Author: idredit

On the Campaign Trail:

Lieberman Compares Hagee To Moses, Says Bloggers Would Have Attacked Him Too

“Yesterday, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) spoke at the controversial pastor John Hagee’s Christians United For Israel Washington-Israel Summit. Lieberman’s close political ally, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), finally rejected Hagee’s endorsement in May. Lieberman, however, says he still has the utmost respect for the pastor, who once said that Hurricane Katrina was punishment to New Orleans for hosting a gay pride parade.

In his address last night, Lieberman used the “tone” of a biblical sermon. He blasted bloggers, reaffirmed his bond with Hagee, and compared the pastor to biblical figures”.

::: :::

McCain  gives a low blow -..Attacks Obama’s Holocaust Remembrance statement

The McCain campaign implied on Wednesday that Barack Obama’s commitment to preventing a future genocide was not sincere, attacking the Democratic candidate during his appearance at the Israeli Holocaust Memorial Yad Vashem.

::: :::

Quote of Yesterday

Watch This Video  Bush got drunk again, needed company …sees our economic woes as a result of..that “Wall Street got drunk and the hangover will be long…he knows…because Laura is looking to buying a house in Dallas”

::: :::

Don’t Get Your Hopes Up

 Massive Domestic Spying Investigation Coming Soon?

“After Democrats failed to muster any substantive opposition to the Bush White House’s overhaul of domestic spying laws just a few weeks ago, it would be a striking turn of events if the House leadership launched into a massive, multi-decade investigation of how the government has been monitoring its own citizens since the Cold War.

But that’s what Salon speculates about today in a far-reaching report from Capitol Hill.

While reporting on domestic surveillance under Bush, Salon obtained a detailed memo proposing such an inquiry, and spoke with several sources involved in recent discussions around it on Capitol Hill. The memo was written by a former senior member of the original Church Committee; the discussions have included aides to top House Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers, and until now have not been disclosed publicly.

That’s pretty interesting. This Democratic leadership doesn’t seem to have done anything over the past couple years to suggest it is about to launch a broad, sweeping investigation into highly sensitive national security-related issues. (They haven’t even really questioned the president on his hugely unpopular Iraq policies).

::: :::

Prof. Turley is not impressed…Obama will let “Bush’s Crimes Remain Buried For All Time”

This is one hissy fit you just don’t want to miss. It’ll give you a chuckle… plenty of red faces to go around.

Iraq’s PM Governor al-Maliki’s vote for Obama has been nixed.

Pity al-Maliki. He’s about to get a visit from Obama; twenty four hours ago al-Maliki really, really, thought he was the head of the sovereign (state) Iraq. In an interview with the German mag Der Spiegel al-Maliki voted to endorse the Obama 16 month plan for the withdrawal of forces from Iraq – a vote that was nixed by the U.S. military Central Command press office.

How quickly can you count to ten?

Update below on the Tit-for-Tat. After meeting with Obama today, July 21st, 2008 – Iraqi officials re-affirms the Obama 16-month timeline, AGAIN.

Let’s set up the voting booth at Der Speigel

Thinkprogress

Today, Der Spiegel reports that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has endorsed a 16-month timetable for the United States to withdraw from Iraq:

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

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

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

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

“The Americans have found it difficult to agree on a concrete timetable for the exit because it seems like an admission of defeat to them. But it isn’t,” Maliki told Der Spiegel.

Not only is the plan now accepted by Iraqis, but as a Center for American Progress report explains, it is also logistically workable — despite what reporters such as ABC’s Martha Raddatz have suggested. Maliki’s comments come as Obama begins his trip in the Middle East, which will include Iraq.

An important footnote to the hissy fit at the Bush White House is this: The White House press room inadvertently released to the media the Reuters article that al-Maliki backs Obama troop exit plan. The poor dear, bless his/her little heart, pressed the send button to the wrong list  and not the  intended recipients.

