I can't help but follow the news out of Malaysia, having just gotten back from a trip there last month. Here's how Simon Tisdall describes it in today's Guardian:

The latest scandal is all about the sodomy charges against the opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, but there are all sorts of wrinkles, both historical and new, in the situation.

It's a bit different than arguing about whether Obama is moving to the 'center' or not...

I don't know what to make of the accusations against Anwar, as its a repeat of earlier thrown-out charges. Turmoil in Malaysia is about right, in that it throws it back upon the judicial system, and the expected reforms that have been happening, for as to how its sorted out.

Update [2008-7-3 13:48:24 by Jerome Armstrong]: Via his blog, Anil Netto, has a background/big picture article, Brinksmanship in polarized Malaysia, in the Asia Times:

Ari Melber has been doing the reporting:

It's over 10,000 now.

Jeff Jarvis had some good thoughts on the effort:

What I find ironic is all of the naysaysers within the comments on the Nation after Ari's post. Belittling, of all things, the numbers. This is a moment that has been a long time in waiting, when the netroots would turn toward organizing effectively within the institutions around which have they have campaigned for heavily, first with Dean in '03 and all the races in-between then and now with Obama in '08. Fundraising and mobilization have happened around campaigns, but the FISA organizing is more powerful and portends the future. This is going to be a clash that continues to happen, between many first-timers, that have been brought into politics through Barack Obama, and those that have been pushing for progressive policies through the netroots over the decade.

Now, I do understand the argument that we need to get power first, getting a strong Democratic trifecta, before the push for progressive reform begins to happen, but the efforts around FISA over the past year point the way, this merely the latest example.

Joe Trippi makes a note in the comments:

It demands a balance, between pressuring for the politicians to walk the talk, and realizing that we have to get them elected in the first place. The dogmatism on both sides of the argument is better off rejected. At the congressional level, what good is it to get rid of a Blue Dog Democrat in a primary that will get replaced by a Republican in the GE? I have no problem with supporting primary challenges against incumbent Democrats by more progressive candidates in CD's where we will win in the GE regardless, but lets be strategic about it. At the presidential level, there was no such push against John Kerry over any of the issues in '04. I'm a bit surprised that Obama is getting challenged from within, but as Trippi points out, it takes having the tools to organize effectively. As pointed out over on the next right, the dissent from within is a powerful asset for Obama: Now, the real test comes when Obama next speaks/votes on FISA.

Ah, Wesley Clark, who is about to win the CQ contest for VP, having defeated McCaskill, Bayh, Edwards, Rendell (who defeated Clinton), and is beating Biden in the finals. Nope. Not gonna happen.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton: "As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark."

Update [2008-6-30 13:50:55 by Jerome Armstrong]: Obama also made reference to MoveOn in his "patriotism" speech today. The Hill says he criticized them for the Sept '07 ad, saying:

You'll recall, that Obama skipped the “sense of the Senate” resolution (which passed 72-25 with a certain Senator from NY voting against) which condemned MoveOn.org last fall for its "personal attack" on Petraeus. As such, MoveOn.org was the primary 'cast-overboard' target for Obama today, but with the netroots fav Clark the issue-of-the-day, its a side.

This is the silly season of politics by Obama. In a sense, it's bi-polar. On the one hand, he's come out of the primary with an energized base and flush with funding from progressives that will mobilize in numbers and tonnage of money, but on the otherhand he's getting terrible advice to make symbolic gestures of defiance toward those same progressive issues and groups in order "to move to the center" for the GE.

This is the part where "untested" comes in for Obama. In a real sense, it's his first general election ever. It's all new territory for him to be up against a competitive Republican. He has no experience upon which to draw, and relies upon advice of "those who have been there" for his every move. Well, for Democrats, "those who have been there" have been doing this same one-trick pony move for quite a few presidential elections, with one slim majority in the last 40 years to show for it. This isn't a 'center' election, it's a realignment one of base politics-- that's the opportunity he's blowing coming out of '06 with the progressive wind to his back.

And yea, I don't think that Clinton would be making these rookie mistakes, so there. But also, I don't see how Obama can possibly lose this election, so there too.

I saw this phenom around the blog here a few months back, as it was spreading viral:
And I found this tidbit ironic-- if you know Harding (which I attended for a few memorable years in the 80's) you would too: Originating at Harding, haha-- that's quite a camel nose under the tent.

