I'm about to take on a new job that will prevent me from blogging about electoral issues through November, so I'd like to lay out what I see the general arc of the race being from now until election day, and where the progressive movement fits into that story line.

Barack Obama will no doubt continue moderating his positions, as most politicians do in general elections. Hell, he might even moderate his stance on Iraq a bit, though I doubt it will be significant. It will continue to piss progressives off, as it should.

Eventually, most folks will realize that Barack Obama is basically saying, "Trust me," as he did Thursday with his response to the anti-FISA group on my.barackobama.com. Once again, I feel this is pretty typical. Politicians make all sorts of campaign promises, both explicit and implicit. Obama will moderate his stances in an ambiguous way while trying to reassure progressives he doesn't really mean it, or at least that when it comes time to sort out those ambiguities, he'll come out on our side.

Eventually, I'd hope that progressives realize the answer to Obama's strategy is to outflank him, positioning ourselves to hold his accountable to his statements in the way that we want. Electoral strategy says define your opposition before they define themselves. If Obama can be considered "the opposition" once he's elected - and I think he can - then we need to position ourselves to define him as a progressive president as soon as he gets in office. We must keep track of his statements and his rhetoric, and being ready to use it to push him towards progressive policies or use it against him if necessary.

This positioning won't be easy. It will help if progressives make a point to reward good behavior during the electoral season. We should loudly cheer Obama's progressive positions, and certainly pressure him however possible to adopt more of these positions. He'll probably ignore these efforts for the most part, or at best acknowledge the opposition without changing his position. But through these efforts we keep our integrity. Over the election season, progressives can develop a critique of Obama and keep their credibility, both of which can be effectively used to push him once he's in office and we have actual leverage for accountability.

On a more specific level, though the presidential election tends to suck all the fundraising money into their vast machine, we should try and focus on building strong progressive institutions. Grassroots groups like MoveOn.org, think tanks like the Center for American Progress, and netroots activists like Blue America will need to be at their best to effectively move an Obama administration in a progressive direction.

**************

No president was every great without strong forces pushing him towards greatness. Even FDR experienced strong pressure from mounting pro-labor sentiment sweeping America in the 1930s. In fact, FDR's presidency represented the beginning of labor's peak in America; in 1945 they represented over 1 in 3 American workers. These outside movements have traditionally built the political clout necessary to move administrations. That's what we need to build in preparation for an Obama presidency.

The role of the progressive movement as we move from an outsider group in a minority party to a strong presence in a ruling party is going to make for lots of wrenching changes. Preserving our credibility, building an independent power base, and positioning ourselves to define Obama as a progressive and hold him accountable to that definition are going to be key parts of those changes. If we get it right, we'll have real power to sway Obama's policy positions. If we don't, we'll find our cries falling on deaf ears.

But this is just one man's view of things to come. What do you think? How can the progressive movement best position itself to hold maximum power over an Obama administration?

J Ro's opinions are his own, and do not represent those of any other individual or organization.

Yesterday, I put forward my answer to the Obama problem:

I do not believe for one second that Obama or the Democratic party will necessarily bring all the change we need. No party stands for my bedrock principles all the time, principles like the rule of law, the balance of powers, the Constitution, civil liberties, opportunity for all, security through freedom, reduced corporate power, and responsible governance. Politicians will sell me out to get elected when they can get away with it, and I will sell them out to uphold these principles when I can get away with it.

As long as we don't stoop so low as to rationalize a candidate's political calculations, progressives can retain their authority while still supporting a center/center-left candidate.

But once Obama is elected, it's war. As I've said before, November is just the beginning.

So, what would that "war" look like? It's a complicated question, but Mike Lux has some answers [emphasis added]:

So given that I want Obama to succeed, does that give me pause about Jason's plan to be tough on Obama starting the day after he's elected? Well, not really, but I do think the progressive movement needs to have a sophisticated, multi-level strategy. I think progressives should, and very likely will, break into 3 types of players during an Obama administration.