Clearly, the al-Maliki vote for the Obama plan puts Bush and McCain in a box nailed shut.

Ya think? They had to have this endorsement recalled. Quick, cancel this ballot!

Josh Marshall mused:

Big Deal?  No….Bigger

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

Consider McCain’s strategy, which is all bound up with Iraq.

All understand it is a given that the war is unpopular and that the vast majority of Americans want out as soon as possible. The big of wiggle room is just what’s ‘possible.’ McCain has invested his entire campaign in support for the purportedly nascent Iraqi democracy al Maliki represents and the claim that Obama’s support for a timetable for withdrawal irresponsibly risks losing the gains we’ve achieved and giving Iraq back to al Qaeda.

Here, with a brush of the hand and in so many words, al Maliki says, “No, we’re good.”

What exactly is McCain to say to that? He can hardly turn against Maliki or say he doesn’t have a feel of the situation on the ground.

[.]

I would not discount the possibility that the White House will muscle Maliki into a retraction of some sort. But I think it will be difficult for that to seem to be anything other than what it is. What he said pre-waterboarding will always appear more genuine than whatever statement came later. McCain may also say that his ‘surge’ strategy is what made all this possible. But fundamentally that’s not a point Obama is arguing. The debate is about whether or not to leave. And on that count, Maliki has now placed McCain is an extremely precarious position.

(highlight added)

That retraction was not too long in coming but the surprise is in its origin.  Oh please be patient.

First some timeline from TPM. – Josh Marshall observed

Response of the Obama camp:  Game set

The Obama campaign’s Susan Rice just put out this statement crowing thanking Maliki for his support of the plan …

“Senator Obama welcomes Prime Minister Maliki’s support for a 16 month timeline for the redeployment of U.S combat brigades. This presents an important opportunity to transition to Iraqi responsibility, while restoring our military and increasing our commitment to finish the fight in Afghanistan.”

:::  :::

Response of The McCain camp: Pretty Weak

“The McCain campaign has just come out with their response to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki’s endorsement of Obama’s withdrawal plan. I think the clotted, dodging-the-issue nature of the response communicates very clearly the box this has placed the McCain camp in.

ARLINGTON, VA — Today, McCain 2008 Senior Foreign Policy Advisor Randy Scheunemann issued the following statement:

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

Got that? Rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it? Set aside for the moment that McCain doesn’t believe in withdrawal at all. Scheunemann is betting on our believing that Maliki himself doesn’t know what he means. “

:::  :::

The Bush White House: Satire Eight Paces Up on Reality

[.]Dr. Ali al-Dabbagh, who the Times calls a spokesman for the Iraqi government, has released a statement saying that Prime Minister Maliki’s statement was “misunderstood and mistranslated” and “not conveyed accurately regarding the vision of Senator Barack Obama, U.S. presidential candidate, on the timeframe for U.S. forces withdrawal from Iraq.” But as the Times notes al Dabbagh did not specify what had been mistranslated.

Another interesting detail, noted by the Times. al-Dabbagh’s statement was released by CentCom. I do not know how often Iraqi government statements are released by CentCom.

(highlight added)

Mistranslated huh?  These guys should know German translators do speak better English, Arabic and French, not to mention seven other languages, than some of us on this side of the pond.

That attempt to nix al-Maliki’s words did not go down well with Der Spiegel

Iraqi Leader Stirs up US Campaign

Obama is pleased, but McCain certainly is not. In an interview with SPIEGEL, Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki expressed support for Obama’s troop withdrawal plans. Despite a half-hearted retraction, the comments have stirred up the US presidential campaign. SPIEGEL stands by its version of the conversation.

[.]A Baghdad government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said in a statement that SPIEGEL had “misunderstood and mistranslated” the Iraqi prime minister, but didn’t point to where the misunderstanding or mistranslation might have occurred. Al-Dabbagh said Maliki’s comments “should not be understood as support to any US presidential candidates.” The statement was sent out by the press desk of the US-led Multinational Force in Iraq.

