That was a vile intro, wasn’t it. But such fun to write. (My mother would have been aghast.) BUT, HARK! MORE IS TO COME! Truthteller is posting a critically important story about Israel, our vital ally in the Middle East. Stay tuned!

Oops! How did that second YouTube get in here? Okay, who did that?!?!?!?! I wonder if it’s someone who’s worried that Obama is going to cut our defense spending by one-fourth aka 25%? I wonder if it’s someone knows that, last count, over 300 flag officers have endorsed John McCain?

I imagine those 300+ flag officers who, even though they’re retired from the military, probably can’t sleep these last weeks of the presidential race.

Those retired military people, still experts in their fields, must be so worried that a complete amateur could become president.

Actually, it is wholly unfair to genuine amateurs to call Obama that. He is both unskilled and unschooled in this global game of life and death.

Here are Barack Obama’s words on May 18, 2008, in the rodeo town of Pendleton, Oregon which is, by the way, the land of sagebrush, tumbleweeds, rolling hills and wide vistas as well as a hell of a lot of cattle and horses, not to mention some authentic cowboys who bleed red, white and blue:

Strong countries and strong Presidents talk to their adversaries. That’s what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That’s what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That’s what Nixon did with Mao. I mean think about it.

Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we’re going to wipe you off the planet. And ultimately that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war, and over time allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall. Now, that has to be the kind of approach that we take. You know, Iran, they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military.

If Iran ever tried to pose a serio us threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance. And we should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen. That doesn’t mean we agree with them on everything. We might not compromise on any issues, but at least we should find out other areas of potential common interest, and we can reduce some of the tensions that has caused us so many problems around the world.

Obama supporters blogged endlessly about Hillary and blamed HER for the war. They were vicious and vile. Hillary suffered in the primary for that vote. (people forgetting that Kerry and 75% of the Senate voted Yes also…)

But Obama pounded that point in the debates, over and over. She voted for the war, and he didn’t. (even managing to fool his supporters into believing he actually HAD a vote at the time)

So, today, Powell comes out and endorses Obama and the Obama media and bloggers are going apeshit. Blathering on and on about how great this is for Obama. Crucial endorsement…what a coup….a ringing endorsement!

With eloquence and humility, Former Secretary of State and retired General Colin Powell just provided a ringing endosement of Barack Obama as President for the United States.

In a major slap in the face to his “friend” John McCain, Colin Powell today on Meet the Press has endorsed Barack Obama. While the GOP will poo-poo this as a big who cares and that nobody votes based on endorsements — it is actually not.

There are many more, as you can imagine. I don’t need to link to them all. Just flip on any news channel, other than FOX.

So, let me get this straight - Hillary Clinton in voting for the Iraq Resolution, based in large part, due to the evidence that Powell provided, is portrayed as the devil, lacking judgment, and unworthy of being President.
BUT, Colin Powell, this guy: U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell Addresses the U.N. Security Council

This guy, who convinced millions of skeptics in America that we were in danger, and needed to go to war with Iraq? And now, his endorsement is the icing on the cake, the crown jewel, a slap in the face to McCain?

I asked how his “Citizen of the World” tour will go down in Steubenville, Ohio.

“There will probably be some backlash,” he said. “I’m a big believer that if something’s good then there’s a bad to it, and vice versa…”

Backlash? What in the hell does he mean?

That we’ll grouse about him spending time overseas?

No. What we complain about is, to quote a McCain press release:

• Barack Obama’s record of not calling a single oversight hearing on NATO’s mission in Afghanistan
• not visiting in Iraq for over 900 days
• not supporting our troops when he voted against critical funding in 2007 and
• not visiting our wounded troops in Germany when he made time to go to the gym but cancelled trips to Ramstein and Landstuhl.

Not only does Obama flat out not know enough about international politics, he doesn’t know enough about the U.S. military.

As Larry Johnson said last night on the John Batchelor radio show (podcast), it’s doubtful that Obama even knows the ranks in the military.

McCain’s TV ad also says it well:

Anncr: Barack Obama never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan.

He hadn’t been to Iraq in years.

He voted against funding our troops.

And now, he made time to go to the gym, but cancelled a visit with wounded troops.

Seems the Pentagon wouldn’t allow him to bring cameras.

John McCain is always there for our troops.

McCain. Country first.

Now, if Hillary is our nominee, the Republicans will not be able to use ANY of these arguments against her.

That is why over 30 flag officers endorsed Hillary Clinton.

I am reprinting my story, “34 Flag Officers and the Out Of Iraq Caucus Support Hillary Clinton“:

It is highly significant that both elected anti-war activists and 34 top flag officers support Hillary Clinton to be our next Commander in Chief:

From the caucus: “We support Hillary Clinton because she is the candidate with the stature, strength, and experience needed to end this war as quickly and responsibly as possible.” … (Read all below.)

Who signed this letter today? These elected Iraq war opponents:

Hillary has put forward the most comprehensive plan for bringing our troops home, with troop withdrawals beginning within 60 days of taking office. She bravely pressed the Pentagon to begin planning for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. And she has introduced legislation to bar the Bush administration from unilaterally negotiating a long-term security agreement with the Iraqi government and thereby tying the hands of the next administration.

Hillary’s commitment to ending this war is matched by her experience. Her knowledge of the armed forces, her service on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and her extraordinary efforts on behalf of our veterans have earned her the respect of our men and women in uniform.

We are proud to support her because we know that she is the candidate ready to bring our troops home.

::::::::::::::::

TRANSCRIPT OF THE NEW CAMPAIGN VIDEO:

Hillary for President

Admirals and Generals

(Ret) Rear Admiral David Stone: There’s a large group of retired Admirals and Generals that believe that this is the most important election in their lifetime…

[Screen: 34 retired Generals and Admirals including two chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff endorse Hillary Clinton]

…We face growing threats around the globe. Sen. Clinton is the candidate that we believe is the strongest, most experienced leader.

(Ret.) Lt. General Joe Ballard:

She has spent time in discussions with foreign governments and has spent time on the ground with military in Iraq and Afghanistan .

(Ret.) Brigadier General Evelyn “Pat” Foote:

The woman has traveled to over eighty countries; she knows this world

D. Stone:

Sen. Clinton has served for over five years on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She’s intimately familiar with the challenges that we face in our military today.

J. Ballard:

Sen. Clinton is the only candidate that has articulated a clear plan for getting us out of Iraq .

(Ret.) General Wesley Clarke:

On Iraq , she has a plan to bring our troops home in a smart, safe way.

(Ret.) Brigadier General Michael Dunn:

I have seen her get legislation passed that provides resources for our combat veterans.

(Ret.) Brigadier General John Watkins:

She took it upon herself to make sure that the National Guard and Reserve members who didn’t have access to TriCare insurance would get access to TriCare.

(Ret.) Major General George Buskirk: Sen. Clinton came out early and often, to fight for upgraded body armor, and you can ask any soldier-you can ask my son-how appreciative they are.

M. Dunn:

I admire charisma, I admire intellect. In a Commander in Chief I want more than that. I want proof. I want a track record.

J. Ballard:

You cannot learn on the job, you have to have a base of experience-a framework of experience.

J. Watkins:

Who do we believe would be the best person to occupy the Oval Office and to answer the red phone, as we said, at 3 o’clock in the morning or three o’clock in the afternoon? We come down on the Sen Hillary’s side of the ledger

W. Clark:

I believe Hillary Clinton is the right choice for America .

It is obvious that Barack Obama doesn’t know the full history behind the political successes achieved by our military concurrent with the “surge” in troop numbers.

It is clear Barack Obama doesn’t realize that many of our nation’s most insightful historians and political and social scientists are in the military, and that it was their input that has been key to quelling much of the violence in Iraq. See Larry Johnson’s August 2007 story, “The Success in Al Anbar” in which Larry posits that “[t]he success achieved in Al Anbar has nothing to do with the surge and everything to do with finally tapping into genuine experts who know and understand Iraq.” Larry quotes an essential story by Walter Pincus in the Washington Post that credits a 300-page report, “Iraq Tribal Study: Al-Anbar Governorate,” that was “put together by a distinguished group of retired military counterinsurgency specialists and academics, each with Iraq experience [and] was circulated in the Army’s Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., at the time led by then-Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus.”