1.    Going on the inside. I hope that the Obama team can be convinced to place as many genuine progressives in government jobs as possible.
2.    Friendly outsiders who are pushing them toward progressivism. These are the progressive organization people, bloggers, donors, and other activists who stay on the outside, and are generally friendly to, and supportive of the Obama team, who still gently push them to pick the progressive path as much as possible.
3.    Outsiders who bang away. Those organization people, bloggers, donors, and other activists who decide their best role is to aggressively bang away, who work day in and day out to hold Obama accountable.

I believe we are best served when we have lots of people in all 3 of these categories. A movement does not succeed without having all 3 kinds of people in place, each playing their part. The progressive things that did happen during the Clinton years came as a direct result of each of these 3 kinds of people playing a big role.

The key is that the folks in all these categories need to forge a constructive working relationship with each other. There will definitely be tensions between the three at times, but if they can respect each other in their different roles, good things will happen.

That's a tough balancing act, and it's going to take a lot of grit and coordination to get it done, but in my mind it's infinitely more easier than trying to pressure Obama in the general election.

With a first-past-the-post, plurality based voting system, two party tyranny rules. An activist's only real point of pressure to push candidates towards their agenda is during primaries. During the general election, unless you genuinely don't care which of the two party representatives gets elected, you have no choice but to help the "best of the worst" of your two choices.

Of course, the Democratic primary is over, so our real leverage against Obama is gone - unless you want to help McCain win.

However, if Obama is elected, working to push him towards progressive positions while he's in power allows for a much more nuanced strategy, as Mike highlights. More importantly, none of these options are winner-take-all. Progressives can hand Obama a genuine legislative defeat and not cost him the presidency or the Democrats both houses of Congress. If played correctly, progressives can flex their power and cause worried politicians to support progressive policies without severely damaging the Democratic brand to such an extent as to cause electoral problems.

To put it another way, it's war in November, but it's not indiscriminate war. It's a smart conflict calculated to bring progressive policies while maintaining electoral control.

J Ro's opinions are his own and do not represent any other organization or individual.

Bloggers love to write about the media. And, as non-corporate, truly independent media outlets, blogs have the moral authority to effectively point out and criticize media bias, media consolidation, and the old media business model.

Perhaps all that criticism is actually having an effect.

It's hard not to see the decline of the old media in today's society. As everyone knows, circulation and audience numbers have been declining for years as more and more people move online:

Across the industry, newspaper ad revenue -- print and online, combined -- fell almost 8 percent last year, the second-worst decline in more than half a century, according to the Newspaper Association of America. The Times Company's ad revenue dropped 4.7 percent last year, when adjusted for a change in the length of its fiscal year.

Over the last year, classified ads continued a decade-long flight to the Web, and display ads for real estate and cars fell sharply as those industries contracted.

Now, some may argue that just because people are getting their news and information online doesn't mean the old media is losing eyeballs yet. And that's probably true; even though more people get news and information online these days, that news and information usually comes from the online outlets of the old media - sites like nytimes.com or cnn.com.

However, there is something fundamentally different about getting your information online, even if you still do use old media sources. Online, pulling up competing viewpoints on a topic or criticisms of an opinion piece is as easy as a Google search. Facts can be checked, myths debunked, and diverse viewpoints consumed in minutes. You almost have to be willfully ignorant to get taken in by media bias in the online universe.

With this fundamental change, I would argue the media has less influence on our politics today than it had even four years ago, and certainly less than it had in the golden eras of mass communication. Take the presidential primaries as a potent example.

When the primaries began almost two years ago, there were two media frontrunners: Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani.

As we all know well, the old media was filled with stories of Clinton's inevitability and Giuliani's heroics after 9/11. To be sure, these frontrunner picks were based on early poll numbers, but anyone with half a brain could understand these early polls meant little. Clinton and Giuliani were the biggest names in the race - people knew them and their poll numbers reflected that.

