Did McCain's Blunder Force Obama To Alter Schedule?

So far, this is just a theory. But I have the strong suspicion that Barack Obama was originally slated to visit Iraq first, followed by Afghanistan. The plans were changed when John McCain foolishly disclosed Obama's itinerary yesterday.

Here is the circumstantial evidence.

First, from Marc Ambinder, we learn that the press was told that Obama would be traveling to Iraq first:

So reporters were to led to think that Obama would first travel to Iraq and then to Afghanistan.... not the other way 'round.

Second, doesn't it seem strange that Obama would fly to Kuwait, which is right next door to Iraq, only to skip Iraq and fly straight to Afghanistan?

Mr. Obama touched down in Kabul just before noon on Saturday, his aides said, after stopping to visit — and play basketball with — American troops in Kuwait on his trip from Washington.

The timing and the itinerary seem quite suspicious. Perhaps this was all just a big head fake that went according to plan. But then again -- maybe they decided to hit Afghanistan first only after McCain leaked Obama's schedule to the world.

Here is the approximate timeline, from the sources I can gather (all times Eastern):

July 17th, 3:17 PM: Obama departs from Andrews Air Force Base to Kuwait.

July 18th - 4:00 AM: Flight arrives in Kuwait after 13 hour flight.

July 18th - 1:15 PM: Reuters files article about McCain's comments.

July 18th - 8:00 PM: Obama departs Kuwait for Afghanistan (7 hour flight approx).

July 19th - 3:15 AM: Barack Obama arrives in Kabul, Afghanistan.

Apparently, Obama was in Kuwait for approximately 14 hours. It is unclear at this stage whether they were planning to stay in Kuwait for that long, or if plans had to be reshuffled when the McCain leak became known. Clearly, this deserves some more investigation. I'm sure the Obama folks know the full story, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if they had to alter their plans after McCain broke the code of silence on Obama's itinerary.

Obama Visits Kuwait, Afghanistan

Yesterday, out of pure curiosity, I listened to Sean Hannity's radio show. He brought on a caller, a returned military veteran, who said that all the troops he knew would boo Obama off the stage if he showed up at their base.

Not exactly a surprising sentiment coming from a Sean Hannity fan. But reality has a way of interfering with these right wing fantasies:



I don't remember ever seeing John McCain get a standing ovation, or compelling huge smiles from the troops. Bush pulled it off in the post-9/11, pre-Mission Accomplished days, but McCain is just too old and bland to inspire that kind of excitement.

Would you stand up and cheer if a tired, confused old coot walked into the room? Didn't think so.

McCain Is Fucked

Let's get this straight: McCain's entire campaign is premised on his foreign policy experience. It's all about Iraq, all about al Qaeda, period.

And today, the Prime Minister of Iraq fucked him, and fucked him good. How can McCain continue his talk of "victory vs. surrender", when the Prime Minister of Iraq is on board with Obama's 16-month withdrawal plan? Is McCain going to accuse Maliki of being a "Defeatocrat"?

The McCain campaign has issued their official response, and it's lame:

"The difference between John McCain and Barack Obama is that Barack Obama advocates an unconditional withdrawal that ignores the facts on the ground and the advice of our top military commanders. John McCain believes withdrawal must be based on conditions on the ground. Prime Minister Maliki has repeatedly affirmed the same view, and did so again today. Timing is not as important as whether we leave with victory and honor, which is of no apparent concern to Barack Obama. The fundamental truth remains that Senator McCain was right about the surge and Senator Obama was wrong. We would not be in the position to discuss a responsible withdrawal today if Senator Obama's views had prevailed."

The campaign dances around the main issue, ignoring what Maliki plainly said and then repeating their tired refrain about how awesome McCain's surge has been.

American voters don't give a damn how awesome the surge has been. They want to know when the troops will "surge" out of Iraq and back home to their families. They want to know when the "surge" of money to Halliburton finally gets cut off, and when the "surge" of bellicose Mideast policy ends so that oil speculators stop driving gas prices through the roof.

Anyway, here is the roundup of opinion on the Maliki statement and the potential aftermath:

Josh Marshall:

I've spent a couple hours now trying to process the probable impact of Prime Minister al Maliki's explicit endorsement of Barack Obama's 16 month timetable for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. My first instinct is always to try not to overstate the impact of momentary developments. But I don't think it's enough to say this is a huge development. It's huger than that. In a stroke, I think, al Maliki has cut McCain off at the knees in a way I'm not sure his campaign strategy can recover from.

