Furthermore, if you’ve ever been lucky enough to have turned on C-Span during one of the exceptionally well-organized forums that Steve sets up (which is what he does for a living), you have been in for a treat. One of our best regular readers — whose comments are always a must-read — is “Mr. Murder.” He sent me an e-mail on August 15th about Steve’s latest forum, “Scripting America’s Priorities: The Democratic Party Platform.” Go to Steve’s blog, and read all about this important forum. (And thanks to Mr. Murder for sending me his e-mail.)

Steve Clemons’ fealty to the “Golden Rule” is an amazing feat since he is very well-connected in Washington, D.C. and knows nearly all of the major players, and I can only imagine how difficult it is to stay true to himself in such a hardball city. It would be natural to become cynical and to indulge in the gossip common in that cut-throat environment. (A prime example is Sally Quinn, who with one hand proudly holds up her religious faith, and with the other cuts people like the Clintons to shreds because they don’t meet her rather snobbish criteria for inclusion in her inner sanctum. Her snobbery is a dishonor to her supposed faith.)

So, when I read this written by Steve Clemons at his fine blog, Washington Note, I know he has thoroughly checked this story, and that he knows whereof he speaks.

Furthermore, I sense, strongly, that Steve Clemons was very unhappy as he wrote this:

“Obama to General Wesley Clark: Your Services Not Needed”

General Wesley Clark is not attending the Democratic National Convention. I was told by General Clark’s personal office in Little Rock that he would not be attending.

Clark was informed by Barack Obama’s people that there was no reason to come.

General Clark has been given no role of any kind at the convention.

Rubbing salt in the wound even more, the “theme” of Wednesday’s Democratic convention agenda is “Securing America.”

Wesley Clark’s PAC also happens to be called SECURING AMERICA.

This speaks volumes about Barack Obama. As the person who sent this article to me added, Barack Obama “holds grudges and is petty.” That is true. Furthermore, it is just plain stupid. One of Barack Obama’s glaring electability issues is his complete lack of experience in the essential arena of NATIONAL SECURITY. Barack Obama needs Gen. Wesley Clark FAR MORE than Gen. Clark needs Barack Obama. This rebuff demonstrates not only pettiness, it proves that Barack Obama lacks common sense.

Here is more from Steve Clemons about the Obama’s campaign notice to Gen. Clark that he is not welcome at the convention in Denver:

This is a mistake in my view. There are a lot of perspectives and competing agendas about how to direct America’s next national security posture — and General Wesley Clark should be one of the top tier names and personalities at the table. …

Please read all of Steve Clemons’ article. And consider the heavy heart with which I sense he wrote this.

[NOTE: I hope that our cartoonist PatRacimora also writes about this. PatRacimora knows Gen. Clark and has long been involved in his campaign activities and his PAC. She will add an important personal touch to this disappointing story.]

During the primaries, Steve Clemons made every effort to be fair to all of the candidates, including both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. He was also critical of all of the candidates when he felt they deserved to be criticized.

He told it like it is. Always. There were a couple times when I wrote to him about columns he published that were critical of Hillary Clinton, and he always — always — wrote me a thoughtful reply.

He is an honorable person. To his core. And so is General Wesley Clark.

In other words, his blog operates as an even-minded resource in the blogosphere — a true rare instance of “objectivity” these days when, frankly, we hunt and choose which stories to write about based on our own feelings and prejudices. I’m as guilty of that as anyone, at times. But Steve never is.

And now, let’s consider how this makes General Clark feel. He was a devoted partner to Hillary Clinton throughout her primary contests. Then, as soon as she suspended her campaign, he went to bat for Barack Obama. Because of one statement he made about John McCain, he became persona non grata to the Obama campaign.

There are other FINE PATRIOTS who have been similarly treated by the Obama camp. Former ambassador Joseph Wilson, a true American hero who campaigned in several states for Hillary Clinton, immediately CALLED Barack Obama’s campaign and offered his services in any way he could. He has never received a call back.

When heroes such as these are cast aside by a presidential campaign, one must ponder what the campaign is really about.

When such EXPERTS in national security are ignored, one must ponder if Barack Obama has any common sense. He needs these patriots’ advice. Desperately.