In a very real sense, the old media manufactured these two frontrunner narratives and to their surprise, they both collapsed - in no small part because of grassroots organizing and online outlets like blogs.

Now, it would be a mistake to discount the old media completely. Sexism, racism, gotcha politics, and all kinds of media manufactured scandals affected the race. And to be sure, the media abandoned its chosen frontrunners and latched onto other candidates during the course of the primary. The old media still has power, no question. But it is striking when you realize the two candidates our corporate media overlords picked to compete in the 2008 general election both lost.

Let's herald this as a small victory. The old media still commands a vast audience and has vast influence, but its days are numbered. It still has power - I wait in dread for the day when they really turn against Barack Obama - but perhaps that power is waning in some significant ways.

This year, people stood up, read the news, and voted for the candidate they believed in.

J Ro's opinions are his own and do not represent those of any other person or organization.

In the heat of the campaign season, pundits often forget that the American people like leadership. While there is endless debate on the fine points of each candidate's character (and occasionally debate about the issues), in the end, I believe Americans vote for candidates who offer a compelling and cohesive vision for America. That vision must give voters a story to connect the various proposals and anecdotes that politicians use on the campaign trail.

As I touched on a couple of weeks ago, John McCain has had three months to run unopposed and so far, he hasn't been making a convincing case to the American people that he has an overarching idea of where America should be going. I've been watching McCain's campaign closely over the last few months, and the multiple and often competing "visions" he has been laying out don't coalesce into anything that makes sense.

McCain's original pitch to the American people after locking up the nomination was that he would be a "different kind of Republican," willing to reach out to those who don't often vote Republican and get their views. McCain then embarked on a tour of "forgotten places," mostly in Democratic strongholds in the South like New Orleans.

There, while holding a myriad of town hall meetings, he continued to support policies created by George Bush that hurt the very people he was supposed to be "reaching out to." John McCain was going on tour and listening, but there was no action behind his words. His straight talk was cold comfort to those in New Orleans still without housing or employment, or those in the rural South hurting from free trade agreements.

While ostensibly reaching out to people in "forgotten places," McCain was also trying to solidify the Republican base. His speech on Supreme Court judges, in particular, was a dangerous bit of pandering. Many on the left and in the media missed the significance of that speech and the cases McCain referenced, but Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker caught it:

The giveaway here was that McCain did not reveal the subject matter of this supposed judicial outrage. The case was Roper v. Simmons, in which a seventeen-year-old boy murdered a woman after breaking into her home, and was sentenced to death. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's opinion overturned the sentence and held that the Constitution forbids the death penalty for juvenile offenders. McCain's reference to the Court's "discourse" on the law of "other nations" refers to Kennedy's observation of the "stark reality that the United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty." Likewise, Kennedy noted that the only other countries to execute juvenile offenders since 1990 have been China, Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. According to McCain, the United States apparently belongs on this dismal list.

Nor were his references to penumbras and emanations accidental. Those words come from Justice William O. Douglas's 1965 opinion for the Court in Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the Justices recognized for the first time a constitutional right to privacy, and ruled that a state could not deny married couples access to birth control. The "meaning of life" was a specific reference, too. It comes from the Court's 1992 opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed the central holding of Roe v. Wade, and forbade the states from banning abortion. In short, this one passage in McCain's speech amounted to a dog whistle for the right--an implicit promise that he will appoint Justices who will eliminate the right to privacy, permit states to ban abortion, and allow the execution of teen-agers.

A speech slyly promoting the death penalty for teenagers and raging against birth control and abortion cuts against McCain's message as a "different kind of Republican."

Finally, on Tuesday, with the Democratic nomination all but over, John McCain sought to re-brand himself again. This time, he declared that he represented the "right kind of change" in front of a hideous green backdrop. In his speech, McCain argued that Obama represented a return to 70s and 80s style liberalism, his policies were different from Bush, and he has the experience necessary to bring about the "right kind of change."