Marc Ambinder:

This could be one of those unexpected events that forever changes the way the world perceives an issue. Iraq's Prime Minister agrees with Obama, and there's no wiggle room or fudge factor. This puts John McCain in an extremely precarious spot: what's left to argue? to argue against Maliki would be to predicate that Iraqi sovereignty at this point means nothing. Obviously, our national interests aren't equivalent to Iraq's, but... Malik isn't listening to the generals on the ground...but the "hasn't been to Iraq" line doesn't work here....

(Via e-mail, a prominent Republican strategist who occasionally provides advice to the McCain campaign said, simply, "We're fucked."

Matt Yglesias:

Last week, both the Bush administration and John McCain found themselves shifting in the direction of positions Barack Obama had long espoused in terms of talks with Iran and in terms of the need for more troops in Afghanistan. More recently, Bush seemed to be edging toward embracing a timetable for withdrawal and now Maliki has explicitly embraced the Obama position on the need for a timetable.

This leaves us with two questions -- one is whether McCain will make this the third issue on which he's following Obama's lead, and the other is whether the press will note that his constant flip-flopping undermines the two core themes of his campaign, "straight talk" and alleged national security expertise.

The Daily Dish:

A few weeks ago, Ross argued (somewhat persuasively) that McCain should run on the surge. In the last few days, the McCain campaign and his supporters began pursuing that strategy. An independent pro-McCain group, Let Freedom Ring, announced today it is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars running an ad attacking Obama over Iraq. And the McCain campaign put out a new TV ad along similar lines yesterday. But with Maliki backing Obama's Iraq strategy and Bush accepting time horizons, those ads feel tone-deaf.

The Obama Campaign:

There are two problems with John McCain's political attacks on Barack Obama's foreign policy. First, on the biggest foreign policy questions of the last eight years, Barack Obama has made the right judgment and John McCain has sided with George Bush in making the wrong one. Second, the failure of the McCain-Bush foreign policy has forced John McCain to change his position, and to embrace the very same Obama approaches that he once attacked.

Just this week, Senator McCain has been forced by events to switch to Barack Obama's position on two fundamental issues: more troops in Afghanistan, and more diplomacy with Iran. On both issues, Obama took stands that weren't politically popular at the time – opposing the war in Iraq as a diversion from the critical mission in Afghanistan, and standing up for direct diplomacy with Iran – while John McCain lined up with George Bush. Time has proven Obama’s judgment right and McCain wrong.

The next shift appears to be Iraq. For months, Senator McCain has called any plan to redeploy our troops from Iraq "surrender" – even though we'd be leaving Iraq to a sovereign Iraqi government. Now, the Bush Administration is embracing the negotiation of troop withdrawals with the Iraqi government – a position that Senator Obama called for last September, and reiterated on Monday in the New York Times. And now, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports Barack Obama’s timeline, telling Der Speigel that, “Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months.”

Ezra Klein:

To really understand the importance of Maliki's comments, you need to consider their opposite. Imagine if Maliki had walked in front of the cameras and said, "at this stage, a timetable for withdrawal is unrealistic, and we hope our American friends will not bow to domestic political pressures and be hasty in leaving Iraq just as the country improves." It would be a transformative moment in this election. John McCain would talk of nothing else. The cable shows would talk of nothing else. Magazines would run thousands of covers about "Obama's Iraq Problem." Obama would probably lose the race.

I differ somewhat on his conclusion, that Obama would "lose the race" if Maliki said something different. Americans would be more than happy to dismiss the calls by a foreign leader to keep our troops their against our will. We'd just say, sorry buddy, you need to take control of your own country now.

But the opposite situation, where an allied foreign leader says that our troops are no longer needed -- that is an entirely different situation. What are we going to do, force occupation down their throat? Is that what McCain is going to argue? Americans want to go home, the Iraqis want us to go home, and McCain's gonna stand in the way? Big fucking chance.

John Aravosis:

On the eve of Obama's visit to Iraq, the Iraqi leader, a US puppet, is signaling that he now not only endorses Barack Obama's plan for withdrawing from Iraq, but overall, Maliki hints that he prefers Obama over McCain.

Normally, foreign endorsements of our presidential candidates are neither welcome nor helpful. In this case, it's rather huge. Why? Because the foreign leader is the leader of Iraq. He's the guy who even John McCain says we should follow his lead on whether to stay or go. But there's more. Maliki knows that Obama is coming to Iraq in a few days, yet Maliki still basically inserted himself into the US presidential race on Obama's side. Maliki wanted to help Obama, and he wanted to hurt Bush and McCain. It's simply extraordinary that a foreign leader would do something like this. While it's difficult to know how the American people will react to this news, it's hard to imagine that people are going to want to say in Iraq if the Iraqis want us to leave. And that the American people are going to support the candidate who wants us to stay in Iraq long after our welcome is over. On so many levels, this is huge.