Aside from winning, that is.

It is a bit understandable that, for a while, the Obama campaign might be wary of General Clark’s services after his sincerely unintended “faux pas” regarding John McCain, which he in NO way meant as an insult but simply as a statement of fact. (It was unfortunate, but what’s past is past. And General Clark has such a distinguished record that the WHOLE of his professional and personal history must be honored.)

And why ignore Joe Wilson? Why ignore Valerie Plame Wilson? Why not appreciate and promote these fine Americans who have given their careers — and in both instances have paid a high price for sticking to their true American values — to protecting this nation and trying, always, to do the right thing?

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden, D-Del., had previously told Meet the Press that "the reason Obama didn’t hold a hearing on NATO, I chair the committee. Every one of those committee hearings are held at full committee."

But today [July 17, 2008] Biden decided to take his defense of Obama one step further, writing to DeMint that there have been plenty of hearings on European Affairs, they’ve just been held at the "full committee level."

"On the particular issue of NATO’s mission in Afghanistan," Biden wrote, "We have held three Full Committee hearings in the last 22 months: one under Senator Lugar’s chairmanship (September 21, 2006: “From Coalition to ISAF Command in Afghanistan: The Purpose and Impact of the Transition”), and two undermine (March 8, 2007: “Afghanistan: Time for a New Strategy?” and January 21, 2008: “Afghanistan: A Plan to Turn the Tide?”).  At all three of these hearings, we were fortunate enough to have the expert testimony—in addition to other witnesses, both in and out of government— of former NATO commander and Supreme Allied Commander-Europe, Gen. James R. Jones (USMC, ret.)."

But Biden’s letter brought attention to the fact that Obama did not attend two of those three hearings — and for the third, on March 8, 2007, Obama only asked one question, one unrelated to Afghanistan. …

Don’t miss how Jake Tapper knows that Obama asked only one question, irrelevant to Afghanistan:

How do I know the latter fact? From an August 2007 press release from Biden himself, when he was running for president.

"BIDEN CAMPAIGN CONGRATULATES SEN. OBAMA FOR JOHNNY-COME-LATELY POSITION," it read. Noting that at the March 2007 hearing, "Sen. Obama asked one question that was unrelated to Taliban or Afghanistan."

Thanks, Joe!

…

Maureen Dowd notes an unintended consequence of Mr. Obama’s popularity in Europe that will create consternation among voters in the U.S.:

Even if Obama is treated as a superstar by W.-weary Europeans, some Obama-wary Americans may wonder what he’s doing there, when they can’t pay for gas, when the dollar is the Euro’s chew toy, when Bud is going Belgian and when the Chrysler Building has Arab landlords.

“I don’t know that people in Missouri are going to like seeing tens of thousands of Europeans screaming for The One,” a McCain aide snarked to The Politico.

Tune in to “Security Corner,” hosted by Security and Counter Terrorism expert Larry Johnson. Guests: Valerie Plame Wilson and former ambassador Joe Wilson Larry Johnson and other No Quarter writers have championed the cause of Valerie Plame Wilson and Joe Wilson. The Wilsons are patriots who have served their nation honorably and suffered unjustly for trying to do their duty. We are honored to inaugurate No Quarter Radio with them. Call-in Number: (347) 677-0792

Full press release:

For Immediate Release

July
12, 2008

Premier Guests: Valerie Plame Wilson and Ambassador Joe Wilson

Washington, DC - NO QUARTER RADIO Live Internet Talk enters new territory with "Security Corner," hosted by Larry Johnson, a discredited CIA officer who is despised by the extremes on both the right and the left. (Must be doing something right!) Larry Johnson joined the CIA the same day as Valerie Plame Wilson and spent a year with fifty other classmates being trained as an intelligence officer. Larry subsequently left the CIA and served in the State Department’s Counter Terrorism Office. He is an expert in counterterrorism. His full biography may be read here.

Tune in to No Quarter Radio (NQR) live on Monday, July 14, 10:00-11:00 a.m. ET as Larry Johnson interviews Valerie Plame Wilson and Joe Wilson. Our guests will be answering listener questions, and the call-in number is (347) 677-0792.