It should be pretty clear to most people here that none of these arguments are going to work. Once again, Jeffrey Toobin had it right, proclaiming on CNN, "That was pathetic!"

First, does anyone really believe, after listening to Barack Obama, that he is looking backwards in his policies? Obama has been able to convince huge swaths of America that he is looking beyond the partisan battles of our past towards a new, hopeful future. There is nothing in the language that he uses or the way he presents himself that smacks of old, Carter-era politics. It's hard for me to imagine that line of attack sticking.

Next, while McCain believes his policy positions are original, I've yet to uncover a single major plan that breaks from Bush's course in any way.  (I used to be able to point to global warming, but given his recent statement that he's against Lieberman-Warner, I can't even say that anymore.) Put that together with McCain's voting record - 100% with Bush this year and 95% with Bush last year - and you begin to perceive the truth. McCain's presidency would represent four more years of Bush.

Lastly, John McCain seems to want to fight the experience vs. change battle again. With all due respect towards Hillary Clinton, that battle has already been fought. Change won. If McCain wants to have that discussion again, be my guest. I don't think it's going to work out any differently this time around.

Of course, McCain's schizophrenic messaging can be easily contrasted with Barack Obama's clear voice. For better or for worse, Americans know what Obama stands for - hope and change. All of Obama's policies, anecdotes, and language fit under this rhetorical umbrella. While it's difficult to understand why McCain doesn't support the G.I. Bill or wants a manned mission to Mars, given his campaign theme, Obama's focus on technology and nuclear disarmament fits right in with his hope and change message.

McCain has no coherent vision and seems to be running on his checkered Senate voting record and his war-hero persona. As Holly Bailey and Jon Meacham at Newsweek point out, he is beginning to primarily define himself by what he is not (Bush, Obama), a sure-fire losing strategy. Americans - who by and large care about their country but don't have the inclination to understand every nuance of policy of character - tend to elect candidates with a coherent message because they feel secure that whatever a candidate's policies are, they will fit into the message they are preaching.

There is a lot of time between now and November, but so far, Obama has a 17 month head start in getting out a clear message to America. McCain just might be playing catch-up this entire race.

(P.S. If you're wondering what all those random links reading "McCain" are about, I'm participating in Chris Bowers' search optimization project "Searching For McCain," and you should too!)

J Ro's opinions are his own and do not represent any other person or organization.

While we're waiting for more from the RBC, here's a little on McCain.

A minor flap Thursday and Friday is providing a window onto the kind of man John McCain is and the kind of President he would be.

On Thursday at a town hall event in Wisconsin, McCain said:

"I can tell you it is succeeding. I can look you in the eye and tell you it is succeeding. We have drawn down to pre-surge levels. Basra, Mosul and now Sadr City are quiet."

Never mind the fact that on that day there were three suicide bombings in and around Mosul. McCain was emphatically wrong when he said our troop numbers are down to "pre-surge levels." There were 130,000 troops in Iraq before the surge. After scheduled troop reductions, there will be 140,000 left.

Now, this inaccuracy really isn't a huge deal by itself. McCain may have simply got his numbers wrong - it's easy enough to do. Or he may have misspoke. It's the way the campaign has dealt with the resulting fallout that calls McCain's character into question.

First, campaign surrogates tried to play this off as a little grammar mistake, essentially arguing McCain meant to say we will draw down to pre-surge levels, not that we had already done so. However, the next day, McCain contradicted his own campaigns statements at a press conference:

Asked in the media avail if he got his facts wrong, McCain replied by stating that US troops levels are down -- but said nothing of pre-surge levels. "We have drawn down three of the five brigades. They're home. The marines [inaudible] are home. By the end of July, [inaudible] are back. That's just facts, those are just facts. The surge, we have drawn down from the surge and we will complete that drawdown to the end -- at the end of July. That's just a factual statement."

