Trenchant Analysis from the NYT???

I will allow you a moment to recover from the shock, and suffice to say it's not from David Brooks. On the other hand, for all of the good points from Matt Bai's cogent blog post, like virtually all liberals (excepting this one and few others, it seems), he fails to adequately take into account the role of immigration in the national debate--both how rapidly it took center stage and how rapidly it all but disintegrated.

When I sharply attack my fellow blog compatriots for living in a cocoon (admittedly, the wording is heavily cribbed from Mickey Kaus of Slate fame), I can think of no finer contemporary political example. The MSM has tried to sell us a bill of goods on the Mad Mac resuscitation, i.e. Senator McCain's campaign has risen as US casualties in Iraq have fallen and that in early 2007, his support for the Bush-Kagan surge caused voters to quickly jettison him from the front-runner's chair.

Uh, no. His support for the surge coupled with his failure to join the Kerry candidacy in 2004 severely disappointed, oh hell, let's use a true NYT word... distressed his former champions from the 2000 Straight Talk Express run. His support for the new Iraq policy was the ONLY element that gave him ANY credibility with a Republican base that STILL refuses to afford him a conservative edge over a guy best known for his YouTube moments.

Immigration, however, represented for many the last straw. Every other candidate, from the once-permissive Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee to the who-really-knows Mittster significantly altered their positioning; McCain did not, at least not until after the debate had ended. He now says that he "has got the message" and supports "border control" before his comprehensive plan, which, Mad Mac admitted to Tim Russert on Meet the Press, "Yeah" I would sign.

For readers in a fog as to this crucial debate, here was my view on the Bush-McCain-Kennedy bill that failed in the US Congress. For once, now not surprisingly on a domestic issue, the Times Op-Ed page and this observer concurred, if anything, my position falls to the left of even Pinch (Sulzburger) and Andy (Rosenthal).

I would challenge anyone to find someone with a "softer" immigration policy (free and unfettered, special benefits for those that do it legally, from any nation, yes, even Arab or Islamic ones) and a "harder" foreign policy, particularly in regards to Islam. For the conservative base, these issues are erroneously treated as two sides of the same coin. Simply, I am far more concerned about al-Qaeda nihilism and murder-bombers tolerated the governments of the Middle East unable to wrestle with ideologically fanatical collectives such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah, than I am about would-be terrorist cells infiltrating the US via a true Open Door policy.

Mr. Bai is onto something when he presumes that John McCain is getting at least a temporal surge "bounce" yet that stems from liberal Republicans and independents. Whatever trust they have in the Iraq project solely resides in the Arizona senator. Do not, though, conflate this contingent with Republican voters as a whole or conservatives.

And forget not another thing: absent Iraq, John McCain would have gone absolutely nowhere in another presidential plunge. Remove the Iraq presence and Mitt Romney's economic arguments and business background emerge as a heavy favorite on the GOP side.

I repeat from a prior post: Democrats had a very good shot at detouring a McCain-led Republican ticket had they played their political cards better or even, heaven forbid, abandoned their still-potent strain of nativism that continues to divide the party on this issue. Yes, we're aware of the animosity and mutual distrust between African-Americans and Hispanics--get over it. The Democratic Party should find the right side of this issue, morally, and fast, even if the Clintons are by no means above shamelessly blowing nativist dog whistles (as Big Dog urged Senator Kerry to oppose gay marriage forcefully in 2004) in order to convince enough Americans that John McCain wishes to create a Mexiamerican Union.

Quick note on endorsements: Hillary Clinton picked up a nice one from arguably my favorite representative, Maxine Waters of Los Angeles, who continued her loyalty to the Clinton dynasty. On the other hand, a Colbertesque "wag of the finger" to the otherwise splendid Senator Barbara Boxer of California due to her refusal to pick a side. Yes, I know she is a politician (a great one at that), but pledging one's support to the primary winner of one's home state is rather weak for someone of her caliber. Washington State, potentially a huge contest after the anticipated deadlock of Super Duper Tuesday, offers two senators that made their stand: for HRC. The choice of Clinton or Obama is the most important primary contest since 1980 (if not further back in the books) and all Dems should back the candidate of their choosing, not their electorate's. Babs is safe, she found victory in 1992 behind Bubba's landslide, and crossing Senator Obama isn't a major risk.

Pure conjecture: she likes Obama, but does not want either to hurt her fellow colleague or lose a friend, otherwise she'd have endorsed her by now.