A number of media outlets likewise professed to being confused by the statement from Maliki’s office. The New York Times pointed out that al-Dabbagh’s statement “did not address a specific error.” CBS likewise expressed disbelief pointing out that Maliki mentions a timeframe for withdrawal three times in the interview and then asks, “how likely is it that SPIEGEL mistranslated three separate comments? Matthew Yglesias, a blogger for the Atlantic Monthly, was astonished by “how little effort was made” to make the Baghdad denial convincing. And the influential blog IraqSlogger also pointed out the lack of specifics in the government statement.

SPIEGEL sticks to its version of the conversation.

Maliki’s comments immediately hit the headlines of US papers and Web sites across the country, partly the result of a White House employee inadvertently sending out a news alert to its full media distribution list. The White House said it was an error and that it was meant to be sent internally only.

(emphasis added)

Ben Smith, Politico asks:

 how much political leverage is there in the 51st state?

It’s almost a convention of politics that when a politician says he was misquoted, but doesn’t detail the misquote or offer an alternative, he’s really saying he wishes he hadn’t said what he did, or that he needs to issue a pro-forma denial to please someone.

The Iraqi Prime Minister’s vague denial seems to fall in that category. The fact that it arrived to the American press via CENTCOM, seems to support that. It came, as Mike Allen notes, 18 hours later, and at 1:30 a.m. Eastern, a little late for Sunday papers; his staff also seems, Der Spiegel reports, not to have contested Iraqi reporting of the quote, even in the “government-affiliated” Iraqi press.

The notion this was a misquote also bumps up against Der Spiegel’s standing by its reporting, and providing a long, detailed transcript.

I’ll leave the last word with Matthew Yglesias

I think you had to regard some effort at walking back Nouri al-Maliki’s strong endorsement of Barack Obama’s plans for Iraq as inevitable. Thus, the only thing really surprising about this development is how little effort was made to make it convincing:

    “Dr. Ali al-Dabbagh, a spokesman for the Iraqi government, issued a statement saying Mr. Maliki’s statement had been “as not conveyed accurately regarding the vision of Senator Barack Obama, U.S. presidential candidate, on the timeframe for U.S. forces withdrawal from Iraq,” but it did not address a specific error. It did soften his support for Mr. Obama’s plan and implied a more tentative approach to withdrawing troops. More of the statement, which came from the U.S. military’s Central Command press office: […]”

You can read the full statement at the link, but this summary really tells you what you need to know, namely that the walkback (a) doesn’t involve Maliki on the record, (b) says the reports are inaccurate but doesn’t name inaccuracies, and (c) was issued through CENTCOM. Basically, this morning we saw Maliki speaking in person and endorsing Obama’s plan to end the occupation in no uncertain terms. By the late afternoon, an Iraqi government spokesman was pretending this never happened in a statement released by the occupying army. That’s hardly even a serious effort at bamboozlement.

Now the question becomes: what happens when the CODEL currently in Afghanistan makes its way to Iraq? Meetings with Maliki are presumably on the agenda.

Update [2008-7-21 9:33:34 by idredit]::New details has emerged. It’s very interesting. A must read.

The al-Dabbagh’s statement came after the White House twisted arms.

NYT/IHT

Comment stings Maliki as Obama arrives in Baghdad

[.]

The statement, which was distributed to media organizations by the American military early on Sunday, said Maliki’s words had been “misunderstood and mistranslated,” but it failed to cite specifics.

“Unfortunately, Der Spiegel was not accurate,” Dabbagh said Sunday by telephone. “I have the recording of the voice of Maliki. We even listened to the translation.”

But the interpreter for the interview works for Maliki’s office, not the magazine. And in an audio recording of Maliki’s interview that Der Spiegel provided to The New York Times, Maliki seemed to state a clear affinity for Obama’s position, bringing it up on his own in an answer to a general question on troop presence.

The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Maliki’s comments by The Times:

“Obama’s remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.”