Pincus writes that “the support of Sunni tribal leaders against al-Qaeda in Iraq,” which is “hailed as one of the few successes from the U.S. troop increase this year,” came from the Iraq Tribal Study which “provided a handbook on how to gain that support by covering the basics.”

How I wish I’d been Katie Couric, just for yesterday. I would have asked Obama:

How much influence did the Pentagon report, Iraq Tribal Study: Al-Anbar Governorate,’ have on the successes you’ve attributed solely to the Sunni leaders? You told ABC News that you “did not anticipate … the convergence of not only the surge but the Sunni Awakening in which a whole host of Sunni tribal leaders decided that they had had enough with Al-Qaeda, in the Shiia community the militias standing down to some degrees.”

You also said, “So what you had is a combination of political factors inside of Iraq that then came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops.”

You seem to overlook the direct role that the U.S. military’s distinguished analysts played in the “Sunni Awakening” and the “political factors” — and that the military leadership studied this report and implemented its recommendations “on the ground” in Iraq. Sen. McCain knows this history.

MY PREDICTION: Barack Obama has never heard of the “Iraq Tribal Study” and doesn’t know the authors. He would stumble through an answer but would be essentially stumped.

His remarks indicate that he believes the Sunni leaders decided, entirely on their own, to band together, and that he is unaware of the role of the military’s best thinkers in making that happen.

Larry also reports that Walter Pincus’s editors wouldn’t allow him to identify the contributors to the Iraq Tribal Study, so Larry did. Among those contributors is Larry’s longtime friend and mentor, Patrick Lang. Larry lists the sections of the report, and closes with these remarks:

If the Department of Defense had done studies like this sooner there would be fewer dead Iraqis and Americans. As I have noted in previous blog entries, solving the immediate problem in Al Anbar does not ensure reconciliation with the Shia led government. These tribes are not friends of the Shia and do not see themselves as part of the national Iraqi government. But, at least we have a grassroots solution being put into place and the effective disengagement of U.S. troops killing Iraqis in Al Anbar. That is a step in the right direction.

It is also important to acknowledge Walter Pincus’s stories published BEFORE the Iraq War in which he pointed out the grave hazards of pursuing the ambitions of another ill-experienced president, George W. Bush, who also didn’t listen to his generals. Unfortunately, Mr. Pincus’s stories usually ended up on pages A17 or A19, while the pro-Bush administration stories got A1 treatment.

Here is more from Walter Pincus:

The Iraq Tribal Study provided a handbook on how to gain that support by covering the basics. One section, titled “How to Work With Tribesmen,” explains that “RESPECT ( Ihtiram in Arabic) is the key,” and also warns: “Do not assume that they want to be like you.”

The study summed up how the Sunni tribes viewed the conditions that Washington established in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. “Throughout the modern history of Iraq, the Sunni tribes have occupied a privileged position in Iraq society and enjoyed wealth, autonomy and political clout,” the report said. “To lose those advantages in a system of proportional representation that empowered the Shia, or in a truncated Iraq with a Kurdish autonomous province, would bring shame to a long and prosperous Sunni history.”

It also cautioned that the main themes of the U.S. message in Iraq — “freedom and democracy” — do not resonate well with the population “because freedom is associated with chaos in Iraq.” In addition, the Sunnis “are deathly afraid of being ruled by a Shia government, which they believe will be little more than a puppet of the Shia religious extremists in Iran.”

The study identified three tribes in al-Anbar province. … Read all.

:::::::

OF NOTE: The CBS interview segments are very short. There was far more to those interviews, both of which are important to read in full:

CBS: Barack Obama, July 22, 2008
CBS: John McCain, July 22, 2008

Although I am not a declared supporter of John McCain, I give him his due for knowing the real history behind the surge and understanding the sophisticated analytical and strategic thinking that went into the “surge,” which was far more than a simple escalation in troop numbers:

Couric: Senator McCain, Sen. Obama says, while the increased number of U.S. troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What’s your response to that?

McCain: I don’t know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarlane (phonetic) was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that’s just a matter of history. Thanks to General Petraeus, our leadership, and the sacrifice of brave young Americans. I mean, to deny that their sacrifice didn’t make possible the success of the surge in Iraq, I think, does a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed.

They were out there. They were protecting these sheiks. We had the Anbar awakening. We now have a government that’s effective. We have a legal system that’s working, although poorly. And we have progress on all fronts, including an incredible measure of security for the people of Iraq. There will still be attacks. Al Qaeda’s not defeated. But the progress has been immense. And to not recognize that, and why it happened, and how it happened, I think is really quite a commentary.

Couric: A commentary on what?

McCain: That Sen. Obama does not understand the challenges we face. And … not understand the need for the surge. And the fact that he did not understand that, and still denies that it has succeeded, I think the American people will make their judgment. …

Worse, Barack Obama doesn’t know about, or acknowledge, the highly influential Iraq Tribal Report that was circulated in the highest ranks of the military, and changed how the military interacted with the populace of Iraq.

As Larry Johnson just said to me on the telephone, it is very worrisome that Barack Obama thinks he is capable of making judgment calls independent of the military. Larry said, “We’ve already had one president who did that. George W. Bush. We can’t afford another.”

Lest we forget: “Wonky” Hillary does know about the Iraq Study Report. She has talked with the authors of that report. She knows a great deal about the strategy and the intelligence-gathering that is required. That is why she earned the endorsement of Patrick Lang, one of the contributors to the Iraq Study Report, as well as Larry Johnson — not to mention over 30 flag officers.

There is a reason that former ambassador Joseph Wilson — who is Larry Johnson’s guest at 10 a.m. ET on BlogRadio, along with his wife Valerie Plame Wilson — endorsed Hillary Clinton and wrote eight op-eds about her qualifications and Obama’s failures to learn the complexities of foreign policy. Despite Wilson’s opposition to the war, he is convinced that Hillary Clinton is capable of handling the current, immense challenges in Iraq but that Obama has not bothered to avail himself of the needed experience and study. Wilson remains disturbed that he never once heard of or heard from Barack Obama when he was working ceaselessly to stop the war.
_________________________________

The Barack Obama tap dance on Iraq, while understandable, is inexcusable. He and his defenders are flat out lying about what he has said with respect to withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq.

Well Senator McCaskill, looks like your man is, by your own definition, “irresponsible.” He has provided a specific deadline. But the number is 11 months not 16. His timetable is the end of 2009, not May of 2010. This is not my opinion. He states it very clearly in the following exchange with Hillary Clinton at the Nevada Debates:

What plan is he referring to? This plan:

A SUBSTANTIAL, IMMEDIATE REDEPLOYMENT OF AMERICAN TROOPS
“There is no military solution in Iraq. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to
resolve their civil war is to begin immediately to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year –
now.”

All Combat Troops Redeployed by 2009: Barack Obama would immediately begin redeploying American
troops from Iraq. The withdrawal would be strategic and phased, directed by military commanders on the
ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Troops would be removed from secure areas first,
with troops remaining longer in more volatile areas. The drawdown would begin immediately with one to two
combat brigades redeploying each month and all troops engaged in combat operations out by the end of next
year.

The full plan is still at this link. No where in the plan or during the Nevada debate did Barack state or insist that his “plan” was just a goal that would ultimately be decided based on what troop commanders told him. Nope. He said the exact opposite. If this is not a lie then what is?

UPDATED: As one astute observer pointed out in the comments, Barack was against troop withdrawals before he was for them. Here is the video proof:

Maybe there is another possibility–Barack does not know what the hell he believes. I think Eminem had Barack in mind when he wrote “The Real Slim Shady.” Will the real Barack please STAND UP?

There is a reason that 30+ flag officers endorsed Hillary Clinton. See:

• “More Flag Officers Endorse …“
• “Gen. Shelton Endorses, Obama Thinks Rumsfeld OK“ (This includes the statement of Gen. Antonio Taguba who endorsed Hillary because of her strong stand against the use of torture. Gen. Taguba was assigned to investigate Abu Ghraib and had his career “shunted” by DefSec Donald Rumsfeld as a result.)