Ari Melber, Obama Network Organizes and Revolts over Spying:

The Wanker-In-Waiting, Keith Olbermann, who has flipped his position to become the defender of Obama now supporting FISA, is expected "to deliver a "Special Comment" on Monday's show to elaborate on his "Obama/FISA" defense."

Now, which tactic works better? The use of BO's tools to organize and send a message from within that pushes for change, or the sycophant use of television by a tool? I guess it depends on what outcome you'd like to see.

What I'd like to see is some investigative reporting down that shows why in the world Obama actually flipped his position to take the lead on supporting the "compromise" FISA bill. Is it really just the "move to the center" that Glenn talks about, or is there something else to it?

The chances of there being any Summer debates between Obama and McCain are fleeting. Instead, we are likely only to get the standard offering:

My guess is that these will stick. Bush, in 2000, tried to re-negotiate the debates before they happened, and wound up giving Gore traction with the effort. With Obama, it might be different, as he's already been keeping McCain at length over town halls, but the media wouldn't give the leverage with the Commissioned debates that they have with the ad hoc ones.

I've been reading "A Glorious Disaster", which recounts the 1964 Goldwater vs Johnson election. There are some interesting symbolic parallels with '08 in the book. Another 'Barry' as candidate, a Senator from Arizona (McCain's is the top quote on the back cover), small donor records with massive crowds, for instance, but in substance, its not a similar election. As far as debates go though, LBJ wouldn't give an inch. They never happened.

The article suggests that the debate style would favor McCain, because they'd both be seated, but I don't know if that's the case. Obama, in the moments I recall from his nomination debates, had his toughest moments when he was taking questions from the podium. I don't recall McCain's moments in comparison, but it does at times look like the podium engulfs McCain. They probably both benefit from being seated.

And howabout the locations?  NY is not a surprise, neither is the St. Louis location, but Nashville TN and Oxford MS are new on the map for debates. TN is not going to be competitive, but Obama is probably pleased about the MS selection.

Also of note from the article:

And it's probably a pretty wide gulf between those and the next tier of states.

Charlie Brown steps up. In a R+11 CD, he opposes FISA. Here's a career military officer who flew surveillance missions all over the world for the Air Force and NSA for most of his Air Force Career, and is running as a Democrat in the most red district in CA, and he opposes FISA.

Read his blog post on FISA, What Warrantless Wiretapping Means to Me. Charlie Brown has real, actual first hand experience with this issue. On Calitics, a post from D-Day yesterday, asked Brown about FISA:

And yet, the Telecom corporations get just such a different treatment from many Democratic politicians. Why?

Obama and McCain start off even, in fundraising. That's a bit of a surprise. And actually, Obama is behind when we factor in the committees and the GE, but we all expect that Obama will increase his advantage in the coming months.

Obama spent $27M in May, and raised $22M. He has $33M on hand for the nomination, and $10M on hand for the GE.

McCain spent $12M in May, and raised $22M. He has $32M on hand for the nomination, and will get $84M in public financing for the GE.

There is also a big disparity among the committees, the DNC and the RNC. From April, the DNC had $4M on hand, and the RNC had $40M on hand.

So, we start off behind, with five months to go. Obama and the DNC having $37M on hand and $10M for the GE, McCain and the RNC having $72M on hand and $84M for the GE. That totals $47M for the DNC/Obama and $156M for the RNC/McCain, over a 3:1 ratio in McCain's favor. But that will change.

The upside of McCain for the GE is limited by that $84M amount, and he'll have to rely upon the RNC to increase their cash on hand. Obama will not only be able to raise millions more himself, I also expect that they'll focus on significantly increasing the DNC's cash on hand.

Update [2008-6-22 12:32:21 by Jerome Armstrong]: I corrected some errors above, and got the May committee numbers. The RNC reports having raised $24M in May, and cash on hand of $54M. The DNC reports having raised $5M and has $4M cash on hand. That widens the cash on hand disparity: $37M for Obama/DNC with $10M for the GE; $86M for McCain/RNC with $84M for the GE. The Obama/DNC total of $47M against the McCain/RNC total $190M is much more of a disparity than I would have expected. But, there lots of upside for Obama, and we'll see how much he closes the gap in June for a good indication. No alarm bells yet.