Overall, more terrible news for McCain. Let's see how well his pals in the media coverup for him. And let's see how effectively and quickly the Bush administration forces Maliki to retract his words.

Iraqi PM Maliki Endorses Obama Withdrawal Plan

This is fairly momentous news:

In an interview with Der Spiegel released on Saturday, Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.

"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

It is the first time he has backed the withdrawal timetable put forward by Obama, who is visiting Afghanistan and us set to go to Iraq as part of a tour of Europe and the Middle East.

Obama has called for a shift away from a "single-minded" focus on Iraq and wants to pull out troops within 16 months, instead adding U.S. soldiers to Afghanistan.

Asked if he supported Obama's ideas more than those of John McCain, Republican presidential hopeful, Maliki said he did not want to recommend who people should vote for.

"Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems."

This really fucks up McCain's plan, which in case you forgot goes something like this:



In fact, John McCain has called Obama's 16-month withdrawal plan "surrender". Yet how can it be surrender when the democratically elected government in Iraq - our allies - want us to go?

Some folks think that McCain might benefit from such news, since it will allow him to take the Iraq issue off the table. But I hold a starkly different view. Foreign policy is the one area where McCain is currently beating Obama. If foreign policy is your bread and butter, you do not want peace in the world, you do not want agreement. You want there to be chaos, and you want voters to turn to the big military guy (you) once they are in that voting booth.

And honestly -- if the two candidates were in agreement on Iraq over withdrawal, I just don't see how it would remain a top issue for voters. Folks would turn to the economy and health care and decide who is better on that front. Since that is Obama's strong point, McCain loses.

It also doesn't help McCain that Obama's long-held positions on Iraq and Afghanistan are turning out to be correct, while McCain's are turning out to be dead wrong. It's starting to look like McCain's decades of experience haven't helped his judgment one bit.

[UPDATE]:
Here are some extended quotes from the Der Spiegel interview:

SPIEGEL: Germany, after World War II, was also liberated from a tyrant by a US-led coalition. That was 63 years ago, and today there are still American military bases and soldiers in Germany. How do you feel about this model?

Maliki: Iraq can learn from Germany's experiences, but the situation is not truly comparable. Back then Germany waged a war that changed the world. Today, we in Iraq want to establish a timeframe for the withdrawal of international troops -- and it should be short. At the same time, we would like to see the establishment of a long-term strategic treaty with the United States, which would govern the basic aspects of our economic and cultural relations. However, I wish to re-emphasize that our security agreement should remain in effect in the short term.....

SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?

Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.

SPIEGEL: Is this an endorsement for the US presidential election in November? Does Obama, who has no military background, ultimately have a better understanding of Iraq than war hero John McCain?

Maliki: Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited.

Also, Maliki doesn't believe that McCain's "surge" should get much credit for the reduction of violence in Iraq:

SPIEGEL: In your opinion, which factor has contributed most to bringing calm to the situation in the country?

Maliki: There are many factors, but I see them in the following order. First, there is the political rapprochement we have managed to achieve in central Iraq. This has enabled us, above all, to pull the plug on al-Qaida. Second, there is the progress being made by our security forces. Third, there is the deep sense of abhorrence with which the population has reacted to the atrocities of al-Qaida and the militias. Finally, of course, there is the economic recovery.

I'm sure the Bush administration will use all possible pressure to force Maliki to withdraw/clarify his remarks. But these can't help but be devastating to McCain's position.

McCain On Iraq

A very good video, summing up why McCain would be a disaster on foreign policy:



Obama's candidacy would be done -- finished -- if made a fraction of the statements that McCain has made.

Washington Post Hit Job On Obama

So the Washington Post publishes an editorial lambasting Obama for not disclosing enough information about his campaign's bundlers: folks who help raise more than $50,000. In fact, the subtitle of the editorial is "Barack Obama's failure to practice what he legislates".

Yet when you read the editorial, it's hard to see what they are whining about:

If you spend enough time hunting around on Mr. Obama's Web site, you might be able to unearth a list of his bundlers. (Hint: go to http://barackobama.com, click on "contact us," click on "answer center," click on category "fundraising," go to Answer 24.) You will see the names of those who bundle between $50,000 and $100,000 for Mr. Obama, the $100,000-to-$200,000 folks, and the $200,000-and-up crowd. Recently, prodded by a letter from campaign finance reform groups, and after the New York Times pointed out that the Obama campaign had not updated its bundler list for months, the Web site added a flotilla of names, along with each bundler's city and state. However, the Web site does not provide the bundlers' occupations or employers, although those should be readily available to the campaign from the bundlers' individual contributions.