There still is time to nominate Hillary Clinton who has the experience and track record on the hard issues to match John McCain.

I have no doubt that, if it’s useful, the RNC will also make an ad about that one speech that Obama made in 2002, and the true story behind that ad:

See also, the true story about that 2002 Iraq speech, so little noted that it wasn’t videotaped or even covered in Chicago media, forcing the Obama campaign to “recreate” the speech, as reported by NPR: “The Staged Iraq War Speech & More “Creative” Embellishments.”

This means, of course, that we have to take creative marketing guru David Axelrod’s word for it that he really spoke those words in 2002. By the way, after that unreported speech — unremarkable because he uttered those words safely ensconced in a very liberal neighborhood of Chicago — Obama never lifted a finger or spoke out again on Iraq. That is, until it became politically useful for him to make a major production out of that single unreported, unrecorded speech.

Sadly, his followers haven’t reviewed the true history of that one speech, haven’t questioned the authenticity of its reproduction in a recording studio, and haven’t factored in that Obama didn’t make any further effort to aid the anti-Iraq-war movement, even when he joined the U.S. Senate — where his voting record is identical to Hillary Clinton’s, except that he voted FOR the ill-suited Gen. George Casey, while Hillary Clinton did not. … Joseph Wilson’s writings about his memories of those opposed to the Iraq War and Obama’s notable absence from any participation in lobbying against the war before and since joining the U.S. Senate [are a must-read].

We are certain that the Denver delegates, entrusted with a very serious task of nominating a qualified presidential candidate, will review writings such as these:

Former ambassador Joseph Wilson noted in an op-ed for the Philadelphia Inquirer, “Obama’s Illusions on Foreign Policy“:

[...]

[Obama's] entire foreign-policy claim that he would be a better president than Hillary Clinton rests on the slender reed that he possesses intuitively superior judgment, which would have led him to vote against the Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq had he been in the U.S. Senate in October 2002.

What would Obama have done differently in the first gulf war from what he claims he would have done in 2002 had he been in the Senate at that time? In 1990, Saddam was deemed a threat by the first Bush administration. Senior administration officials threatened military action while working toward a diplomatic solution. Congress was ultimately faced with a vote to support the president’s approach. Some Democrats, including then-Sen. Al Gore, voted with the administration, while a majority voted against.

Obama claims that an antiwar speech he made while running for state Senate in the most liberal district in Illinois is proof of his superior intuitive judgment. But if Obama had been in Washington at that time, participating in the national debate, he would have come face to face with Secretary of State Colin Powell, the same Colin Powell who, as Gen. Powell, was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the first Bush administration, the one Obama wishes to emulate.

Powell would have told him, as he told the other senators he briefed at that time, including Sen. Clinton, that the president wanted to use the Authorization for the Use of Military Force resolution not to go to war but, rather, as leverage to go to the United Nations to secure intrusive inspections. George W. Bush repeated this claim publicly.

Would Obama’s intuitive judgment have led him to defy Powell while still remaining faithful to his fantasy of the “wisdom” of the Bush 41 foreign policy? Perhaps Obama would have urged a summit with Saddam Hussein, with no preconditions, as he has since proposed as a means to “transcend” traditional foreign-policy methods with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. Secretary of State Jim Baker did meet with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz before the launch of Desert Storm, but this meeting was for the express purpose of conveying to the Iraqis the military consequences of not departing from Kuwait before the Jan. 15, 1991, deadline. There was never any question of demeaning the presidency by an unconditional summit for the simple reason that presidents don’t haggle. That’s why presidents have secretaries of state.

In fact, Obama’s understanding of foreign policy is extraordinarily limited. He has had one job in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: chairman of the Europe and NATO subcommittee. He has not held a single policy hearing in that capacity because, as he said in a debate, he has been too busy running for president. He has not even taken a fact-finding trip or provided any other oversight.

As to Obama’s self-promoted “judgment,” which judgment would that be? Would it be to follow the path of Bush 41: tough diplomacy backed by the threat of military action, as in the first gulf war? Would it be to ignore the rationale put forward by Colin Powell in the debate on the second gulf war? Would it be to vote exactly the same way Sen. Clinton did on war-related issues since he became a U.S. senator, which he has? Or is it simply to criticize from the sidelines with the benefit of never having had to face tough decisions with real consequences?

The next president will be presented with two difficult wars, U.S. moral authority at low ebb, and unprecedented complexity of our relations with the rest of the world. Obama has no record whatsoever, only his utter absence from his committee responsibility. His claim to be the one true heir to George H.W. Bush is a misguided illusion and no substitute for offering more about what foreign policies he would actually follow.

Read all eight of Joseph Wilson’s writings posted here at No Quarter with his express permission. Those writings include:

• “Legitimate questions of judgment, experience”
• “The Obama Campaign: Consent of, or Contempt for, the People”
• “Smears and Tears: How Obama’s National Security Week Turned Into the Mendacity of Hype”
• “Obama’s Shallow Credentials on National Security Are Dangerous for the Country“

At the immediate moment, our chief concern is ensuring that we Democrats nominate a candidate who the American people will find experienced and knowledgeable about foreign policy.

I have zero compassion for them. Anyone who supported Obama after March 2008 is clearly either a delusional Obama cultist or a head in the sand idiot. This one is on you.

You had better more experienced choices, say Senator Joe Biden. You had better more principled candidates who live their convictions, say Representative Dennis Kucinich. You had a reform-minded committed populist, say former Senator John Edwards. And then you had Hillary Clinton who despite some flaws encompassed all the best qualities of the aforementioned. You dug the Democratic Party’s grave, now wallow in it for all I care.

For months, countless voices of reason have pointed out time and again, Obama is an empty suit (the above cartoon is from March 2007 so don’t act surprise that Obama is devoid of substance). Obama is a fraud. He lacks experience. He has no relevant qualifications. He has no conviction other than his own political welfare.

His past behaviour is troublesome. He threw Alice Palmer and four others off the ballot. His rise through the labyrinth of Chicago politics took him down some worrisome alleys and forged alliances with a cast of characters include Louis Farrahkan, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the Reverend James Meeks, Antonin Rezko, Rashid Khalidi, William Ayers, and Bernardine Dohrn. Now he pals around with Donnie McClurkin, Father Michael Pfleger, and Jodie Evans.

For months committed liberals like Paul Krugman, in column after column, demonstrated how his proposals weren’t that progressive or even centrist. I’ve grown hoarse pointing out Obama’s lobbyist connections and his ties to the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries.

At every opportunity I get, I bring up the fact Senator Obama voted for the Bush-Cheney Energy Policy. The Washington Post called it “a piñata of perks for energy industries.” John McCain did not vote with his party. Hillary Clinton did not cross the aisle.

But you would not listen. You were mired in a speech that Obama gave in 2002. I hope that speech keeps you warm the next four years because that’s is the extent of his progressive record, a speech. His real record is far more centrist (that reach out across the aisle and ream someone kind of record), or perhaps corporatist is a better choice of words. Six billion dollars in subsidies to the oil & gas industry and $12 billion in subsidies to nuclear power industry.

One has to wonder if he photocopied his energy plan from Dick Cheney and Charles Grassley. His health care plan is a misnomer, it’s an insurance plan. The beneficiary is the insurance industry.

His votes in the Senate were more pro-Bush than Hillary’s, than Biden’s, than Dodd’s, than Edwards’. Progressive Punch ranked Obama the 42nd most progressive member of the Senate. There are 49 Democrats and one Socialist and one “Independent” in the Democratic Caucus. Forty-second out of 51. Funny how that is. Laughing yet?

Now, you are upset that he is backtracking. News flash: he says what he thinks will please his audience at the moment and then he does whatever he thinks will advance his career the most. And what a career it is. Zero legislative accomplishments. Zip. Name one. He has missed 42% of the votes in the Senate this year. Over the comparable period, Hillary missed 30%. That’s over a quarter more votes missed. Not trivial and by design. He and his handlers don’t want him to have a record to run on.

