And I do apologize if I paint you a bit more partisan than you are; I do base this almost entirely on your postings at C&L which, I think you’ll agree, tend to paint you a bit more in line with the Democratic party than you may actually be.

… the metacow

And I will check out Newshoggers (I’ve visited once or twice so far). It certainly sounds like a blog that is more in line with my own thinking anyways (for better or for worse… I actually try to avoid too many sites that are going to reinforce what I already think).

1) I’m rather less of an Obama booster than many others in the “liberal” blog spectrum. He reminds me a little too much of Tony Blair. Then again, like Blair, he’s better than any of the mainstream alternatives. Give me Bernie sanders as Prez and I’d be happier. But you won’t get an argument from me that many gloss over his faults to hype his plusses – which is true of almost all partisans.

2) the other Kagan was Fred indeed. It was in an interview recently with the UK’s Daily Telegraph, to which I’ve lost the link.

I’ve enjoyed this discussion. I’m a small blogger (check out Newshoggers sometime, please) and talking with other small bloggers is always fun.

Regards, C

First, congratulations on the new night job! I hope you use the very significant megaphone C&L provides to improve the level of discourse in the committed Liberal community (I’m sorry that I can’t imagine C&L’s readership extending too far beyond that, at least not during campaign season). C&L certainly has a very impressive blogger line-up and I’m happy to see someone who is willing to defend his posts in tiny blogs like mine elevated to that readership, even if we likely disagree on many issues.

Now to the actual debate at hand…

1) I’m interpreting your first paragraph as an agreement with me on the factual basis of my claim re: campaign contributions from the financial industry to both parties (despite my inability to find the reference source, I did append the post with a different reference a minute ago). If we’re in at least rough agreement on that point, do you agree with me that furthering the (likely) commonly held misconception that Obama is somehow less beholden to, or less supported by, the big investment banks is a major issue of accuracy? Inaccuracies, I have many. However I believe this breed of inaccuracy is important as it’s especially easy to get away with (coincides with a stereotype of both Republicans and Obama).

This may be a personal beef, though I have trouble imagining I could be alone, but that kind of comment that is arguably untrue, yet presented to an audience that is very uncritical about that brand of claim (anything anti-Conservative at a solidly Liberal blog) contributes to creating these huge fissures in informational bases between the supporters of the political parties. I can understand when Democrats and Republicans don’t get along in the houses of government (after all, they’re just children), but it does bother me that we have so much trouble engaging in discourse as just plain citizens. And I think propagating the impression that the Republicans are THE party (and not one of the two parties) beholden to big business is injurious to the chances that citizens will ever have that discussion.

2) On the second point you addressed: I was at least partially wrong there; I chose to confine my response to the captions quoted in your post, and the context provided therein. To that extent, I do not think “That’s basically an admission from Kagan that a McCain foreign policy would consist entirely of looking for reasons to fight with Russia and China.” And I was unaware of his brother making the “hedgehogs” remark.

Now this is going to be nitpicking, admittedly, but:
2a) “Looking for reasons…” is very different from believing in a threat. And I think it is at least understandable, even if you (and I) do not feel this way, to view Russia and China as threats to American hegemony. I certainly differ with Kagan, but still feel the interpretation is unfair based on the source material at The Herald.
2b) Where is this ‘hedgehogs’ remark (I did a search for “Frederick Kagan Hedgehog” and did not find it. Don’t tell me there’s another Kagan brother…) and is it even relevant? The brothers do appear to be simpatico in worldview, however now we’re using Frederick Kagan’s remark to provide context for McCain advisor, Robert Kagan’s, statement? And combining the two to divine John McCain’s foreign policy beliefs? Do you see where I take issue with that? It takes active effort for me to string that bit of logic together (and I’m already favourably-primed, as I believe John McCain does view the world with the USA in a never-ending police role). That suggests to me that you chose the most sensationalistic (and frightening) manner of framing Kagan’s (whichever’s) remark.

*** I apologize for the length of this comment; I understand this argument likely means more to me than it does to you, so I tried to be thorough so you wouldn’t have to rely on more clarification from me in subsequent comments. I absolutely feel that I am nitpicking, as a blog post is not a New York Times article (and even if my arguments have substance, I doubt that would stop the NYT from making the same arguments in an op-ed), however I do honestly believe that blogs can’t merely target the MSM and opposition-party blogs without directing their sights at one another. That is, if we care about the state of media discourse as much as we pretend to. Thanks again, Cernig. C&L is likely to remain a daily read of mine for a while, so I look forward to reading more of your posts. I’ll make an effort to pick my next fight with Amato…

Please feel very free to tell me you feel that I am seeing this wrong. I’d appreciate the correction, as both claims I’ve made I do feel seriously about.

… the metacow

Yes, Dems do it too. Not being a Dem either i can be just as critical of them as of the GOP. Hang arouynd, you’ll see it. But this election cycle is the first since 1990 when the financial industry has given more to Dems than the GOP. And usually its been a quite large gap.
(Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F)

As to Kagan, he said “The future international order will be shaped by those who have the power and the collective will to shape it.” In other words, the will to use that power. He also made it explicit he meant hard power – military power. His brother was in the UK at the same time advocating turning eastern European nations into armed “hedgehogs” to confront Russia with. You’re free to disagree with my assessment but that’s pretty unambiguous to me.

Regards, C

PS John asked me to join the team in the wake of Steve Benen’s departure so unless I piss John off I am hoping to be a permanent fixture at C&L. The nature of the beast there is that breaking foreign policy news and in-depth foreign affairs discussions don’t go down as well as domestic politics. Ah well. I do the bulk of my writing of that kind at Newshoggers still. We’ve a great team there, with Fester and BJ doing policy wonk stuff, Libby and Ron doing domestic politics and me trying to straddle the Pond with a transatlantic persepctive.

Regards, C