With both episodes caught on video, it's clear McCain is simply refusing to own up to his misstep. That kind of bullshit tends to insult the intelligence of even the old media press corps, and McCain received negative press from just about every major media outlet on Friday (Wall Street Journal, Politico, The Washington Post, MSNBC), including an extra "Pinocchio" from The Post's Fact Checker.

While it's nice to see the old media engage in a little political retribution every once in a while, McCain's refusal to admit he was wrong points to a host of other issues - this time actually meaningful.

A refusal to back down, a need to be right at all costs, and an unwillingness to let anything stand in the way of making a political point are all hallmarks of the Bush administration.

• When the Supreme Court ruled that the military commission system for Guantanamo Bay violated U.S. and international law, and that the Geneva Conventions apply to the detainees, Bush doubled down and goaded a weak Congress into passing a new Military Commissions Act legalizing exactly the kind of rights-infringing court system Bush wanted all along.
• Officials in the Bush administration - sometimes on orders from the president - have repeatedly stonewalled Congressional investigations by refusing to show up when subpoenaed or testify under oath.
• Famously, Bush was unable to name a mistake he made while in office back in 2004.

This list could go on.

Bush's failure to admit errors often turns simple mistakes into huge problems for America. I often wonder why Bush hasn't decided to withdraw from Iraq or roll back the tax cuts that have disastrously damaged our economy - two signature issues that will sink his legacy. Sometimes, I come to the conclusion that he's simply too far down the hole he dug for himself to admit he's wrong.

It looks like McCain is cut from the same cloth.

It would have been easy for McCain to simply say he misspoke or misremembered his statistics. Sure, he might take some flack for being too old to remember or too callous to care, but the episode would have died down much more quickly. Instead, by digging in his heels, sending out conflicting messages, and refusing to admit a mistake, McCain has ensured this story goes on - the press is still talking about it today.

This refusal to be wrong - similar to his refusal to "lose" a war - should give voters pause.

McCain has indicated he's stay in Iraq for "100 years," he'd think about preemptively bombing Iran and Syria, he'd make Bush's tax cuts permanent, and he'd appoint Supreme Court justices that are "clones" of Bush justices Roberts and Alito. With these kinds of dangerous policies combined with a refusal to back down or admit mistakes, it's impossible not to conclude that at best, a McCain presidency will be four more years of Bush, and at worst, he'd be, in the words of Cliff Schecter at yesterday's AFL-CIO book event, a "neocon on crack."

(P.S. If you're wondering what all those random links reading "McCain" are about, I'm participating in Chris Bowers' Google bombing project "Searching For McCain," and you should too!)

J Ro's opinions are his own and do not reflect those of any other person or organization.

Every once in a while, I like to put things in perspective.

John McCain has had three months to run unopposed. Since locking up the Republican nomination in February, he's been free to tour the country, pander to his base, and fundraise without much media scrutiny. But as the primary wraps up and the media gets its nose out of the Democratic fight, it's becoming painfully clear McCain hasn't made a lot of the time that was given to him.

Since February, John McCain has been doing two main things: making speeches and raising money. He hasn't been particularly good at either of them.

He's made numerous "big" policy speeches - on topics such as the economy, foreign policy, and the environment - and taken a few choreographed "tours" around the country - his environmental tour, his "forgotten places" tour. By and large, these media events have been received with mixed reviews. His economic proposals have been ridiculed as being half-baked. And his town halls and speeches have been met with hostile crowds.

Overall, McCain has done little of what he was supposed to be doing:

• McCain's fundraising numbers for April were slightly over half of Obama's: $18 million to $31 million.
• In the uncontested Republican primaries, McCain has been subject to a significant protest vote from dissatisfied GOP voters.
• McCain's tracking poll numbers haven't improved against Obama, even without opposition.

There are other troubling indicators, too.

• Over the last week, the vaulted McCain brand has taken a big hit. McCain has had to fire high-profile lobbyists from key positions in his campaign, and is currently re-vetting his entire staff. More resignations are likely.
• McCain has had to reject two pastors who's endorsements he sought, bringing into question his judgement and pissing off religious conservatives.
• It looks like McCain will have a spoiler on the right in the form of libertarian Bob Barr.
• And, as Todd Beeton points out, the sitting Republican President and the Republican nominee can't fill a stadium for a fundraiser in McCain's home town!