He continued: “Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.”

Maliki’s top political adviser, Sadiq al-Rikabi, declined to comment on the remarks, but spoke in general about the Iraqi position on Sunday. Part of that position, he said, comes from domestic political pressure to withdraw.

[.]

Cancel that Memo to al Maliki. I think he now knows he’s not the PM or the governor. But he’s in a bind. What does he say to Obama who should be arriving within a few minutes. “Oh, for a spot of sweet tea.”

What does he tell his people?

Betcha the SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) negotiations will run out the clock.

So much for democracy. We could rename Bush and cronies as the keystone cops.

How insulting for al-Maliki. The U.S. days in Iraq are numbered.

Begin the count.

You’re allowed one guess.

OK. It’s Hillary. She’s hedging with an unusual purchase that sends a clear message to Mr. Nice guy, Obama.

The word is out that the Hillary camp purchased a website domain name called HRC2012.com

Sometimes a website name is just a website name.

Maybe the move by a company that’s worked closely with the former first lady is just what it seems: yet another step by Hillary Rodham Clinton to prepare for another run for the Senate from New York in four years. Or another run for the White House. We won’t know, of course, for some time.

But that comes with the news, as reported in The Ticket early the other morning, that Clinton has urgently requested her 2008 general election supporters to approve transfer of their unusable donations for this year’s presidential race over to her 2012 Senate campaign.

(And then, potentially, into a new presidential campaign fund, as she did with $10 million of her surplus 2006 Senate campaign funds).
If this year’s donors don’t approve that transfer soon, Clinton must return the ’08 money by Aug. 28.

[.]

The respected blogger Marc Ambinder of TheAtlantic.com is reporting tonight that a company associated with Clinton’s top advance team leaders, the Markham Group, purchased that domain name on June 8.

June 8th? Why does that ring a bell? Why, that’s the very next day after her “I-give-up-and-heartily-support Obama” speech where her family was dressed for a funeral.

[.]

Clinton sources told Ambinder the New York senator was committed to helping elect Obama on Nov. 4, but she wanted to keep her options open for later. Imagine that in a seasoned politician.

[.]

(emphasis added)

HRC and supporters are sending a not so subtle message: Obama will lose this November and should he win, she’ll be challenging in 2012.

Some will say, that’s her right.

But WTF?  In the middle of the current campaign with talk of HRC’s supporters endorsing or being courted by McCain! That’s some message to her supporters. Wink, wink, on November 4th please stay home or support McCain.  

The Clintons are once again revealing true colors. Deceitful. Divisive. Always calculating.

Forget the talk of “unity.”  It’ll be a quarter of a half-hearted effort. Words have meaning. Just recall these words from Hillary –

“Today, as I suspend my campaign,……”  

I suspend, not end

Bill Clinton is on record with his views that Obama will lose this November ’08. Never mind Bill’s mouthing he’ll do what he can to help Obama.

Hillary has not given up –  as she continues to hold on to the Donkey’s n^^s

Setting up for the next round, transferring donor funds while asking for the help of Obama’s supporters to retire the 2008 campaign’s debt.

What other read is there?

A nightmare that never ends.

Memo to HRC:

Hey believe it. Your Time Chart has expired.

Memo to Obama:

Beware of the Trojan horse. You’ve loaded up on hires from the Clinton camp. One too many, that’s all it takes to sabotage.

Forget any thought of offering the VP slot to the Clintons.

The angst on the left and in progressive circles over Obama’s perceived move to the center and center-right lingers. Many unanswered questions:

Who brung Obama?
What Change is Obama asking us to believe in?
Is Obama a liberal or a conservative who supports the status quo?

During the primaries Obama remained vague and is now amplifying and refining his positions on key issues – domestic and foreign – that are without clarity. I admit to phone-banking on his behalf because I wanted the Clintons gone.

