Although I teach African American literature, I sometimes organize informal reading groups on books beyond the direct subject of my field. After reading your book, I was so interested in the materials you covered and how you covered them that I designed a small discussion group (referred to it as a "mini-think tank" for fun) using _The Argument_ as the primary reading. The 10 or so participants and I really benefited from reading your work.

When I organized the group, I decided to give one of my extra copies of your book to my younger brother who's an undergraduate at a predominantly African American college. Over the course of the year, I'd often tell my brother, "hey, all these issues--ups and downs--with the Democratic Party were predicted in Matt Bai's book." I said it so much, I assumed he would've tuned me out. Turns out, I was wrong. The honors program at his college took submissions on a book that would be adopted for the fall's reading selection. He called me last night to say his submission was chosen, and so now the incoming class of honors students at his college will receive copies of _The Argument_. Thanks for producing this useful book.

Re: Capt John McCain, USN, 23 Missions Over NV, 6 Yr POW...Talk about warped assessments: "In private discussions with friends and colleagues, some of them have pointed out that (Sen. John) McCain, who was shot down and captured in 1967, spent the worst and most costly years of the war sealed away, both from the rice paddies of Indochina and from the outside world. During those years, McCain did not share the disillusioning and morally jarring experiences of soldiers like (John) Kerry, (Jim) Webb and (Chuck) Hagel, who found themselves unable to recognize their enemy in the confusion of the jungle; (McCain) never underwent the conversion that caused Kerry, for one, to toss away some of his war decorations during a protest at the Capitol. Whatever anger McCain felt remained focused on his captors, not on his own superiors back in Washington." [Are you fucking clueless?]

I thoroughly enjoyed your book and learned alot. I find it facinating to read about recent history. It was personally interesting as I had met Tom Mattzie, am a long time member of MoveOn, went to a party for Tom Swan, and, at an AFSCME meeting in New Britain, CT, got to ask Lieberman a question. This was the gist of the question..."Is there something you know, that we don't know, some piece of important information that cannot be made public, about why we are in Iraq?" His response was "we have to fight the terrorists." Okay, a simple question, a simple answer. But then I went on....."of the 9/11 terrorists none of them were from Iraq". Lieberman: well we have to fight them, they are terrorists. Now, I may not be the smartest person but I do have a masters degree. When I persisted he seemed anxious. Really. For some reason I expected a more complete and intelligent response. He certainly never adequately answered the question. We heard from Ned Lamont first that evening and then Lieberman. AFSCME in CT decided to support Lieberman that night but only because historically he had been good for us. However, most of the board members said personally they were going to vote for Lamont. I think that in your book you were kind of easy on "Joe". It was interesting that Clinton was always referred to as, well, Clinton but Lieberman was Joe. That man can be mean and hard when confronted and that is how he responded to Mr. Lamont's attempt totake "his" Senate seat. I also think the reason Lieberman won was because the republicans in CT, knowing their guy hadn't a chance, voted for the next best thing. Mr. Lamont did not lose because the main item on his platform was the war.
Anyway, thank you so very much for this book. How did you do it? Either you take great notes, have an enormous tape recorder, or you just that type of mind that absorbs pretty much everything. However you do it, I am glad you do!

Generally I admire your political analysis and consider you a throwback to the Times commentators of a less partisan past who might be described as objective. However, I must take issue, in the broadest terms, with your article on McCain. Its strategy is to contextualize McCain's position concerning Iraq as rooted in his experience and the experience of his Senate colleagues who are, like him, veterans of Vietnam. This is suggested most succinctly in the question you pose toward the middle of the article: "Having bemoaned the impact of Vietnam on the nation, why is McCain—alone among the veterans of that war in the Senate—determined to settle in for another long and costly counterinsurgency?" Permit me to characterize your dubious answer: McCain, who was in prison, was not as keenly aware as they of the long and costly counterinsurgency. Thus your answer is implicitly psychological. However, this will not do, for you virtually ignore the real and most important context to be considered, that of McCain's Iraq doctrine vis-à-vis that of his opponents, especially Barack Obama.

Obama has said that the U.S. must disengage itself from Iraq (returning in small numbers should the need arise) in order to deal primarily with its more important, and presumably more real, enemies in Afghanistan and western Pakistan. I find the media's ignoring of the probable consequences of this plan disingenuous. Will more decisive military campaigns in Afghanistan and Waziristan, and defensive probes in Iraq, prove any less "long and costly [a] counterinsurgency?" Will they not prove even more costly, in blood and treasure, than the present stage of (really the same)conflict?

I see Obama supporters holding signs at a local intersection which ask drivers to honk their horns for peace, as if the equation Obama= Peace is a certainty. Though the media assiduously avoid seeing Obama in this light, I believe the opposite may prove to be true. It is worthwhile to remember that most of the wars of the 20th century were initiated (mostly with just cause) by Democratic Progressives (Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy/Johnson). But it may turn out that McCain's experience of Vietnam has made the maverick Republican a kind of genuine peace candidate.