The GOP establishment is worried:

In interviews, some party leaders said they were worried about signs of disorder in his campaign, and if the focus in the last several weeks on the prominent role of lobbyists in Mr. McCain's inner circle might undercut the heart of his general election message: that he is a reformer taking on special interests in Washington.

Here's the reality: we are making a dent.

The continuous pressure from the blogs, from citizens, and from liberal organizations like the Center For American Progress and MoveOn.org are beginning to crack the media shell that surrounds McCain. The key point: His brand is weakening. If John McCain wins in November, it will be because of his "character" and his brand. It will mean Americans still believe he's a maverick, and not a two-faced politician who is saying anything to get elected. However, Obama is actually leading McCain as the candidate with "higher personal and ethical standards."

As the general election gets moving, Barack Obama will start using his megaphone to go after John McCain. Democratic surrogates will be doing the same thing. There is no guarantee McCain's going to lose this thing (check out Chris Bowers' map if you don't believe me), but the free ride for McCain just might be over.

He's had three months to get his house in order and it looks like he's sat on his hands. The real fight is starting - it looks like the old man might not be ready.

How about a little celebration, huh?

In the past week, six lobbyists have resigned from the McCain campaign under questions about their ties to foreign regimes and corporate interests. Doug Goodyear and Doug Davenport - both high level aides - resigned over their ties to the Burmese junta. Eric Burgeson, McCain's energy and environmental advisor, left due to his ties with the White House and the energy industry - particularly the "clean" coal and nuclear industries.

These discolusures have caused the McCain campaign to begin to re-vet everyone on staff, a highly disruptive and embarrasing procedure. Today, that new policy claimed it's first victims - both Susan Nelson, a consultant, and Tom Loeffler, the national finance co-chair, have left the McCain campaign:

One top campaign official affected by the new policy is national finance co-chair Tom Loeffler, a former Texas congressman whose lobbying firm has collected nearly $15 million from Saudi Arabia since 2002 and millions more from other foreign and corporate interests, including a French aerospace firm seeking Pentagon contracts. Loeffler last month told a reporter "at no time have I discussed my clients with John McCain." But lobbying disclosure records reviewed by NEWSWEEK show that on May 17, 2006, Loeffler listed meeting McCain along with the Saudi ambassador to "discuss US-Kingdom of Saudi Arabia relations."

Of course, there are still plenty of lobbyists working for the McCain campaign. Of particular note is Charlie Black, McCain's Senior Political Advisor.

Black has made a name for himself working for foreign dictators, people who have destroyed their countries and killed their people in their quest for power. Black's client list is a veritable who's who of evil men. Charlie Black has lobbied for:

• Ahmed Chalabi, the smooth talking Iraqi exile who helped manufacture the WMD charges against Saddam Hussien that led the U.S. to invade.
• Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos, found guilty of torture, executions, disappearances, and human rights violations, who hired Black to "improve" his image in the U.S.
• Somali dictator Mohamed Siad Barre, who's army massacred between 40,000 and 50,000 civilians in two years.
• Dictator Mobuto Sese Seko of Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo), who amassed a vast personal fortune and repressed rival political parties while his country's children starved.
• Angolan rebel leader Jonas Savimbi of UNITA, an ally of apartheid-era South Africa, who started a civil war which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and ordered the torture and murder of countless opponents.
• Nigerian Dictator Ibrahim Babangida ran a one-party regime, who arrested his opponents, and murdered journalists.

Black made millions burnishing the images of these evil men, selling them as worthy allies for Washington politicians to befriend.

John McCain has repeatedly said to judge him by the company he keeps. This is the company he keeps. McCain needs to fire the men who take money from dictators.