You think his vote on FISA was shocking. Really? He is the candidate of corporate interests, the candidate of the anti-Clinton Democratic establishment. You’re voting for Obama but getting Tom Dashcle. There’s a winner for you. You’re voting for Obama and getting Jesse Jackson, Jr. Another soulless Chicago politician. As a bonus, tack on Dick Durbin. But wait there’s more. Act now and we’ll throw in out-of-touch effete liberals– John Kerry and a gasbag to boot — Bill Richardson. But wait, there’s more you also get master advertising guru David Alexrod. Think of it as the DNC’s special gift to to you.

Obama is the designated one, the annointed one, but you satistified yourselves with silly speeches and satiated yourselves with empty platitudes galore. You went for the hip and the flash, a no-hit wonder who hasn’t even come to bat yet. He moves from one on deck circle to another never fully entering the game.

Instead you left the ace of the Democratic Party in the dugout. You fools. Stop your crying and either attempt to salvage the situation or prepare yourselves for a McCain Presidency which from my point of view is preferable to an Obama one. Better the devil that I know than the devil that I don’t. I know what to expect from McCain.

But how can I trust that shiftless soulless hypocrite who with each passing day changes yet another of his positions? It’s backtracking with Barack. So far he’s trampled on the Fourth Amendment, a women’s right to choose, the health care of all Americans and now the cornerstone of what brung him to the dance in the first place, that magical speech in 2002 that had to be re-recorded so it could be replayed again and again and use your opposition to a fruitless war as his springboard to power.

So it is with incredulity that I read this silliest of wanking posts by Ian Welsh on Firedoglake entitled “Turning Obama Into A Punchline: How Democrats Can Lose.” He was mockable from the start and his supporters perhaps even more.

I still can’t forget that kid in Ohio who thinks Obama is infallible. Papa Obama the First. News flash — Obama is a joke. He isn’t just a punchline, he is one of those clown punch bags. He may come back up but he just gets walloped down again. The funnier part is that it is largely self-inflicted so far. The GOP has yet to get its licks in.

His post and selected comments below the fold.

Once upon a time there was a candidate who was 17 points ahead of his foe. The election, it seemed, was his.

His name was Dukakis, and he lost that election to George Bush, Sr.

Or, more accurately, he lost it to Lee Atwater, Rove’s mentor. By the time Atwater got through with him, Dukakis wasn’t even a respected politician anymore, he was a punchline.

In 2000 Rove ran Bush as a “compassionate conservative” and smeared Gore as a liar, the man who’d “invented” the internet. The fact that Gore had never said that didn’t matter. In 2004 Kerry, an actual war hero, was smeared as a coward by the Swift Boat Veterans for “Truth” and by the time they got through with him, the man who’d taught Swift Boaters that the way to respond to an attack was to turn into it, was branded a coward, not a hero.

Republicans try and run elections based on “character” and when they manage it they generally win. When the election turns on something else, such as hope, the economy and health care in ‘92, they lose.

Today McCain promoted a new campaign manager, Steve Schmidt. Schmidt has been pushed, hard, by Karl Rove. He worked for the Governator’s reelection, and he also worked for Bush’s reelection in 04. Schmidt understands both parts of the Republican two-step — how to take away the scary parts of Republicanism, which he did for the Governator, who ran on a number of rather liberal policy plans; and how to destroy the opponent.

McCain isn’t going to win this election by playing nice. The natural momentum of the time favors Obama, because the Republican brand is badly damaged. The appointment of a Rovian disciple shows that the Republicans get this, and they’re ready to intensify their strategy.

Folks act as if negative campaigning doesn’t work, but this is a myth. It works, and it works well. All it is is reverse branding — branding your opponent for him. Schmidt will be looking for the opportunity to brand Obama as effete, weak and unprincipled. Obama’s actions of the past couple weeks, his “run to the center” in which he has suddenly realized he didn’t mean what he said in the primaries is playing into this narrative.

As with almost all Democrats Obama doesn’t seem to get that strength isn’t about what you vote for (national “security”), it’s about how you act. Stand strong on a principle and people will admire that even if they disagree with it. Be seen to flip like a weathervane and even if people wind up agreeing with you, they’ll despise you. Being strong, appearing strong, is about having principles, about taking a stand, not about talking tough.

Now, certainly McCain has no principles to speak of, having thrown his few remaining scruples out the door over the last couple years to court the conservative base, as when he voted for torture.

But, as we all know, the media prefers Republicans on character issues. The Swift Boaters were liars, their lies were proved at the time, but they were never effectively rebutted by the press. In 2000 the press likewise repeatedly failed to call Bush out on his many lies, indeed Paul Krugman, who tried, was expressly forbidden to use the word “lie” by his editors.

So the McCain campaign is going to try and define Obama. Republicans defined Dukakis, they defined Gore, they defined Kerry. Only with Clinton did they fail. At the same time, I expect Schmidt to push the McCain maverick brand more seriously and start backing away from the right wing base on a couple of key issues. (Torture, for example, is a place where McCain appears to be attempting to claim he is different from Bush, despite his vote for it.)

Muddle the difference on some key stands, define your opponent, make the election about character and not about policy. Obama has made this easier. It can’t really be about health care since Obama is not for universal care, and it’s harder to make it about the economy after changing his position on NAFTA.

So what Obama’s got left is “I’m not George Bush. And I am change.” If he can define McCain as Bush, he can still win it. But remember, historically elections that have come down to being about character have favored Republicans. And as Obama decides to be all things to all people, and nothing to anyone, I hope he isn’t walking into a trap whereby in simply defining himself as “hope” and “change” and “not Bush” he’s leaning on some slender reeds, easily broken by the avalanche of mud soon to come his way.

Lee Atwater is dead, but the style of politics he perfected hasn’t changed.

And sometimes the more things change, the more they stay the same.

You’re deluding yourselves by thinking that McCain is defining Obama. Obama is doing it all on his own. Obama is defining himself with every word he utters on FISA, capital punishment, on Iraq, on abortion, on his own naivete. His own backtracking is blazing a fiery trail as if it were naplam.

His candidacy is, as we speak, failing to gain traction. So far his own saving grace has been that McCain too has failed to gain traction. It’s a comedy of errors or perhaps a Greek tragedy. Either way, there is plenty to mock but not much to laugh at.

But you will see McCain run as some cross between a Ford Republican and Reagan Republican. You are beginning that change now. McCain is taking energy policy, Obama is talking flag pins. And when Obama does try to talk policy, he ends up “revising” earlier statements. Not too clever this very junior Senator from Illinois. Obama is on his way being defined as well, let’s just say he is part Carter, part Dukakis and part Kerry and all Barack and not one iota of Clinton.

He is unelectable even before the 527s get started. Those will point to the Reverend Wright. How does he run from a twenty year association with Reverend Wright? The Wright of 1991 is no different than the Wright of 2001 or 2008. He’s the same man and the tapes are ready to go. Twenty years of Barack at Trinity ready to hit your television screens.

How does he run from William Ayers, an unrepentant terrrorist? How does he run from Jodie Evans, a wealthy divorcee who thinks it’s funny to sabotage Army recruiting centers?

How does he run from that Bush-Cheney Energy Policy vote? Or his countless oil and gas connections? He is in the uneviable position of being attacked from both the left and the right and some of the center to boot. He has his cult and his handlers. That may be all he has in the end. Don’t look now but Ralph Nader has been polling since June in the 4% to 6% range. If he gets up to 10%, he is in the debates.

Now for the plight of the Obama Crowd, a few select comments from Firedoglake:

I like your thinking. Maybe I’ll send a check to HRC and JE. Keep the options open.

Sending a cheque to JE is pointless. Sending a cheque to HRC is nice because we need to retire her debt but the real problem is the DNC. You need to act to stop the coronation in Denver. Talk to a PUMA.

Do’h! We cudda hadda John Edwards!

Yeah. But you let a stupid $400 haircut story in the media undo him.

I’ve given up on aristocrats, and I’ve quit donating as a general policy.

Though I will seriously consider giving funds to a good effort to primary any Blue Dog-type.

Yeah, well Clinton was the working class Democrat. So was Edwards. So was Kucinich. And Biden wasn’t bad either. Choices you had. Even as late as May.

And thereby hangs the tale. Because I expected integrity from Barack Obama. I expected at the very least that he would be a fierce defender of the Constitution. Remember the “taught constitutional law” meme? He had my loyalty (okay, trickle down loyalty from Gore and then Edwards) and he has some of my money. There will be no more money (he doesn’t need it — he can afford to cover Hillary’s losses) and the loyalty thing is in limbo. And I’m a staunch Dem.