Valerie Plame Wilson is the author of Fair Game: My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House. Her identity as an undercover CIA operations officer was exposed by top Bush Administration officials after her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, blew the whistle on President Bush, who mislead the American people and told them that Iraq had obtained yellow cake uranium.

Valerie Plame Wilson and Larry will chat about the revelations from former Bush press spokesman, Scott McClellan, progress on the upcoming movie about her life, and her thoughts on reforming the CIA. If you want more information about Valerie’s saga, please read these articles, which includes her testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Joe Wilson is the author of The Politics of Truth: A Diplomat's Memoir: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity.

Larry will get Joe’s take on the movie as well and pick his brain on the U.S.'s next steps in Iraq as well as Barack Obama's changing statements on the Iraq War. Ambassador Wilson has written several articles at Larry Johnson's blog, No Quarter USA. 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"

Larry Johnson and other No Quarter writers have championed the cause of Valerie and Joe. The Wilsons are patriots who have served their nation honorably and suffered unjustly for trying to do their duty. We are honored to inaugurate No Quarter Radio with them.

An audio archive of today’s interviews will be available at NoQuarterUSA.net and at NQR immediately following the show.

Contact: larry_johnson@earthlink.net

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?

July
12, 2008

Premier Guests: Valerie Plame Wilson and Ambassador Joe Wilson

Washington, DC - NO QUARTER RADIO Live Internet Talk enters new territory with "Security Corner," hosted by Larry Johnson, a discredited CIA officer who is despised by the extremes on both the right and the left. (Must be doing something right!) Larry Johnson joined the CIA the same day as Valerie Plame Wilson and spent a year with fifty other classmates being trained as an intelligence officer. Larry subsequently left the CIA and served in the State Department’s Counter Terrorism Office. He is an expert in counterterrorism. His full biography may be read here.

Tune in to No Quarter Radio (NQR) live on Monday, July 14, 10:00-11:00 a.m. ET as Larry Johnson interviews Valerie Plame Wilson and Joe Wilson. Our guests will be answering listener questions, and the call-in number is (347) 677-0792.

Valerie Plame Wilson is the author of Fair Game: My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House. Her identity as an undercover CIA operations officer was exposed by top Bush Administration officials after her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, blew the whistle on President Bush, who mislead the American people and told them that Iraq had obtained yellow cake uranium.

Valerie Plame Wilson and Larry will chat about the revelations from former Bush press spokesman, Scott McClellan, progress on the upcoming movie about her life, and her thoughts on reforming the CIA. If you want more information about Valerie’s saga, please read these articles, which includes her testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Joe Wilson is the author of The Politics of Truth: A Diplomat's Memoir: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity.

Larry will get Joe’s take on the movie as well and pick his brain on the U.S.'s next steps in Iraq as well as Barack Obama's changing statements on the Iraq War. Ambassador Wilson has written several articles at Larry Johnson's blog, No Quarter USA. 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"

Larry Johnson and other No Quarter writers have championed the cause of Valerie and Joe. The Wilsons are patriots who have served their nation honorably and suffered unjustly for trying to do their duty. We are honored to inaugurate No Quarter Radio with them.

An audio archive of today’s interviews will be available at NoQuarterUSA.net and at NQR immediately following the show.

Contact: larry_johnson@earthlink.net

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.

“Last week, the New York Times outed a CIA agent — I’m not going to mention his name — who interrogated Khalid Sheikh Mohammed,” said O’Reilly. “The CIA asked the New York Times not to do that, it obviously puts the CIA agent in danger because al Qaeda knows who he is, and they say, ‘Well, we’ll out anybody unless they’re under cover.’”

The Times added an Editor’s Note to the story following its initial publication, explaining why they had revealed the interrogator’s name even though the CIA asked them not to do so. “After discussion with agency officials and a lawyer for Mr. Martinez, the newspaper declined the request, noting that Mr. Martinez had never worked under cover. … The newspaper seriously considered the requests from Mr. Martinez and the agency. But in view of the experience of other government employees who have been named publicly in books and published articles or who have themselves chosen to go public, the newspaper made the decision to print the name.”

“The New York Times has a double standard,” Rove replied to O’Reilly. “It was deeply concerned when Richard Armitage outed Valerie Plame. Of course, they were only concerned until the point that it became apparent it was Richard Armitage, not Karl Rove.”

