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.

It's been said over and over again that foreign policy doesn't win elections. That might explain why both parties are so bad at it. 

Nonetheless, foreign policy arguments sometimes enter national politics, as they did the other day during the uproar over Bush's appeasement comments.

It was heartening to see Obama strike back at Bush and McCain immediately and with great force. This kind of response to attacks makes me feel a bit better about the election going forward.

The whole episode bring up questions about the differences between McCain and Obama's foreign policy. It's a great argument to have, as Paul Rosenberg explains:

In short, the allegiance to a super-hawk foreign policy is not something that McSame is going to change.  But given how unpopular Bush's war has become, it's something he willspin, and spin hard.  And this will cause increasing problems with the "straight talk" narrative-whether the press wants to notice it or not.  This is why Barack Obama is 100% correct to be welcoming a foreign policy debate with McCain. The more you hear about McCain's actual foreign policy views, the farther they diverge from the American public's.  It took almost 30 years–including the intentionally limited gulf War I and 9/11 to get the American public to forget Vietnam, and willingly embrace limitless interventionism again.  We are not up for more of the same.

If there is one clear issue where Americans agree right now, it's Iraq. We want out, and McCain wants us to stay in.

Looking deeper, one hopes Obama has more of a vision for his foreign policy than simply leaving Iraq. While deciding to talk to people around the world is a great start, there are a lot of details yet to be worked out. Our own Alex Thurston, writing for The Agonist, has one suggestion:

As we think our way through to a new US foreign policy, more suitable for the changing global environment, I would urge the creation of a high-profile diplomatic emergency response team for crisis situations abroad.

Intervening diplomatically is in our interest for moral reasons (we may help prevent bloodshed), economic reasons (festering crises in countries like Nigeria disrupt our supply of oil, for example), and strategic reasons (we have resorted to military action in Somalia and Afghanistan after ignoring crises there for years).

This kind of personal, intimate foreign policy shows signs of success already in the example of Kofi Annan's intervention in Kenya. It's something Obama should consider supporting publicly.

There's a lot to be hammered out between now and November. What other foreign policy ideas would you like Obama to consider?

Senator Edward Kennedy has been hospitalized after suffering a seizure. Kennedy is 76.

My thoughts are with him - he is a great American patriot. 

This week, we want to know your views on rising energy prices. But first, last week's results:

Last week, we asked you how often you watched television. The results were widely varied. 30% watched 3-5 hours per week; 23% watched none; 19% watched 1-2 hours per week, and 14% watch 6-10 hours per week and 10+ hours per week. For the record, I do not own a TV, but I do end up watching probably 1-2 hours per week.

This week, Would you be willing to permanently accept higher energy prices (gas, heating, electricity, etc…) if it meant stopping global warming and ending America's dependence on foreign oil? Voting begins in the sidebar on the left right now!

The Senate just passed a "resolution of disapproval" nullifying the FCC's latest giveaway to big media companies!

Back in December, the FCC went against 99% of the comments submitted by members of the public and passed a rule allowing media companies to consolidate further:

The FCC voted to remove the “newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership” ban that prohibits one company from owning a broadcast station and the major daily newspaper in the same market. The resolution of disapproval (Senate Joint Resolution 28), introduced by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), would nullify the FCC’s new rules if passed by Congress and signed by the president

Led by John Kerry, the resolution passed today. If the House passes the resolution as well and if Bush signs it (which is doubtful, so if the House and Senate overturn Bush's veto), the rule will be revoked.

This evening, I sat in on a question and answer session with author and journalist Eric Lichtblau, who just published the book Bush's Law: The Remaking of American Justice. Lichtblau also authored the original investigative report exposing the NSA's domestic, warrantless wiretapping program in 2005 and kicking off the debate around the country over FISA, Bush, and the law.

It was enlightening to hear citizens in the crowd question this respected journalist. Clearly, Lichtblau felt that he was right in publishing his original expose, yet the story was held by the New York Times for over a year before being released. While Lichtblau didn't defend his editor's choice in holding back the story, he did defend the principle; he felt an editor should withhold a story - and indeed as a journalist he would withhold a story - if the story endangered national security.

This, of course, was the ridiculous argument made by government officials to embargo the NSA story, an argument that is demonstrably false. Indeed, as Lichtbau pointed out, it was common knowledge before the NSA story that the government was tapping the foreign communications of Al-Qaeda and the like. It is inconceivable that the disclosure of a program intercepting communications between foreigners and American citizens would have disclosed something Al-Qaeda didn't already know.