This is not looking good.

You wouldn’t listen to reason. Anyone who would throw five people off the ballot, as he did in his first state senate race, cannot be expected to be a Defender of the Constitution, can he? Anyone who arranges to get pundits thrown off CNN because he didn’t like their coverage cannot exactly be called a civil libertarian, can he? Integrity? From Barack Obama? Based on what? The way he handled the Reverend Wright? The racist card he has played throughout this campaign? His misogynistic remarks? His complete disrespect fof the success of the Clinton Administration? And yet he praised Ronald Reagan? Integrity?

And as Obama decides to be all things to all people, and nothing to anyone.

Nail on the head. We have a winner, ladies and gentleman. I have been saying this since January. It was evident then and it has been parcel post part of his campaign throughout. Did you just wake up from a six month hibernation?

I wrote to the Obama camp that I will not donate to someone who does not fight for the Constitution of the United States of America. (FISA, supporting church charity.) Not that I think letters, e-mails, faxes or phone calls are having any impact on any of the Dems. I don’t see Pelosi/Reid/et al. taking any notice of their base, and I don’t see Obama wising up. I despair, but I think McCain will slip through. Sad for all of us.

Sad. Yeah, that’s the word. Sad. You’re despairing? Despair if he becomes President. That’s truly what must be avoided. When we have reached the point that John McCain is the sane choice, I am afraid despair is pointless. That line was crossed long ago.

FISA anyone?

Obama’s new rush to destroy the Separation of Church and State isn’t going to help much either. If there is a plausible challenge to him in 2012, he might be a one-termer. Historic, but a single.

He’s getting the 3P’s down…Pander, Prevaricate and Pirouette.

He’s your man, not mine. I have opposed him from day one and will continue to do so because he’s dangerous. Obama is nothing but duplicitous.

Be seen to flip like a weathervane and even if people wind up agreeing with you, they’ll despise you. Being strong, appearing strong, is about having principles, about taking a stand, not about talking tough.

Let’s see now, who had principles? What was her name? Experienced too. Tough as nails. Wouldn’t quit until the DNC told her to shut up and get on board. Now, what was her name again?

Obama wasn’t my first choice, but as the primary campaign progressed, he grew on me (mostly by treating the electorate as grown-ups instead of fearful children).

Now, I want a do-over. The FISA capitulation was bad enough, but now he’s walking back his commitment to get out of Iraq? What is wrong with him? Did someone kidnap David Plouffe and replace him with Mark Penn?

Treating the electorate as grown-ups? What, by telling fairy tales in the land of hope and change? By telling you that you were the ones you had been waiting for. That was shameless flattery. Also out of Lenin’s playbook.

Clinton treated you as an adult. Edwards treated you as an adult. Obama treated you as a toy, a piece of silly putty that he could mold into his own legion of toy soldiers marching onto Washington to defeat the evil lobbyists who form his very own shock troops. It’s like watching an episode of Star Wars.

You have been deceived. You have been lied to. Wake up and doing something about it.

What’s wrong with Obama? How long have you got? I have written volumes. So have others far more learned than I. But you preferred to believe that a speech by an Illinois State Senator mattered more than the hard work of US Senators who faced tough decisions or who actually realized that telling the American people we can just waltz out of Iraq and leave it in a vacuum would be to mislead them.

Senator Biden, who is likely the most knowledgeable US Senator on both sides of the aisle on Iraq, told us that Obama didn’t have a plan, he had a dream.

Senator Clinton had the endorsement of nearly 40 retired top members of the US Armed Forces, including two former Chief of Staffs because they knew she understood what it would take to do the groundwork so we can exit Iraq.

Ambassador Joe Wilson wrote op-ed after op-ed praising Clinton for her approach. In return, you vilified him. And he broke the goods on Cheney.

There are no words that can describe the utter disgust I feel towards many of Obama supporters. Those that engage in tactics that aim to suppress dissent by shutting down websites nefariously or spreading misinformation about the membership of PUMA are nothing but vile worms living off their own manure.

I have long recognized that my political views put me in a minority- and that no candidate will win by espousing what I believe- so I try to support the person who will do the least harm.

Well unless you are willing to consider Nader, you’re likely talking about McCain at this point as the person who will do the least damage. Obama can not be trusted and then he lacks all relevant experience and that in and of itself is eminently dangerous.

His comments on Jerusalem at AIPAC would have set off riots in the Middle East and put both American lives and interests across the globe in jeopardy had he been President at the time. Words matter. Nuance matters. Precision is important and now he’s puzzled by how the media reads his every word. Unless you want to be the Hugo Chavez of the United States who spouts like some uncontrollable geyser, words need to be measured. But Obama is such a panderer that off the cuff he will fly and into the abyss we will go.

All the people who are disappointed in Obama need to remember on thing - if you remember nothing else about him. He is a student of George Lakoff.

For those of you who don’t know what that means, it is simply, George Lakoff is a specialist in the cognitive science of linguistics. In English, he studies ’framing’ and how it works.

In the instance being worried about today (faith-based initiatives), everyone (including me) has heard this term over and over for the past 7 or so years, and have become very familiar with the Bush version of this. It is a failed policy whereby the Rethugs dismantle a government program that was doing an adequate job, in favor of some crony religious program that is marginal at best, and outright corrupt at its heart at worst.

Along with this, the Rethugs dismantled social safety net programs leaving these so-called faith-based organizations to pick up the entire load, something they were never qualified for, nor were capable of doing on the scale of need. So we hear the words - faith-based initiative - and immediately all this crap comes to mind. Along with the erosion in the line of separation between church and state.

Let me propose a ”Lakoff transformation”. First, listen to Obama’s speech. And I mean REALLY listen. Don’t just read the headlines, here or anywhere else because they all have as a subtext the Bush definition.

Second, let’s lose the descriptor - faith-based initiative. What Obama is proposing is a PARTNERSHIP between the government and private institutions to get a job done. He is proposing that the government will keep its ongoing programs and work to make them better. And will work as a PARTNER with other organizations to help address needs that may be better suited to these particular organizations or for which these organizations may have a better track record of success. He proposes to LEARN from these organizations and figure out ways to help the government agency do a better job so that all persons needs are met. Yes, some of these organizations are religious - but the appropriate guidelines are in place - they just need oversight, accountability and enforcement, something that has also been completely missing under Bushco, and which Obama says he will make the Office in charge do its job.

I think that we are all too quick to dismiss and feel bad about Obama’s supposed policy direction changes, when they may not be that at all. Or they may be policy direction changes that are going in an entirely new direction than the one we are thinking about. Lakoff says this is the trouble with our language - we tend to develop a ’frame’ around a word or phrase when we first encounter it. That frame gets imprinted on our brains, and then we have to work really hard to actually think ”outside the frame” for a new and better context.

Next time you hear that Obama did XYZ using language that feels/seems bad - try this exercise. Replace the objectionable frame with another word that describes the action being taken - as I did using the word ’partnership’, and then look at the issue again. We may all be surprised - in a good way.

What Obama is proposing is a PARTNERSHIP between the government and private institutions to get a job done? What Obama is propsoing is a giveaway of taxpayer money to private institutions that proselytize. Government is in the business of assisting people in their lives. Churches are in the business of saving souls. The two are not complimentary. There is a Constitutional separation between Church and State. Your framing is blind acceptance of utter folly.

The kool-aid is strong in this one. Anyone who supports him now is blind to the dangers that Obama poses to civil liberties and human progress. And blind men are at their blindest when they suddenly think that they can see.

See you in 2012, if we get there.

__________

From my blog, By The Fault.

My note: I know so many Obama followers who flocked to Obama because he told them what they were desperate to hear, given their incalculable and understandable distress during the eight years of Bush/Cheney. They held against Hillary Clinton her vote in 2002, even though her Senate floor speech on October 10, 2002 made very clear her grave concerns and stated her warnings about the use of military force: “If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. … So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option. …”

Luckily for Mr. Obama, he wasn’t yet a U.S. Senator, so didn’t have to vote. In fact, in 2004, he said he wasn’t sure how he would have voted. Instead, Mr. Obama made a single speech on October 2, 2002 before 1,000 people in Chicago’s Federal Plaza that was not even mentioned by Chicago media. By 2006, war opponents, frantic to find a “savior,” flocked to Obama based on that one speech that was never followed by any further speeches or any further actions towards stopping or ending the Iraq war.