Sign the petition and tell him so (and cause his campaign more than a little bit of trouble in the process).

Six lobbyists down...dozens more to go?

J Ro's opinions are his own and do not represent the opinions of any other person or organization.

One of the most effective charges that can be leveled against George W. Bush - beyond the ineptitude, lawbreaking, and destructive policies - is that he surrounded himself with the wrong people. They were either hopelessly incompetent (Condoleezza Rice), completely surrounded by conflicts of interest (Donald Rumsfeld), or simply evil (Dick Cheney - no link required). In fact, of the nine most trusted advisers Bush brought up from Texas with him in 2000, all of them have now resigned in disgrace.

In short, we've seen what America under the dubious leadership of an awful man can become, but we've also seen what happens when that man surrounds himself with equally awful allies. It should be readily apparent that the people our next President chooses for his or her Cabinet is of the utmost importance.

Given how high-placed campaign staff and policy advisors often move into the White House if their candidate gets elected (see Warren Christopher in Clinton's administration and Condoleezza Rice in Bush's for two examples), there is real cause to worry about the people John McCain might appoint if he wins in November.

To state the obvious, the connection between John McCain's campaign and corporate lobbyists of all stripes is deep and wide. As Thomas Edsall reported last June, the McCain campaign has more lobbyists on staff than any other campaign:

A Huffington Post examination of the campaigns of the top three presidential candidates in each party shows that lobbyists are playing key roles in both Democratic and Republican bids --although they are far more prevalent on the GOP side. But, all the campaigns pale in comparison to McCain's, whose rhetoric stands in sharp contrast to his conduct.

...

All told, there are 11 current or former lobbyists working for or advising McCain, at least double the number in any other campaign.

That number has likely risen since then.

At the very least, McCain's White House will likely be staffed with the very same lobbyists, meaning you can expect a McCain administration to be a lot friendlier to business and their interests than to the interests of ordinary Americans.

To crystalize the issue, quick sampling of McCain's top policy advisors reveals characters I wouldn't want stepping within 1000 feet of the White House.

For example, Randy Scheunemann, a top McCain advisor, has already set foot in the halls of power and has already messed things up:

Scheunemann helped draft what would later become one of his claims to fame--the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which made the toppling of Saddam Hussein an official U.S. policy goal and authorized $98 million for the Iraqi National Congress, a loose grouping of Iraqi dissidents led by Ahmed Chalabi that has been widely blamed for channeling false intelligence about Iraq (see Jim Lobe, "New Champions of the War Cause," Asia Times, November 6, 2002).

In 2001, Scheunemann moved from congressional work to the Pentagon, serving for a short time as a consultant to then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Or take William Kristol, one of McCain's foreign policy advisors, who has a long history of public defense of some of Bush's worst policies:

Kristol has used his position at the Weekly Standard to extemporize on everything from what he sees as the imperative of quickly pardoning <span style="text-decoration: underline;">I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby</span>, Vice President <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Dick Cheney</span>'s former chief of staff who was convicted in early 2007 in connection with the PlameGate investigation, to decrying the "idiocy" in Washington that he feels is evident in efforts to roll back troop levels in Iraq. Criticizing congressional legislation to set deadlines for withdrawing troops from Iraq, Kristol pointed to what he called the "sense of momentum" garnered by troops since the surge began. However, he lamented, "In order to preserve the cosmic harmony, it seems the gods insist that good news in one place be offset by misfortune elsewhere. It may well be that Gen. David Petraeus is going to lead us to victory in Iraq. He is certainly off to a good start. If the karmic price of success in Iraq is utter embarrassment for senior Bush officials in Washington, DC--well, in our judgment, the trade-off is worth it. The world will surely note our success or failure in Iraq. It will not long remember the gang that couldn't shoot straight at the Justice Department--or, for that matter, the antics of congressional Democrats--unless either so weakens the administration as to undercut our mission in Iraq" (Weekly Standard, March 26, 2007).

William Kristol in White House? Think about that.