So...the list of bundler is available on Obama's website, and they updated the list when asked, but the WaPo wants to know who these folks work for. Big deal. I'm sure WaPo can use Google and find out their occupations, if it is such a pressing issue. Obama isn't breaking any laws here, if anything he is disclosing more than the law currently requires.

But what really gets me is the next line:

John McCain, whose disclosure of bundlers had been sketchier than Mr. Obama's, told the campaign finance groups it would add employer and occupational information to his list of bundlers, promising monthly updates and saying he would include in the totals the amounts bundlers raised for the Republican National Committee to benefit the McCain campaign.

So John McCain, who is currently violating campaign finance law, is actually doing a worse job than Obama of disclosing his bundlers! Yet because he has "promised" to one day disclose more info, the editorialists at the WaPo give him a pass. Instead, they direct their fire at Obama.

The Obama campaign has disclosed over 500 bundlers, while McCain has only disclosed about 100. And this is not because Obama has more bundlers. In fact, 50% of McCain's fundraising ($75 million) has come from his top 500 bundlers; the top 500 bundlers for Obama have only brought in 17% ($50 million) of his total fundraising. So clearly McCain is the one with the most to disclose and the biggest conflict of interest, since without these bundlers he would be dead in the water. Obama, on the other hand, could survive thanks to his 1,500,000 small donors.

This is a ridiculous double-standard. The WaPo premises their hit job on the fact that Obama has supported disclosure laws in the past. As a result, they say, he is a hypocrite for not fully disclosing now. Yet McCain is the author of McCain-Feingold and the so-called champion of campaign finance. So isn't he even more guilty of hypocrisy, both for this and his other campaign finance shenanigans?

No one cares enough about the minutae of bundler disclosure for this to affect anything. But if this is the kind of pro-McCain bias we'll be seeing in the coming months, it's going to be a long election.

Clarke Tells It Like It Is

At Netroots Nation in Austin, former Bush (and Clinton) counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke explains why Obama's judgment over the past year has actually been quite good:

Drinking McCain's Milkshake

During Obama's overseas trip, always remember that he is attacking McCain's strong point here. If McCain doesn't have a huge lead on foreign policy readiness, the election will be a blowout for Obama.

In McCain's perfect scenario, he would achieve parity with Obama on economic/domestic issues, then knock him out with foreign policy experience and character issues (like bogus beliefs about Obama being Muslim, etc.). But instead the opposite is happening. Obama is knocking McCain out on economic issues and using this trip abroad to tighten the gap on foreign policy experience.

He's going after McCain's strength, drinking his milkshake, etc. A big plus for Obama -- as long as he doesn't have any McCain-style gaffes.

Obama Starts In Afghanistan

Hot off the wires:

Mr. Obama touched down in Kabul at 3:15 a.m. Eastern time, according to a pool report released by his aides. Since leaving Washington on Thursday, Senator Obama had stopped and visited troops in Kuwait. In addition to attending briefings with military leaders, he hoped to meet with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan before flying to Iraq later in the weekend.....

His advisers said Mr. Obama chose to begin his trip in Afghanistan because he believes that the region is among the most important foreign policy challenges facing the United States.

Interesting that he visited the troops in Kuwait without any press or publicity. Sort of undermines the bogus McCain whine about this all being a photo-op.

42

Today marks 42 days until John McCain turns 72 years old.

McCain Camp Worried About Next Week

Almost everyone in the world outside the Republican party is excited about Obama's trip overseas. It's like a sneak preview, a "what if", to imagine what it would be like to have a likable and intelligent president again.

Not only is the McCain camp whining about how much press Obama will get, McCain is even trying to endanger Obama by leaking details of when he will be traveling to Iraq. Big no-no, as someone as "experienced" as John McCain should know. In fact, it's outrageous and alarming.

But what I find more interesting is that McCain has only himself to blame for the media attention this trip will get. After all, McCain made it an issue as soon as Obama got the nomination; how can he complain now that Obama is doing exactly what he said he should do?

First McCain wanted Obama to go to Iraq; now he's complaining that people care more about Obama's trip than his dog-and-pony show last spring. I think the American people have to admit that they're biased against John McCain.

Let's be honest. Hardly anyone cares about McCain or his campaign. No one's excited about it in any way. I don't think that's an overstatement. Caring or being excited about isn't the same as supporting. Lots of people support McCain -- but as the anti-Obama, the alternative. This isn't to say he can't win; he definitely can. But very little of this campaign is about him. Virtually all of it is about Barack Obama.

McCain is like a past-his-prime actor who thinks he should get the big role and doesn't understand why everyone adores the new up-and-coming star instead. He's gonna spend the rest of the campaign either whining about the attention Obama gets, or dissing him with snide and often baseless trash talk.