While I don't necessarily find fault with the idea of embargoing stories for national security reasons - indeed, there are examples where this has actually happened. (An example that came up in the discussion of The Chicago Tribune revealing the U.S. had broken the codes of Japan during World War II ended years of successful surveillance.) What I found more troubling was who the editors at the New York Times believed.

The Seminal, while primarily an online operation, loves to throw events in the DC area. We've got two going on tomorrow for those who care to join!

First, we are hosting a book salon with Firedoglake and DC Drinking Liberally. Come meet Pulitzer Prize winning author Eric Lichtblau and discuss his new book, Bush's Law: The Remaking of American Justice.

The salon is going down at Timberlakes at 1726 Connecticut Ave NW (Dupont Circle Metro). Happy hour starts at 6:30, with a talk and book signing to follow from 7:30 - 9. More information here.

The second event is being put on by Blue Catapult, author Ian Fried's PAC. Here's the blurb:

Join us and the Woman's National Democratic Club to meet and greet Democratic challenger Frank Kratovil on Tuesday, May 13, at the WNDC HQ (1526 New Hampshire Ave, NW), on the corner of Q and New Hampshire, 2 blocks East of the DuPont North Metro Exit.

Tickets are only $35, food and open bar are included, and all the money raised goes to supporting this great challenger!

The event starts at 6:30. More information here.

All are welcome at either event! Invite your friends!

My suggestion, do both! Hit up the Blue Catapult fundraiser at 6:30, then walk a few short blocks over to the book salon and catch the end of the question and answer period. 

We'll see you tomorrow night.

Isn't the general election fun?

Let's see, so far, we've got the House Republican whip Roy Blunt saying John McCain will be a 3rd Bush term. (Thanks Roy! Couldn't have said it better myself!)

Then we've got Wonkette joking about the McCain campaign dumping lobbyists left and right for their connections with the ruling junta in Burma.

And finally, BarbinMD has a great expose poring over a myriad of suspicious deals McCain has helped set up in return for campaign contributions:

The moral of this story seems to be, if you are interested in real estate, John McCain is the man to know.  Or, for that matter, if you need an advocate for beer distributorships, telephone carriers, railroads or mining companies.  If you are a patron, then you've got a friend in John McCain.  Even as he insists that:

I have carefully avoided situations that might even tangentially be construed as a less than proper use of my office.

Not carefully enough.

Looks like the honorable Senator from Arizona isn't quite as squeaky clean as he might like to say he is.

So, folks, what have you been reading today? Dig up any good McCain dirt?

It's become a once-a-week thing. Each week, usually on Friday, the McCain campaign tries to take a swipe at Obama, basically calling him a terrorist:

In the clearest indication yet of how he intends to confront SenatorBarack Obama on foreign policy issues in the general election, SenatorJohn McCain on Friday again portrayed the Democratic contender as being the favorite of Hamas, the militant Palestinian group, and implied that he would also be friendly with Iran, a Hamas ally.

I gotta say, if this is the core of McCain's foreign policy attack against Obama, I'm unimpressed. Saying things like “I think it is very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States,” really don't seem like potent attacks, seeing as most Americans have no idea who Hamas is, or what weight their "endorsement" should carry in American politics.

And, besides, McCain's team isn't entirely clean of terrorist ties. Someone should ask McCain how he thinks Americans feel about his top aide, Tom Loeffler, lobbying for Saudi Arabia while at the same time working on McCain's presidential campaign. Hamas may be a terrorist group, but Saudi Arabia is arguable where it all started.

Shall we say, cautious victory?

Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. has recinded its offer to buy Newsday and Cablevision has made a bid in its place. Murdoch's purchase of Newsday would have made his company an incredibly powerful force in New York's important media market:

If the deal goes through, on top of owning three New York newspapers, Murdoch also would control two New York City television stations, WNYW and WWOR (both Fox affiliates). That means on a given day, one man would be able to reach 3,251,229 people per day through newspapers alone, plus millions more through the dual TV stations.

Of course, the purchase would have also faced regulatory hurdles at the FCC, though it is somewhat doubtful the FCC would have strictly enforced its regulations.

Now, thankfully, the situation has been averted. Though Newsday may be sold to another big corporation (Cablevision), at least the potential new own doesn't already control top newspapers and broadcast TV stations in the area.

While New York's media market might not be getting more diverse in any meaningful way, at least it's not getting more consolidated.