On CBS’s Face The Nation this morning, uber lobbyist Charlie Black — who serves as Sen. John McCain’s chief political adviser — attempted to exonerate McCain for sending badgering letters to the FCC in 1999 at the behest of a telecommunications company with business before the commission. “Letters to the FCC by the chairman of their oversight committee are nothing unusual,” said Black.

Black then cited former FCC chairman Reed Hundt, who left the commission two years before McCain sent the letters, as vouching for the appropriateness of the letters:

In fact, a Democratic FCC chairman, Reed Hundt, said that Sen. McCain’s letter was perfectly appropriate.

Watch it:

Black’s reference to Hundt is a misleading effort to shift attention from McCain’s relationship to lobbyists. In fact, Hundt told the Boston Globe this week that “he shouldn’t have been” cited as exonerating McCain:

Reed Hundt, the former FCC chairman cited as exonerating McCain, said in an interview that he shouldn’t have been, notwithstanding a letter to the editor he wrote in 2000 praising the senator. “I can’t speak to a thing,” Hundt said yesterday. “I don’t know anything about what he wrote to Kennard and not to me.”

Hundt says he “can’t speak” to the appropriateness of letters McCain sent to then-FCC Chairman William E. Kennard in 1999. But Kennard can, and in ’99, he responded to McCain, saying his letters were “highly unusual“:

I must respectfully note that it is highly unusual for the commissioners to be asked to publicly announce their voting status on a matter that is still pending. I am concerned that inquiries concerning the individual deliberations of each commissioner could have procedural and substantive impacts on the commission’s deliberations and, thus, on the due process rights of the parties.

Democratic Commisisoner Gloria Tristani also objected, saying in 2000 that she had “never received such an out-of-line request” in her two years on the commission.

Michael Crowley says an alleged lack of patriotism will be the main line of argument against Barack Obama. I agree. I would only add that I’ve heard the term “post-American” tossed around a lot. On the low road, Obama’s black and foreign. On the middle road, he’s unpatriotic. And on the high-road he’s one of those post-American tranzies. Which is, of course, a fancy way of saying he’s black and foreign. And thus the loop is closed.

Scott Lemieux further elaborates on the trouble with the Hillary Clinton experience argument:

[I]f Clinton’s rather marginal and contestable experiential advantages over Obama should be decisive any of the other major Democratic candidates would be unquestionably preferable to either. (And, even worse, the same would be true of McCain in the general.)

I think the point in the parenthesis is key. If you win a primary on an “experience” argument, then you’d damn well better be more experienced than your general election opponent. McCain would make an experience argument against either opponent, so it’s much better to be the opponent with a record of statements aimed at rebutting such arguments (I don’t think the American people judge your qualification based on duration of service in a broken Washington system…) than to be the opponent who’s been making the argument that voters need to stick with the more seasoned Washington hand.

This morning on Fox News Sunday, New York Times columnist Bill Kristol recommended that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) employ the “politics of fear” to attack Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL):

KRISTOL: [Obama's] riding a wave of euphoria. She [Clinton] needs to puncture it. The way you puncture euphoria is reality, or to be more blunt, fear. I recommend to Senator Clinton the politics of fear.

Kristol explained that his fear-mongering political strategy would focus on Iran. He recommended that Clinton say the following about Obama: “He wants to negotiate on January 21st with Ahmadinejad. Here’s what Ahmadinejad has said about blowing up Israel.” Watch it:

Kristol has invested heavily in a strategy of convincing policymakers to bomb Iran. Here’s some examples of what Kristol has advocated:

– “We could in a military confrontation with Iran much sooner than people expect.”

– The Iranian people would embrace “the right use of targeting military force.”

– President Bush “could easily build political support” for an attack on Iran “at the beginning of 2008.”

Because the concept of engaging Iran is a threat to Kristol’s agenda, he appears desperate to do all he can to delegitimize the idea of negotiation. As Kristol’s Fox News colleage Juan Williams has said, all Kristol wants is “war, war, war.”

Ralph Nader to hop into the race. After all, there’s not a dime’s worth of a difference between a candidate promising tax cuts, pushing more health risk onto individuals, a re-invigoration of George Bush’s campaign to dominate the world through military force, and an industry-friendly approach to environmental issues and his rival who’s promising substantial socialization of medical risk, a 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions, and end to the war in Iraq (and to the mindset that led to war!), universal preschool, etc. Well, sure, there’s judicial appointments — abortion, gay rights, etc. — and some small fry stuff about whether or not the NSA will have unrestrained surveillance powers. But basically it’s just the same two corporate clones running on virtually identical platforms.

Thank God for Ralph Nader.

The South Idaho Press reports:

A standing ovation for Sen. Larry Craig’s service to Idaho was the highlight of the Mini-Cassia Lincoln Day Luncheon presented by the Republican Party committees of Cassia and Minidoka counties Friday afternoon at Morey’s Steakhouse in North Burley. [...]

Craig was given a painting by renowned local artist Robert Moore. … But Craig was careful to clarify the status of the painting after taking the microphone. He said the painting would be on loan until he finishes his term in office next year. Only then would he accept it as a gift.

“We’re going to remain ethically correct for the remaining nine months,” Craig quipped.

A new poll in the March issue of the Atlantic finds that 73 percent of foreign policy experts believe “liberal democracy” is weaker than it was in 2000. One expert noted that “flawed U.S. policies” have given “democracy promotion a bad name.” Another remarked, “No country wants to look like Iraq.”