McCain has become Johnny Drama from "Entourage". Just as ugly, just as talentless, except three times as old.

A Little Reminder

Here is BraveNewFilms roundup of some of McCain's biggest flip-flops and gaffes:



While Obama is on his overseas trip, he will have to be extra careful to avoid any such gaffes. While McCain faced a little bit of flak for his idiocy, the press would cut Obama no slack. In fact, I'm expecting the press to just make up a gaffe if they have nothing else to talk about. Watch and see.

Even JibJab Gets Into The Mix

Good for a laugh:

MoveOn Has A New Ad Too!

Lots of good ads today:



I like how they incorporate their name, MoveOn, with the desire to move on from Iraq. It's a subtle rebranding of the name that was initially targeted at "moving on" from Bill Clinton's impeachment.

New Obama Ad: Foreign Policy

Pretty good:

Planned Parenthood Knocks McCain

Just wait until they make ads about his record.

For A Swift Boat Supporter, This Ain't Bad

I'm sure you've seen this commercial by now:



The billionaire funding these ads, T. Boone Pickens, is a die hard Republican who helped fund and support those fucking Swift Boat Veterans For Truth four years ago. In fact he still supports them. So overall, fuck this guy.

But I'm glad he's putting his money towards a good cause for once. If he really believes in renewable energy, maybe he shouldn't have fucked over John Kerry four years ago. Hell, maybe he should have supported Gore in 2000. Then we wouldn't be spending $700 billion per year on foreign oil.

Whatever. These ads push a good message about renewable energy and the limitations of more drilling, so I'm all for them.

More Bad Polls For McCain

Hmm, I thought McCain was kicking so much ass recently, and Obama's supporters were so dispirited, that McCain would be taking a lead in the polls by now.

Guess not.

ABC/WaPo:
Obama: 50
McCain: 42

Quinnipac:
Obama: 50
McCain: 41

CBS/NY Times:
Obama: 45
McCain: 39

Rasmussen:
Obama: 47
McCain: 45

Gallup:
Obama: 47
McCain: 43

Maybe McCain's horrible gaffes last week, topped off by the "Nation of Whiners" brouhaha, really did hurt him.

But as happy as I am to see these polls, take them with a big grain of salt. None of these polls really mean much right now. Wait until after the convention bounces die out, around September 10th, to see where the race really stands.

A lot will happen between now and then.

McCain Copies Obama's Ideas On Afghanistan

Who's the real foreign policy expert here?

Nearly an hour after Obama finished his D.C. speech, in which he repeated his call for "at least two additional combat brigades" to be sent to Afghanistan, McCain stepped to his podium across the country in New Mexico and tried to one-up his Democratic rival. As McCain's website now says, the Arizona Republican wants "at least three additional brigades" for the fight in Afghanistan.

But if Adm. Mullen can't find the troops to provide for a three-brigade increase in Afghanistan, how does McCain (who, unlike Obama, doesn't have plans to begin removing forces from Iraq)?

And what has happened in the last few days to provoke McCain to shift his months-long opposition to sending more U.S. soldiers to Afghanistan?

And it was only last week that McCain saw his opposition to timetables in Iraq become undermined by the Iraqi leadership itself, which agrees with Obama's declaration that we should start to leave.

McCain can bluster all he wants about how experienced he is. The fact remains that he has been wrong from day one, and is still playing catch-up to Obama on what should have been his strongest suit.

McCain The Misogynist, Part II: The Rape Joke

Yeah, this joke will help McCain win those former Hillary supporters!

Here is a joke John McCain told during his first Senate run in 1986:

Did you hear the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly and left to die? When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, ‘Where is that marvelous ape?’

John McCain was 49 at the time, three years older than Obama is now. And this revelation comes a few weeks after McCain scheduled a fundraiser with a Texas Republican who told a similar "don't ya just love rape?" joke.

Obviously, women's groups are not pleased.

A spokeswoman for NOW in Arizona said the organization’s members were “incensed by his cruel and sexist remark.”

As I've said before, John McCain is easily the most misogynist presidential candidate in decades.

McCain Hearts Bush's Iraq Policy

No matter how much his supporters try to differentiate the two now:

McCain Confused About Czechoslavakia

Czechoslovakia ceased to exist in 1993. But hey, that was only 15 years ago. If you are as old as McCain, it's merely a blink of an eye, right?

McCain Flip Flops AGAIN On Immigration Policy

Steve Benen writes:

The man is just shamelessly dishonest. McCain co-sponsored the Dream Act, then refused to vote for it, then promised to oppose it, then promised to support it. And just to add a little irony to the whole situation, McCain then concluded, “I do ask for your trust.”