It’s quite something that he was able to exploit a single speech, unnoted at the time, to attract legions of followers. It’s quite something that, since no video or audio exists, his campaign media experts had to recreate his speech in a recording studio. It’s quite something that his followers continue to support him, even after he joined the U.S. Senate and voted exactly as did Hillary Clinton, except that she voted against Gen. George Casey while Obama voted for the unqualified general whose knowledge about troop and supply deficiencies were wholly inadequate, as Sen. Clinton’s grilling of Gen. Casey during a Senate hearing proved.

So, Obama’s followers have bought into his opposition to the Iraq war on rather threadbare proof: A single speech followed by, in the last 18 months, a lot of campaign rhetoric in rally speeches. Clear back in 2004, the late Tim Russert, on Meet The Press, exposed Obama’s shifting statements:

In July of `04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” That was July of `04. And this: “I think” there’s “some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war.” It doesn’t seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it. (”Meet the Press,” 2004, via MyDD, Nov. 11, 2007)

So, it’s no surprise to me that the MSM has discovered what we here knew last year when we began investigating Obama’s real record on Iraq:

WHAT THEY’RE SAYING ABOUT BARACK OBAMA’S CHANGING IRAQ POSITION


For Immediate Release

Contact: Press Office

Saturday, July 5, 2008

“I Think This Is One Of The Biggest Things That’s Happened So Far In This General Election.” — Mark Halperin (CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees,” 7/3/08)

Barack Obama “Struggled” To Explain His Iraq Position, Called Do-Over Press Conference:

ABC News: “Barack Obama Struggled Thursday In Two Separate News Conferences To Explain His Plan To Withdraw U.S. Troops From Iraq.”

“Whatever happened to ‘absolute clarity’? Barack Obama struggled Thursday in two separate news conferences to explain his plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.” (Teddy Davis, Sunlen Miller, and Gregory Wallace, “‘We’re Gonna Try This Again,’” ABC News’ “The Notes Sneak Peek,” 7/3/08)

· ABC News: “There’s Been Lots Of Speculation This Week About Whether Sen. Barack Obama Has An Iraq Problem. He Does Now.” (Rick Klein, “Obama’s Iraq Quagmire,” ABC News’ “Political Punch” Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, Posted 7/3/08)

· ABC’s John Berman: “He Felt The Need To Hold Two News Conferences To Clarify His Position.” (ABC’s “Good Morning America,” 7/4/08)

The Associated Press: Barack Obama “Struggled Thursday” To Explain His Iraq Position. “Democrat Barack Obama struggled Thursday to explain how his upcoming trip to Iraq might refine, but not basically alter, his promise to quickly remove U.S. combat troops from the war.” (Jennifer Loven, “Obama Says Iraq Trip Could Refine His Policy,” The Associated Press, 7/4/08)

· The Associated Press: Barack Obama Offered A “Messy Series Of Comments” On Iraq. “It was Obama’s messy series of comments Thursday, coming after weeks in which Republicans had been goading him to change his withdrawal policy in light of reduced violence, that put an unfortunate spotlight on his quandary.” (Jennifer Loven, “Obama’s Centrist Emphasis Gives GOP Ammo,” The Associated Press, 7/5/08)

CBS: Barack Obama Forced To Call “A Hastily Organized Press Conference.” “Barack Obama called a hastily organized press conference to clarify an earlier statement where he suggested he’d ‘refine’ his Iraq policy after he visits Iraq later this summer.” (Maria Gavrilovic, “Obama Clarifies Iraq Remarks,” CBS News, 7/3/08)

CNN’s Anderson Cooper: Obama “Scrambling To Explain His Position On Iraq.” CNN’S ANDERSON COOPER: “We begin though with Barack Obama scrambling to explain his position on Iraq. This morning, he seemed to open the door to changing his mind on a 16-month timetable for pulling troops out of Iraq.” (CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees,” 7/3/08)

CNN’s Jessica Yellin: Barack Obama “Found Himself In An Odd Spot Holding A Do-Over Press Conference.” CNN’S JESSICA YELLIN: “Barack Obama faced a firestorm about whether he’s backing off the central pledge of his campaign, to withdraw combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. The concern became so intense, he found himself in an odd spot holding a do-over press conference.” (CNN’s “Newsroom,” 7/4/08)

Fox News: Barack Obama Was “Obviously Annoyed With Reporters.” “Obviously annoyed with reports that he’d hedged his position on troop withdrawals from Iraq after he told reporters that he would ‘continue to refine’ his policies after his upcoming visit to Iraq, the campaign held a second avail to attempt to clarify his views on the matter.” (Bonney Kapp, “Obama On Iraq Take Two,” Fox News, 7/3/08)

Los Angeles Times: Barack Obama “Struggled” To Explain His Position On Iraq In A Press Conference. “Barack Obama struggled Thursday to explain his plan to end the war in Iraq, calling a rare do-over news conference to insist that he was not softening his campaign pledge to withdraw all combat troops within 16 months of becoming president.” (Peter Nicholas, “Republicans Seize On Obama’s Comments On Iraq,” Los Angeles Times, 7/4/08)

NBC’s Lester Holt: “Obama Suddenly Founding Himself Working Hard To Explain” His Iraq Position. NBC’S LESTER HOLT: “It is the eve of the Independence Day holiday, and while most Americans were settling in for a leisurely long weekend, late this afternoon Barack Obama suddenly found himself working hard to explain something he said earlier today about ending the war in Iraq.” (NBC’s “Nightly News,” 7/3/08)

New York Daily News: Barack Obama “Struggled To Explain” His Iraq Position. “Barack Obama said Thursday he may ‘refine’ his 16-month timetable for getting out of Iraq — and then struggled to explain what he meant after Republicans branded him a flip-flopper.” (Michael McAuliff, “GOP Pounces As Barack Obama Says Iraq Exit Plan Could Be ‘Refined,’” New York Daily News, 7/3/08)

Reuters: Barack Obama “Forced To call Reporters Back For A Second News Conference.” “Obama was forced to call reporters back for a second news conference in Fargo, North Dakota, after he initially left open the possibility of revising his 16-month timetable for pulling U.S. combat forces from Iraq.” (John Whitesides, “Obama Wades Into Controversy With Iraq Comments,” Reuters, 7/3/08)

Barack Obama “Opening The Door To Altering His Iraq Policy”:

The Associated Press: “Democrat Barack Obama Is Opening The Door To Altering His Iraq Policy.” (Jennifer Loven, “Obama Opens Door To Altering Iraq Policy,” The Associated Press, 7/3/08)

The Associated Press: Barack Obama “Acknowledged That The 16-Month Timeline Could Indeed Slip If Removing Troops Risked Their Safety Or Iraqi Stability.” “After his remark at a news conference about refining policy exploded onto the political scene, he called a do-over four hours later to ‘try this again.’ He said the refining wouldn’t be related to his promise to remove combat forces within 16 months of taking office, but to the number of troops needed to train Iraqis and fight al-Qaida. But then he acknowledged that the 16-month timeline could indeed slip if removing troops risked their safety or Iraqi stability.” (Jennifer Loven, “Obama’s Centrist Emphasis Gives GOP Ammo,” The Associated Press, 7/5/08)

CBS’ Dean Reynolds: “Obama Sounded Surprisingly Willing To Change His Position On Iraq.” CBS’ DEAN REYNOLDS: “In North Dakota today, Barack Obama sounded surprisingly willing to change his position on Iraq. … But the statement about refining his position paled next to the applause-winning declarations that carried him through the primaries.” (CBS’ “Evening News,” 7/3/08)

CNN’s Jessica Yellin: “When Pressed, He Refused To Commit To That 16-Month Time Frame, Insisting Any Good Commander-In-Chief Adjusts.” (CNN’s “Newsroom,” 7/4/08)