Recognizing that John McCain is not an intellectual, I thought he gave some intelligent and insightful answers to your questions. I now have a better opinion of his intellect than before reading your article. However, the parallels you draw between Iraq and Vietnam are inaccurate. Johnson literally staged the Gulf of Tonkin incident -- an outright lie -- to escalate the Vietnam war. The Bush administration, by comparison, believed it would find weapons of mass destruction and was embarrassed when none appeared. Its principal objective was to empower a moderate, somewhat democratic, Shiite government that would ultimately serve to destabilize the (unpopular) Mullahs in Iran and bring greater peace and stability to the region. The administration removed the Baathists from power in order to accomplish that objective. Removal of the Baathists may not have facilitated our quick withdrawal from Iraq, but it was the only way to accomplish our main objective of empowering Shiite moderates. I agree with McCain's explanation for why the realist school of diplomacy does not make sense when fighting a war on terrorism. And I am glad McCain gravitates more towards the idealists than the realists.

I love reading the International Hearald Tribune. Nevertheless I don't usually read entire articles. However I made an exception with yours. You wrote an article that was factual, objective and very thought provoking, enough for me to re-think who I'll be supporting with my November vote. Thank you. Kay Lee, Milan, Italy

I read your article about McCain a day after reading George C. Herring's "America's Longest War: The United States and Vietnam, 1950-1975." Though I wish I could give you a full reaction to your article, I will just make two points.

First, I would like to point you to an article written in 2007 by Yale political scientist Stathis N. Kalyvas, a leading scholar on civil wars. The article argues that Vietnam is mistakenly called an "ideological" war and Iraq an "ethnic" war. The authors demonstrate both empirically and theoretically that neither of these characterizations is accurate--both have strong ethnic and intra-ethnic violence, and nationalist (ideological) groups play an important but not exclusive role in both. The authors conjecture that Iraq's ineffectual government, rather than ethnic division, is what causes the violence to take its current form. After reading the article, I think the author would also take issue with likening the Iraqi civil war with the Yugoslav Wars of the 90s, which concerned far more viable state actors.

This is the statement I take issue with in your article: "The very nature of the wars is markedly different, for better or worse; Vietnam was a Communist uprising against an autocratic government, while Iraq represents a multiparty, ethnic conflict more similar to that of the Balkans."

See Kalyvas' article. It is heavy reading but probably worth your time. I encourage you to email and interview him since I haven't seen his name outside of journals and a class on civil war: http://research.yale.edu/stathis/documents/KK.PS_000.pdf

Second, your treatment of John McCain is quite forgiving at points. The so-called "straight-talking straight-shooting" cant rings loud in clear in this passage: "Like every politician I’ve known, McCain will sometimes surrender to the cheap ploy or prevarication when the moment demands it, but it is often with a smirk or a wince, some hard-to-miss signal that he knows he’s up to no good." I think you are giving a politician too much credit. This reminds me of Jonathan Alter's column in autumn 1999, when he claimed, "But even [McCain's] failures just seem to deepen the character lines." As Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler puts it, "McCain has integrity--even when he doesn't!"

See that Daily Howler here--it's pretty funny:
http://dailyhowler.com/dh051308.shtml

I am still just a college student, but after studying the Vietnam War, I am deeply skeptical of presidential wisdom in regards to waging wars like the one in Iraq. I hope our free press--you included--shares my skepticism and desire for intelligent foreign policy.

I would appreciate any comments you have in response.

During your recent appearance on 'This Week', in regards the Democratic nomination, you stated:

"You have a couple of states that aren't gonna be counted, as it probably
should be, given the rules"

Ah, it seems you've either forgotten, or were never aware, that Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, Michigan, and Florida all violated the same "rules".

Not to mention, the DNC rules state that any state party WHICH ITSELF moves the voting date, will be penalized. As I assume you know, neither the Florida or Michigan Democrats chose to move their elections forward. The choosing was done by State Legislatures, controlled by Republicans, when passing omnibus bills disbursing moneys for both Democratic and Republican Primaries, forcing both of them forward. Democrats fought against this in both states, but in both cases could not veto omnibus bills apportioning moneys for their own election.

Hillary Clinton was recently interviewed by Bill O'Reilly on Fox. Why now? Some say that she is abandoning the liberal left base (moveon, dailykos) to appeal to moderates and centrists. What do u think. By the way I read "the Argument" -- good read.

I wanted to write you and tell you how much I love The Argument. I'm a recent law school grad, and I've always been a big political junkie who loved to talk politics with his friends. However, your book crystallized my understanding of the Democratic Party, where it's been, where it is, where it's going and who might take it there. And it was damn funny, too. The stuff with Rob Reiner in particular is a personal favorite.

In a strange twist of fate, I've actually ended up becoming a Field Organizer for Hillary Clinton's campaign in North Carolina. Already I can see, as I reflect on the broader issues in the campaign and my view from my little part of it, just how accurate your insights were and how they apply to politics today.