Anyone who trusts this guy is a moron. Every word out of his mouth is a lie.

Obama, The Pragmatic Progressive

You want to know why right wingers are afraid of Obama?

1. He would be a president in favor of decriminalizing marijuana:



This year, even in the midst of a presidential campaign, his campaign has said this is still his position.

2. He strongly favors the right to choose. Right wing sites argue that Obama is more pro-choice than NARAL. The Christian Defense Coalition has launched an ad campaign calling Obama "The Abortion President", because they know he is consistently liberal on this issue:

Obama: "With one more vacancy on the Supreme Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a women's fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe v. Wade. The next president may be asked to nominate that Supreme Court justice. That is what is at stake in this election.

"Throughout my career, I've been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.

"When South Dakota passed a law banning all abortions in a direct effort to have Roe overruled, I was the only candidate for President to raise money to help the citizens of South Dakota repeal that law. When anti-choice protesters blocked the opening of an Illinois Planned Parenthood clinic in a community where affordable health care is in short supply, I was the only candidate for President who spoke out against it. And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president.

That's why the Christian right is so worried:

Their old enemy Hillary Clinton, they say, is at least a known quantity. Besides, says the Rev. Mark Roady, pastor of The Family, an apostolic church in Waterloo, “I think Hillary Clinton would end up with something of a stalemate, which may be the lesser of the two evils. Obama could get some things accomplished — and that’s what scares me.”

3. He is pro-union. Corporate conservatives know that Obama is a strongly pro-union, pro-worker liberal. Here is a rare video of Obama from 2003, fired up at his progressive best:



He's been fighting for the common man since he was a low-paid community organizer in the mid-80s, taking on slumlords and corrupt politicians and even corrupt churches. How can you get more progressive than that?

4. He's a ruthless operator who knows how to get things done. It's true that Obama is not the sort of hard-left ideologue that we might want him to be, or hope for him to be. He's a pragmatist - as all great politicians are. Nate Silver reviewed the recent New Yorker article about Obama's rise in Chicago, and came away with this:

Ryan Lizza's 15,000-word epic by no means paints the most flattering picture of Barack Obama. His Obama is remarkably intelligent and very level-headed, but also understands every lever of power, and is ambitious to the point of being ruthless.

Well, no shit he's ambitious. For any American to go from a relatively unprivileged childhood (or a privileged one for that matter) to be on the doorstep of the Preisdency by the time he's age 46 requires a perfect storm of luck, intelligence, and ambition. Obama has ample amounts of each.

But the article is more remarkable for revealing what Obama is not.

One, he's not some Pierre Trudeau type of academic. Obama became interested in politics very early, and seemed to have some keen understanding of his upside potential. The sometimes languid pace of academia was not really compatible with that.

Two, Obama was not corrupt. He knew how to navigate the rules of the system. But he didn't cheat the system. Obama succeeded, for instance, in disqualifying Alice Palmer from the ballot in the Illinois State Senate because she faked hundreds of signatures to get her name on it, and then Obama called her out. That's maybe not the most mannerly, tea-and-crumpets way of doing things. But Obama didn't cheat. Palmer had cheated. What Obama did was to exploit some of the inefficiencies of the Chicago machine system. Tony Rezko donates, though legal channels, a bunch of money because he expects you to behave like a typical machine politician and do him illegal favors? What to do? Well, you take his money. And then you don't do him the favors.

Third, Obama is not any kind of radical, and particularly not any kind of radical black nationalist. His associations with people like Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers may have arisen out of a certain amount of political convenience; they were significant players in the South Side political scene. But there is no evidence that he shared many of their political ideas. Hyde Park is not some liberal enclave in the way that Berkley or Boulder is. It is, rather, a place where people are very tolerant of different ideas. Liberal and even radical ideas, but notably also, conservative ones (where do Leon Kass and John Mearsheimer teach -- and where did Milton Friedman?). Hyde Park prides itself on being a laboratory of free thought and free speech, and so these people can lead a relatively happy coexistence there. But their views do not represent the consensus, and there is certainly no evidence that they represented Obama's.

And moving out of Hyde Park into the South Side community at large, Obama enjoyed relatively chilly relations with many of the district's more predictably left-liberal black politicians. Obama isn't a Black Panther. But Bobby Rush was. Obama tried to primary him out of Congress.

And so while some on the right (and others, less coherently, on the loopy left) will try and excoriate Obama for the political equivalent of not helping old ladies to cross the street, a lot of their favorite narratives about Obama are blown up by this article....