Fox News’ Major Garrett: “Speaking Of The Battlefield, Obama Is Creating New Room To Maneuver On The Question Of Withdrawing U.S. Combat Forces From Iraq.” (Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 7/4/08)

Los Angeles Times: Barack Obama “Has Carefully Hedged” On Iraq. “In the past, Obama has stressed his plan to begin a withdrawal immediately and complete it within 16 months. But he has carefully hedged, leaving the option of taking more time if needed.” (Peter Nicholas, “Republicans Seize On Obama’s Comments On Iraq,” Los Angeles Times, 7/4/08)

· Los Angeles Times: Barack Obama “Seemed Just Now To Signal A Softened Position On His Time Line For Withdrawing Troops From Iraq.” “Our colleague Peter Nicholas, trailing along after Barack Obama in Fargo, North Dakota, reports that Obama seemed just now to signal a softened position on his time line for withdrawing troops from Iraq.” (Scott Martelle, “Is Barack Obama Softening His Iraq Withdrawal Timeline?” Los Angeles Times’ “Top Of The Ticket” Blog, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com, Posted 7/3/08)

NBC’s Lee Cowan: “The Campaign Is Quick To Point Out That It Would Be Irresponsible For The Senator Not To At Least Leave Open The Possibility Of Learning Something On His Trip To Iraq That Might Change His Positions. Otherwise, As One Adviser Put It, ‘What’s The Point Of Making That Trip In The First Place?’” (NBC’s “Nightly News,” 7/3/08)

The New York Post: Barack Obama “Left The Door Open” To Changing His Iraq Policies. “Barack Obama, who ran hard during the Democratic primaries on an anti-Iraq-war message, yesterday left the door open to ‘refining’ his 16-month troop-withdrawal plan as he prepares for a Mideast trip.” (Maggie Haberman, “Obama Pulls About-Face,” The New York Post, 7/4/08)

The New York Times: “There Have Been Increasing Signs Of Debate Among Democrats — And Seemingly Among Some Obama Advisers — About What To Do In Iraq.” (Michael Cooper and Jeff Zeleny, “Obama Fuels Pullout Debate With Remarks,” The New York Times, 7/4/08)

The Washington Post: Barack Obama “Left Open The Possibility” That He Would Slow His 16-Month Withdrawal Plan. “Sen. Barack Obama left open the possibility of slowing his promised, 16-month withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq, saying he would consult with military commanders on an upcoming trip to the region to ensure a withdrawal would keep troops safe and Iraq stable.” (Jonathan Weisman, “Obama Softens On Iraq Withdrawal Timeline,” The Washington Post’s “The Trail” Blog, http://blog.washingtonpost.com, Posted 7/3/08)

· The Washington Post: “Today’s Comments From Obama Were The Most Extended On The Issue, And They Leaned Hard Toward Flexibility, Even As He Said His Position Has Not Shifted.” (Jonathan Weisman, “Obama Softens On Iraq Withdrawal Timeline,” The Washington Post’s “The Trail” Blog, http://blog.washingtonpost.com, Posted 7/3/08)

The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer: Barack Obama Will Change His Iraq Position Very Soon. “Two weeks ago, I predicted that by Election Day Obama will have erased all meaningful differences with McCain on withdrawal from Iraq. I underestimated Obama’s cynicism. He will make the move much sooner. He will use his upcoming Iraq trip to finally acknowledge the remarkable improvements on the ground and to formally abandon his primary season commitment to a fixed 16-month timetable for removal of all combat troops.” (Charles Krauthammer, Op-Ed, “A Man of Seasonal Principles,” The Washington Post, 7/4/08)

· Krauthammer: Barack Obama’s “Shift Has Already Begun.” “The shift has already begun. Yesterday, he said that his ‘original position’ on withdrawal has always been that ‘we’ve got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable.’ And that ‘when I go to Iraq … I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.’” (Charles Krauthammer, Op-Ed, “A Man of Seasonal Principles,” The Washington Post, 7/4/08)

· Krauthammer: Even Though Obama Has Yet To Go Back To Iraq, “The Flip Is Almost Complete.” “He hasn’t even gone to Iraq and the flip is almost complete. All that’s left to say is that the 16-month time frame remains his goal but that he will, of course, take into account the situation on the ground and the recommendation of his generals in deciding whether the withdrawal is to occur later or even sooner.” (Charles Krauthammer, Op-Ed, “A Man of Seasonal Principles,” The Washington Post, 7/4/08)

Barack Obama’s Openness To Refining His Position At Odds With Previous Commitments:

ABC News: Barack Obama’s “Openness To Adjust His 16-Month Withdrawal Plan Was Somewhat At Odds” With Previous Comments. “Obama’s openness to adjust his 16-month withdrawal plan was somewhat at odds with the stance he took during a recent ABC News debate. At the time, Obama seemed to stand by his campaign manager’s unambiguous pledge to have troops out of Iraq in 16 months ‘at the most.’” (Teddy Davis, Sunlen Miller, and Gregory Wallace, “‘We’re Gonna Try This Again,’” ABC News’ “The Notes Sneak Peek,” 7/3/08)

The Politico: Barack Obama “Backed Off His Firm Promise To Withdraw Combat Forces From Iraq Immediately.” “Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Thursday backed off his firm promise to withdraw combat forces from Iraq immediately and instead said he could ‘refine’ his plan after his trip to Baghdad later this month.” (Mike Allen, “Obama To ‘Refine’ Iraq Plan,” The Politico, 7/3/08)

Barack Obama Playing Politics With Iraq Position:

ABC News: Barack Obama Will Be “Unlikely To Give A Direct, Yes-Or-No Answer” When Asked Where He Stands On His Iraq Plan. “There will be only one relevant question now out of Obama’s trip now: Do you stand by your plan? Obama is unlikely to give a direct, yes-or-no answer — and that’s where Sen. John McCain and his allies can and will pounce.” (Rick Klein, “Obama’s Iraq Quagmire,” ABC News’ “Political Punch” Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, Posted 7/3/08)

Fox News: Barack Obama In The General Election “Has Been Talking Less About Troop Withdrawal.” “But now as Obama enters the general election and hopes to compete for a wider range of voters, he has been talking less about troop withdrawal - something he explained was because he’d been spending a lot of time talking about the economy.” (Bonney Kapp, “Obama Keeps Iraq Options Open,” Fox News, 7/3/08)

The New York Times: Barack Obama “Recently Spoken Less About Withdrawal.” “With violence ebbing in Iraq, however, he has recently spoken less about withdrawal and has increasingly emphasized the failure to achieve political reconciliation in that country.” (Michael Cooper and Jeff Zeleny, “Obama Fuels Pullout Debate With Remarks,” The New York Times, 7/4/08)

The Wall Street Journal: Lately, Barack Obama Has Left Out His Pledge To Withdraw Troops Within 16 Months From His Public Speeches. “According to the Obama campaign Website Sen. Obama would move one to two combat brigades a month home from Iraq and have “all [U.S.] combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.” But lately he has left out the phrase ‘16 months’ entirely.” (Amy Chozick, “Obama Defines His Position On Iraq War,” The Wall Street Journal, 7/4/08)

In The Headlines:

For more on the ever-shifting Obama on Iraq, please see my story, “Obama Talks the Talk, But Where’s the Walk?”

Footnote: Mr. Obama’s real views on Iraq are of the gravest importance because, as we all know, the huge expenditures in money and lives have affected every other government budget and forced cutbacks on programs urgently needed by American citizens.

If Mr. Obama hasn’t the REAL RESOLVE — and the in-depth knowledge of the military, veterans, and all affected government programs required to execute an intelligently-planned withdrawal — he is not of presidential timber.

Hillary Clinton is made of the stuff required for the Oval Office: Resolve, intelligence, “wonky” political knowledge, and a constant search for the best information. Compare the voting records and statements of both Sens. Clinton and Obama regarding the nomination of Gen. George Casey:

What about Obama’s voting record in the U.S. Senate on Iraq? TPM Election Central painstakingly compared every single vote on Iraq by Sens. Clinton and Obama, since Obama entered the Senate. Senators Clinton and Obama voted identically, except once: On the confirmation of “General George Casey to be Chief of Staff for the Army, held just this past February. Hillary voted against confirmation, while Obama voted to confirm.” Why did Sen. Clinton vote against Gen. Casey’s confirmation?