Gee Karl. Early onset Alzheimer’s? Don’t you remember what you told Tim Russert and Chris Matthews?

Fair game. You said that a real undercover CIA officer was fair game for political attacks. And how about Matt Cooper and Robert Novak?

– Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper said, “Karl Rove told me about Valerie Plame’s identity on July 11, 2003. I called him because Ambassador Wilson [Plame’s husband] was in the news that week. I didn’t know Ambassador Wilson even had a wife until I talked to Karl Rove.”

– A week prior to publishing his column which outed Plame, Robert Novak spoke with Rove. Novak brought up Plame’s role at the CIA, and Rove confirmed that Plame worked at the CIA: “I heard that too,” said Rove.

You did not get it then and you do not get it now. The current CIA officer in question, Deuce Martinez, is not undercover. He is an analyst working in an overt (i.e., uncovered) job. His identity is not a secret. His future success in the CIA does not depend on going to work overseas.

And the notion that he is at danger from Al Qaeda is laughable. Why? Because, the CIA despite all of its flaws and shortcomings, has done a good job of killing and capturing key Al Qaeda operatives. They are a decimated organization. (See Marc Sageman for more on this.) It does not have the ability to send a hit team to track down Deuce Martinez. Of course, Bill O’Reilly and Karl Rove did not give a shit about a genuine risk to Valerie Plame back in 2003. At that time, Al Qaeda actually did threaten to kill her. And Valerie was left on her own to figure out how to protect herself and her family.

Now, even though Deuce was not undercover, the fact that the CIA requested the NY Times not print his name should have been taken seriously. The NY Times just proved that it has the scruples of Robert Novak, who also rejected several pleas from the CIA to not print Valerie’s name.

But there is a big difference between exposing an undercover CIA officer like Valerie, who had a network of spies overseas, and an overt analyst. The good news is that the recent revelations by Bush’s former press secretary, Scott McClellan, seals the deal for the Wilson’s law suit against Karl Rove and others. McClellan has stated flatly that Rove lied about his role in outing Valerie Plame. If that case goes to trial Mr. Rove will have a chance to explain why it is okay to out an undercover officer but not okay to write about an officer who is working in the open. I still want a frog march.

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. BELOW — and it’s a must-read — I have quoted 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.

View more of TravisTCleveland’s videos. Like this one:

Now, the must-read section from Joseph Wilson’s op-ed, republished here at No Quarter:

A number of us, like then Illinois state senator Obama, opposed the second Gulf War. My own opposition from the beginning has been well documented. I fought the fight in the arena itself, Washington DC, against a ruthless administration and its supporters while the senator’s opposition came from a far distance and carried no risk, given that he represented in Springfield, Illinois the district encompassing the University of Chicago. As an obscure but safe provincial political figure, he never was granted access to the distorted intelligence that was used to drive the Congress and the media. When I looked to the left or to the right for support, I never saw the state senator. In fact, I never heard of Barack Obama until he announced his intention to run for the Senate in the 2006 election.

After he came to Washington, Obama’s views were thoroughly conventional and even timid. In 2004, he said about the 2002 congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force: “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know.” On Iraq-related votes in the Senate, Obama’s record identically matches Senator Clinton’s–with the exception that Senator Clinton voted against the confirmation of General George Casey as Army chief of staff. Obama’s vote was typically passive.

In the run up to the war and thereafter, I was in frequent discussions with senior Democrats in Washington, including Senator Clinton, and I was keenly aware of her demand for the full exercise of international diplomacy and allowing the weapons inspectors to complete their mission. Many of the most prominent early opponents of the war, including former General Wes Clark and former ambassador to the United National Richard Holbrooke support Senator Clinton for President, as do I. We do so because we know that she has the experience and the judgment that comes from having been in the arena for her entire adult life–and from close personal participation with her in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. And we have trust in her to end the war in Iraq in the most responsible way, consistent with our national security interests. …

Read all of Ambassador Wilson’s “The Real Hillary I Know — and the Unreal Obama.”

Ambassador Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson believe Hillary has the strongest plan for ending the war in Iraq.

I think Joe got drafted and just went through basic training!