That does not mean that the Obama that emerges from Lizza's piece is particularly warm and cuddly. He is certainly a very political creature, and there is something a little steely and postmodern about it all. But it is also not clear that Obama is playing some kind of angle. He seems, rather, to hold a lot of fairly mainstream, somewhat empirically-driven views -- still an idealist in certain ways, but not highly ideological. The White House may represent to him some sort of final step in his self-actualization, but he's not going there to get a blow job, or to play out some sort of Oedipal complex. It's all actually sort of ... boring.

5. He is smarter than they are. Here is further insight on Obama from a former colleague at the University of Chicago Law School:

Not so long ago, the phone rang in my office. It was Barack Obama. For more than a decade, Obama was my colleague at the University of Chicago Law School.

He is also a friend. But since his election to the Senate, he does not exactly call every day. On this occasion, he had an important topic to discuss: the controversy over President George W. Bush's warrantless surveillance of international telephone calls between Americans and suspected terrorists. I had written a short essay suggesting that the surveillance might be lawful. Before taking a public position, Obama wanted to talk the problem through. In the space of about 20 minutes, he and I investigated the legal details. He asked me to explore all sorts of issues: the President's power as commander-in-chief, the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Authorization for Use of Military Force and more.

Obama wanted to consider the best possible defense of what Bush had done. To every argument I made, he listened carefully and offered a specific counter-argument. After the issue had been exhausted, Obama said that he thought the program was illegal, but now had a better understanding of both sides. He thanked me for my time.

This was a pretty amazing conversation, not only because of Obama's mastery of the legal details, but also because many prominent Democratic leaders had already blasted the Bush initiative as blatantly illegal. He did not want to take a public position until he had listened to, and explored, what might be said on the other side. This is the Barack Obama I have known for nearly 15 years--a careful and even-handed analyst of law and policy, unusually attentive to multiple points of view.

6. And of course, his priorities his first four years are vastly different from McCain's priorities:

WENNER (Rolling Stone): "Is there a marker you would lay down at the end of your first term where you say, ‘If this has happened or not happened, I would consider it a negative mark on my governance’?"

OBAMA: "If I haven’t gotten combat troops out of Iraq, passed universal health care and created a new energy policy that speaks to our dependence on foreign oil and deals seriously with global warming, then we’ve missed the boat. Those are three big jobs, so it’s going to require a lot of attention and imagination, and it’s going to require the American people feeling inspired enough that they’re prepared to take on these big challenges."

Sounds pretty good to me.

The right wing is getting themselves fired up to win this election. They know how high the stakes are, and they know how damaging Obama could be to their many causes. Most conservatives hate McCain, but they are getting behind him in lockstep.

Will Democrats put their differences aside long enough to win this thing? I sure hope so.

Has Obama Pissed You Off Lately?

If you want my opinion on the recent liberal anger with Obama, read this piece by Theda Skocpol.

The key part:

Michael Kinsley has an incisive opinion piece at TIME/CNN called "Divided They Fall" -- and I urge everyone to read it. Kinsley points out that Republicans are setting aside their gripes about McCain and uniting to do battle, but progressives and Democrats are up to the same old internal sniping: single issue people bashing Obama for moving to the middle or voting a certain way on FISA, when his vote made no difference at all to the outcome; Clintonites using media sexism in the primary as an excuse to threaten to stay home or vote for McCain; fat cats who backed Clinton complaining to the New York Times, along with the blustering egotists like Carville; Jesse Jackson sniping about the common-sense notion that black people might have to be good parents as well as expect help from government.

This leaves one very sad. The social and redistributive stakes in this election are enormous. McCain can easily win if this summer is wasted, if Democrats do not unite and go on the offensive, if funders withold their efforts, if gripers undermine. But that seems to be what we are all doing.

I look back over an adult lifetime of this, of identity-oriented and single-issue groups undermining any chance for a convincing message relevant to all working middle class people. This lack of discipline and inability to sort out the fundamental from the partial is what has made it so hard for Democrats to win -- and has cost the country terribly in terms of the undermining of middle class wellbeing. Why are we doing it again? Why are we playing along with all the diversions and distractions the media wants to pursue, rather than speaking loudly with one voice for Obama and in drumbeat criticism of McCain? The summer weeks are precious, as we should have learned in 2004 -- mistakes now cannot be fixed later. At a moment when a core, long-term econmic advisor to McCain, Phil Gramm, has revealed the true heartlessness and stupidity behind conservative economic doctrines, we progressives are still talking about Jackson and FISA and Clinton's debts and overwrought claims of sexism. We are not hitting McCain/Gramm/Bush again and again in ways that would force some of the media, at least, to give the Gramm revelations -- they WERE revelations, not a "gaff" -- half the attention and staying power of the Wright ravings!