During his nomination hearing to be Army Chief of Staff, I questioned General Casey about recent reports, both by the Department of Defense Inspector General and press accounts, that units and personnel lacked the necessary equipment. General Casey responded that was not aware of the problems cited in these reports and actually quite surprised at the reported shortcomings. In the Inspector General report’s summary, the equipment shortages were attributed to basic management failures among military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan. General Casey was not aware of this investigation or its recommendations that oversight must immediately improve to ensure proper distribution of equipment; as a result units and personnel are not able to perform assign missions. — From “Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Vote on Confirmation of General George W. Casey to be Army Chief of Staff,” Feb. 8, 2007

How did Sen. Obama defend his vote for Gen. Casey?

“It is a bit unseemly that General Casey is being made the scapegoat for a war that never should have been fought and for a failed strategy dictated by the civilian leadership in the White House. The President, Vice President and other civilian officials set forth an unworkable strategy with inadequate resources and did not listen to the advice of generals on the ground. They are the ones ultimately responsible for the current situation in Iraq. I hope General Casey will get more support for his new mission, which is so important to the country. I want to see General Casey use his experience in Iraq to ensure that the civilian leadership in Washington understands the challenges faced and resources needed by today’s Army.”

That’s it. That’s the entire press release. Not a word about Gen. Casey’s failure to know about the crisis in equipment shortages or the “basic management failures” during Gen. Casey’s own time in Iraq or the Inspector General’s shocking report.

While I fully sympathize with the attraction to Obama based on a single speech in 2002, it is not enough. A more thorough investigation and dissection of Obama’s wildly varying statements on Iraq are required by his followers.

(Accompanying image is below. Don’t miss it.)

This great video was created by GeekLove, who asks that you visit his video page, and rate and comment on his video. We all will, GeekLove. Thank you so much.

AND NOW FOR THE PHOTO ACCOMPANIMENT:

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

This man’s arrogance is so boundless, he believes that he can get away with anything.

– He grabs his wife’s ass on stage before a TV audience of millions.

– He has invoked hip-hop singer’s Jay-Z “battle” anthem: “Stab the Ladies…Middle Finga To The Law” by giving Hillary Clinton the middle finger (by running his middle digit down his cheeck) and dusting her off his shoulder. Obama is a professed fan of Jay-Z, whose lyrics begin:

If you feelin’ like a pimp nigga, go and brush your shoulders off
Ladies is pimps too, go and brush your shoulders off
Niggaz is crazy baby, don’t forget that boy told you
Get, that, dirt off your shoulder (Read all.)

– He has quoted, numerous times, the words of Malcolm X in Spike Lee’s film (see the “Bamboozled” video below the fold).

As Mike’s America at the Flopping Aces blog asks, depressingly, “And they call Bush a cowboy?” Tom Maguire hits the nail on the head in his post, “The Chicago Way” at his blog Just One Minute:

1. I deplore this exhortation to random gunplay - what sort of a message does this send to America’s youth, too many of whom have grown up in a culture glorifying violence? Is Obama a serious Presidential candidate or yet another rapper with yet another beef?

2. I deplore the imagery of a black man waving a gun to settle a dispute …

If this were a laughing matter, I’d post this image and let you chuckle away:

But the only thing that’s amusing here is that Barack Obama is a joke of a candidate.

We could state the obvious: That this is speech unbecoming a presidential candidate who presumes he is fit to be the leader of the free world.

But it is more serious: Maguire is correct to point out that such language — such thinking (!) — is an abysmal example for children, teenagers, and young adults.

Already, hundreds of thousands of us who support Hillary Clinton or in any other way oppose Barack Obama’s candidacy have been subjected to the most ruthless attacks and unrelenting stalking by Obama’s followers who perpetrate these assaults on us around the clock, 24/7 in an unending effort to intimidate and frighten us.

We know that, if Barack Obama ever called on his followers to cease these Internet and real-life attacks, that those assaults would decline in number and frequency. But Obama never asks his followers to straighten up and to act like responsible adults — just as the innumerable verbal assaults on Hillary Clinton were rarely, if ever, properly and promptly dealt with by Mr. Obama. Even when his longtime intimate associate Father Michael Pfleger attacked Hillary Clinton before Obama’s own congregation at Trinity church in Chicago, Obama failed to apologize to Hillary Clinton or directly rebuke Fr. Pfleger’s nasty, racist remarks. (Obama’s primary action was self-protective, as he sought to distance himself, in a superficial public remark, from Fr. Pfleger — despite the fact that he and Pfleger were on the telephone often as recently as May while Pfleger acted as a go-between for the falling out between Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama.)

But Obama won’t call on his thuggish followers to cease and desist. He approves of the “new McCarthyism” from his followers.

Taking a different tack on this latest, and shocking, remark by Obama: It is disturbing that he has so little control over what he says that he cannot self-edit what he says in public.

We know that Obama is a candidate unusually dependent on a teleprompter in order to speak properly and coherently before an audience.

One of the most recent examples was when the unscripted Obama said that Iran (and other nations) are such tiny countries that they pose no serious threat to the U.S., and then the unscripted Obama, the next day in another speech, charged that Iran is a dangerous threat.

I’m sure that this kind of talk — “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun” — is used all the time in Barack’s conversations with his thuggish extremist, radical pals in Chicago.

But it won’t play well in Peoria or Portland (Maine as well as Oregon) or, most certainly, not in Oklahoma City, which was devastated by horrific violence that began, after all, with just talking about guns and bombs.

Military leaders, both past and present, must be shaking their heads, worried to death that this “cowboy” could be the next Commander in Chief.

It’s no wonder that over 38 flag officers rushed to endorse Hillary Clinton because they know that she is not only highly knowledgeable about the military culture — which grasps the gravity of any suggestion or threat of violence — but that she would also be prudent in exercising military might or escalating any crisis situation without the most careful deliberations and consultations with her superb group of military advisers.

From the open letter sent in March 2008 by former flag officers — who were clearly concerned, deeply, about the perils of nominating an unqualified, unknowledgeable candidate:

[...]

It is imperative that our new President knows how and when to use force and diplomacy judiciously, to know how to deploy the olive branch and the arrow. The President needs to be ready to act swiftly and decisively in a crisis. And we think our next President must restore our moral authority and leadership around the world with the courage to meet with our adversaries when appropriate, and the wisdom to pursue diplomacy wisely.

It is especially important to understand the military and diplomatic challenges facing us in Iraq, and to end the Iraq war responsibly and safely. It is also important to rededicate ourselves to winning in Afghanistan, the forgotten front line in our fight against terrorism.

In these critical areas, it is clear to us that Senator Clinton is the candidate best qualified to be our nation’s next Commander-in-Chief.

We believe that she has real understanding of the military through her diligent service on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She has worked tirelessly to ensure our men and women in uniform are properly trained and equipped to be sent to battle. And she has fought to make certain that they are treated with dignity when they return home. We have personally and closely observed her respect for our armed forces, and she has earned their respect. And ours.

We hope that as a country, we will now turn our attention to the critical issues that will determine the future of our great nation.

General Wesley Clark
General Henry Hugh Shelton
Admiral William Owens
Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard
Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy
Lt. Gen. Donald Kerrick
Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak, Jr.
Major General Roger R. Blunt
Major General George Buskirk, Jr.
Major General Paul D. Eaton
Major General Antonio M. Taguba
Brigadier General Michael Dunn
Brigadier General Evelyn “Pat” Foote
Brigadier General Virgil A. Richard
Brigadier General Jack Yeager
Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr.
Rear Admiral Roland G. Guilbault
Rear Admiral Stuart F. Platt
Rear Admiral David Stone

Here is the video of Barack Obama acting out the lyrics of Jay-Z — the day after his deplorable failure in the ABC debate (the last one he permitted, so embarrassing was his woeful performance. You’ll see Obama giving Hillary Clinton the finger and then dusting her off his shoulder:

Here is the video of Barack Obama miming the words of Malcolm X:

Last, but not least, is the video of Obama slapping his wife on the ass before he spoke the night of the last primary contests: