them, the alternative is inconceivable.

Perrin understands this. Swanson does not.

That is shit thick, my friends. And ample reason to warrant suspicion, if not outright contempt, of the election year optimism emanating from Democratic quarters.