Obama is not perfect, but he's as close to perfect as any of the candidates who ran this year. Remember, Edwards and Clinton voted for the Iraq War. They voted for the Patriot Act. Those votes were a hundred times worse than this FISA vote, which isn't gonna mean shit a year from now. The telecom companies are not immune from criminal prosecution, and Obama has promised to have his Attorney General investigate. The bill is not perfect, it allows too much leeway when it comes to government surveillance, but you think McCain will be open to changes? Fuck no. As Russ Feingold said, with Obama as president we can go back and change the bill to make it stronger.

And yes, I know Kucinich was right on the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. But Kucinich doesn't know how to raise money or appeal to centrists, and thus isn't electable. Conservatives are afraid of Obama, because they know he's a progressive and a liberal who could undermine everything they've worked for in the past 30 years.

Obama Gives Iraq Speech

Although it is about much more than Iraq. It also covers Afghanistan, Pakistan, and ending our reliance on foreign oil.

Read the speech here.

Money quote:

Imagine, for a moment, what we could have done in those days, and months, and years after 9/11.

We could have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11, while supporting real security in Afghanistan.

We could have secured loose nuclear materials around the world, and updated a 20th century non-proliferation framework to meet the challenges of the 21st.

We could have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in alternative sources of energy to grow our economy, save our planet, and end the tyranny of oil.

We could have strengthened old alliances, formed new partnerships, and renewed international institutions to advance peace and prosperity.

We could have called on a new generation to step into the strong currents of history, and to serve their country as troops and teachers, Peace Corps volunteers and police officers.

We could have secured our homeland--investing in sophisticated new protection for our ports, our trains and our power plants.

We could have rebuilt our roads and bridges, laid down new rail and broadband and electricity systems, and made college affordable for every American to strengthen our ability to compete.

We could have done that.

Instead, we have lost thousands of American lives, spent nearly a trillion dollars, alienated allies and neglected emerging threats - all in the cause of fighting a war for well over five years in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks....

George Bush and John McCain don't have a strategy for success in Iraq - they have a strategy for staying in Iraq. They said we couldn't leave when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is down.

And of course he reasserts his determination to end the war in 16 months, a position that McCain and the media have lately been trying to obfuscate. Overall, very good speech. And backed up by the fact that Obama was right about the Iraq War when so many in Washington (especially McCain) were wrong.

Old Man McCain

In cartoon form:

Cindy McCain Confounds Us Again

Lots of interesting stuff to unpack here. First of all, what's this shit about "In Arizona the only way to get around the state is by small private plane"? Sorry Cindy, I've been to Arizona. There are lots of roads and highways connecting all the towns there. Arizona is not Alaska, where you really do need a private plane to get some places.

And if Arizona is so hard to traverse without a plane, whose fault is that? Hmm, it couldn't be the senior Senator from Arizona who has been in office for 22 years and hasn't delivered enough transportation funding to his state, could it? The Senator who is opposed to the type of high speed rail that could make intrastate travel much faster?

Second, I found it interesting that Cindy McCain (who also races drift cars -- god it must be fun to be rich) got her pilot's license in 1986 or so. Because about five years later, her husband still didn't think much of female pilots:

Soon after the Gulf War in 1991, a group of military women pressed Congress to allow female pilots to fly combat missions. But a Vietnam War hero in the Senate, John McCain, pushed back hard.

"The purpose of the military is first to defend this nation's vital security interests throughout the globe and only second to ensure equality," the Arizona Republican argued on the Senate floor, framing the issue in a way that infuriated feminists.

McCain lost that legislative battle, and women pilots started moving into combat roles in the mid-1990s. In the last five years in Iraq, women have flown hundreds of combat missions.

I'm sure Cindy McCain is a good pilot. After all, she's still alive. But what does it say about her husband that he didn't want women to fly in the military, even though his own wife was a pilot? And what does it say about Cindy McCain that she never spoke up against her husband's position?

"Good enough for me, but not good enough for thee." This family reeks of elitism. No wonder John McCain and Phil Gramm have no clue what kind of pain real Americans are going through right now.

Cindy "Fast & The Furious" McCain

What's this?

She [Cindy McCain] described herself as a racing fan, saying she and son Jack picked up drift car racing while living in Japan. “We built a drift car together, so we race together,” she told NBC News. “It’s a lot of fun. When you’re a bad driver like me, it’s easy to skid.”

Since when was Cindy McCain a character out of "The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift"?



I've done lots of Googling, and can't find any other mention of Cindy McCain's time in Japan. Did she really "live" there, and if so does that mean the McCain family has more than 10 houses? So far we've only been looking at their U.S. homes -- for all we know they have property everywhere.

And boy -- I wish my mom could pay for me to build a drift car, just for fun. Maybe that's how Cindy McCain racks up $750,000 per month in credit card bills.