To my dismay, soon after Obama clinched the nomination he quickly moved to load up on hires from the Clinton camp. Where’s the change?  He has also made some stupid moves that enforce the charge he’s too naïve: appropriating the seal of the president of the U.S in his campaign logo, giving media access to his kids. Also, it is confirmed Obama’s acceptance speech in Denver will be given at the Invesco 75,000 seat stadium and he’s off to Europe where it’s planned he will give a speech in Germany at the Brandenburg Gate to 100,000. Bush is reported to have nixed the Brandenburg gate idea. I agree that Obama’s visit to Europe is not to campaign but to observe and listen.

Troubling too is the reality that Obama is leaving behind the core people who won him the primaries. Also, he’s alienating the African-American community at the street and leadership level – noted by the not so artful Rev. Jesse Jackson. Independents, another key base needed to win in November, are expressing doubts…seeing the Democratic Party candidate as gutless. Moderate conservatives see Obama as another Ronald Reagan!

There are three provocative essays that’s worthy of a read:

1. Delusions About Obama: Worse Than McCain? By Mike Whitney

2.Vilifying Black Men to Win Favor with the Man – Why Does Barack Obama Hate My Family? By Kevin Gray.

3.Contra Expectations: Obama isn’t Jimmy Carter–he’s Ronald Reagan By Eli Lake

Mike Whitney

Every four years, liberals and progressives are expected to set aside their beliefs and stand foursquare behind the Democratic Party candidate. This ritual is invariably performed in the name of party unity. It doesn’t matter if the candidate is a smooth-talking politician who’s willing to toss his pastor of 20 years overboard for a few awkward comments, or whether he refuses to defend basic civil liberties like the 4th amendment’s right to privacy. [.]

For nearly a year now, the public has been treated to regular doses of Mr. Obama’s grandiloquent oratory and his sweeping “Follow me to Shangri-la” promises. These flourishes are usually followed by “clarifications” on the central issues which identify Obama as a center-right conservative with no intention of disrupting the status quo. CounterPunch co-editor Alexander Cockburn summed it up like this in a recent article on this site:

“There have plenty of articles recently with headlines such “Obama’s Lunge to the Right”. I find these odd. Never for one moment has Obama ever struck me as someone anchored, or even loosely moored to the left, or even displaying the slightest appetite for radical notions, aside from a few taglines tossed from the campaign bus.”

Obama-boosters  on the left simply ignore the facts because the thought of the unstable John McCain in the Oval Office with his stubby fingers just inches from the Big Red Switch is too much to bear. So, they throw their support behind Obama and hope for the best. But Obama has done nothing to earn their vote and there’s nothing to indicate that he has any interest in restoring the republic or putting and end to US adventurism.

Some Obamaniacs admit to feeling troubled from time to time. They  worry that behind the rhetorical fanfare, Barack is just an empty gourd; a well-spoken pitch man with no moral core. Could he be another Slick Willie, they wonder; another self-promoting politico as eager to sell out his working class supporters as chase a frisky intern around the Lincoln bedroom? No one knows, because no one has figured out exactly why Obama is running. Does he really want to lift the country from the muck of 8 years of Bush misrule or does he just want to gad about on Airforce 1 and make pretty speeches in the Rose Garden? What really drives Obama? It’s a mystery.

But don’t be fooled, Obama could turn out to be worse than McCain, much worse. No one doubts that he is brighter and more charismatic than the irritating senator from Arizona. And no one underestimates his Pied Piper ability to galvanize crowds and stir up national pride. But what good is that? Obama works for the same group of venal plutocrats as Bush; a fact that was made painfully clear just last week when he voted to approve the new FISA bill that allows the president to continue spying on American citizens with impunity. Obama is a constitutional scholar; he understood what he was voting for..

[.]

No one has followed Obama’s rightward drift with greater interest and bemusement than the editors of the Wall Street Journal. They have faithfully chronicled all the vacillating, obfuscating and backpedaling and they’ve made up their minds; Obama is marching straight towards the welcoming arms of the Republican Party. That’s right; he’s gradually embracing the conservative platform and abandoning any pretense of liberalism. Two weeks ago the WSJ ran an editorial that summarized Obama’s metamorphosis in an article titled “Bush’s Third Term”:

“We’re beginning to understand why Barack Obama keeps protesting so vigorously against the prospect of ‘George Bush’s third term.’ Maybe he’s worried that someone will notice that he’s the candidate who’s running for it.

Most Presidential candidates adapt their message after they win their party nomination, but Mr. Obama isn’t merely ‘running to the center.’ He’s fleeing from many of his primary positions so markedly and so rapidly that he’s embracing a sizable chunk of President Bush’s policy. Who would have thought that a Democrat would rehabilitate the much-maligned Bush agenda?”

[.]

::: :::

(emphasis added)

Conventional wisdom holds the Democratic Party cannot win the White House without the African-American voters. They were late to the Obama bandwagon. It appears A-A are having second thoughts.

Kevin Gray’s essay “Why Barack Obama hates my family?” reflects Rev. Jesse Jackson musings….Obama’s vilifying blacks.
Kevin Alexander Gray is a civil rights organizer in South Carolina and author of Waiting for Lightning to Strike! The Fundamentals of Black Politics

Kevin Gray

Whenever I suggest to Obama insiders that he’s a lot like Bill Clinton, they go apoplectic. Yet, as race-baiting and race politics goes, Obama has proven himself to be as good, if not better than Clinton, long considered the modern master of race politics. If you believe, as I do, that he “played black men to court white voters,” then all Obama’s protestations about Bill Clinton’s race-baiting were just a ruse. And, in that light he is no better than Clinton when it comes to using race fears. He may even be worse than Clinton because he plays it both ways – assaulted and assailant. I’ll be willing to bet that if Clinton were honest in revealing how he really felt about Obama, that would be at the heart of his grievance.

No doubt, people are excited about the prospect of a young, vibrant, black person as president. They see their choice as between John McCain and Obama, and conclude that Obama is “the only option,” or say “He will never be as bad as Bush. He will never be bad as Reagan.” Or they say their man Obama “has a chance to win. We need to give him some latitude.” “We need to let the man do what he needs to do to win.” “We should trust him.” “Barack is one of us, no matter what he sounds like right now.”

As critical as I am, I actually want to believe he’s “one of us.” But I don’t see it.

That isn’t necessarily a bad thing for Obama. If people like me don’t see Obama as “one of us,” that strengthens the belief of the powerful that he is “one of them.”

For sure, Obama has most black voters in the bag. I’m pretty sure that my vote falls in the “doesn’t matter so much” column. And from listening to Obama, a whole lot of my family members’ lives don’t matter much either.

I’m not really looking for change from Obama should he win. I’m looking for the fight to come.

On Iraq, Obama is seen as walking away from his pledge to pull the troops. Eli Lake’s essay, Contra Expectations: Obama isn’t Jimmy Carter–he’s Ronald Reagan, examines the likely foreign policy direction of an Obama administration.  

Eli Lake

During the primaries, Obama talked about the war on terrorism with the fastidiousness of a civil libertarian–emphasizing the constraints that he would impose on our military and CIA and rarely mentioning specific methods for prosecuting it. He has, for instance, talked extensively about closing the Guantánamo Bay prison and ending the policy of extraordinary rendition.[.]

Last November at a foreign policy forum in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Obama said there may be “40,000 hard-core jihadists with whom we can’t negotiate.” He went on. “Our job is to incapacitate them, to kill them.” In that spirit, he famously announced that he would strike terrorist bases in Pakistan if President Pervez Musharraf ever refuses to move on actionable intelligence against Al Qaeda–a threat that earned him the chastisement of John McCain, among others.

Susan Rice is tipped to be a senior figure in an Obama administration. Earlier this month, I sent her a handful of questions about counterterrorism policy. Her answers were filled with all the hedges and qualifications that you would expect in the middle of a campaign. She told me that Obama would eschew a “one size fits all approach” to fighting terrorism. “In some cases that may mean strong support for proxies (as in Anbar). In other places it may mean direct U.S. action. In others, it may mean relying more on an allied government or the international community.”

But there were several answers she provided that I found highly revealing. She described Obama’s opinion of America’s historic involvement with insurgency and counterinsurgency. She applauded the 1980s arming of the mujahedin resistance to the Soviets: “[S]upport for the Afghan resistance to Soviet aggression was the right decision in the 1980s.” And she said that the Anbar Awakening was “responsible for much of the security progress we have seen in Iraq,” though she insisted that Sunni militias must eventually be incorporated into state security forces. In light of some of the criticisms that have been lobbed in Obama’s direction, those are pretty suggestive allusions.

Of course, the Obama counter-terrorism policy is still a work in progress. As his recent zigzags illustrate, he still hasn’t figured out his stance on some of the larger questions. But, in discussing his plans for Iraq, he has made one key admission: He will listen carefully to the advice of his generals. You can easily see how this will play out. Obama will enter office with a set of somewhat inchoate instincts about American power and the importance of outsourcing force. These instincts will mesh with the evolving thinking of his top commanders, who have also begun to realize the limitations of an overstretched army and the value of counter-insurgency.

[.]

At least Reagan stood firm on his beliefs. Obama avoids being defined. Maybe that’s a strategy to prevail over the GOP.

There’s a need to know –

What is it we’re being asked to believe in?

Waffling and triangulation is not leadership.

If Obama is more Reagan than Carter, he had better give another speech –“I’m asking you to believe in …and my principles on key issues facing America are..and on which you can hold me accountable”

As the GOP struggles to define Obama, soon they’ll hit on the label: “Obama stands for nothing, yet he asks you to believe.”

That’s sure to resonate not just with the low info voters.

What’s with the Ministers of the Cloth? In the case of  Rev. Jesse Jackson, he has no faith and he uses crude hurtful language too. So crude, CNN’s Blitzer says it can’t be repeated on the air.

But will that stop Fox?  Fox and wingnuts will love the airing of this tape. Rev. Jackson gave an interview to Fox News (he should have known better) and was caught using crude and hurtful words to criticize Obama. Some will dub this as  black-on-black. It is reported Fox will air the tape this evening on the Hannity  & Colmes show. Brace yourself for another Rev. Wright saga.

CNN) — The Rev. Jesse Jackson issued an apology to Barack Obama Wednesday for making what he called a “crude and hurtful” remark about the Illinois senator’s recent comments directed toward some members of the black community.

According to Jackson, a Fox News microphone picked up comments he meant to deliver privately that seemed to disparage the presumptive Democratic nominee for appearing to lecture the black community on morality.

Jackson didn’t elaborate on the context of his remarks, except to say he was trying to explain that Obama was hurting his relationship with black voters by recently conducting “moral” lectures at African-American churches.

Jackson’s apology came a few hours before Fox News planned to air the remarks.

Speaking to CNN Wednesday, Jackson said he feels “very distressed” over the comments.

“This is a sound bite in a broader conversation about urban policy and racial disparities. I feel very distressed because I’m supportive of this campaign and with the senator, what he has done and is doing,” he said. “I said he comes down as speaking down to black people. The moral message must be a much broader message. What we need really is racial justice and urban policy and jobs and health care. That’s a range of issues on the menu.

“Then I said something I regret was crude. It was very private. And very much a sound bite,” he also said.

In a statement issued earlier Wednesday to CNN, Jackson said, “For any harm or hurt that this hot mic private conversation may have caused, I apologize. My support for Senator Obama’s campaign is wide, deep and unequivocal. I cherish this redemptive and historical moment.”

Over the course of the campaign season, Obama has at times directed criticism directly to the black community, most sharply in a Chicago speech on Father’s Day that criticized some men for failing in their duties as parents.

Jackson was criticizing Obama for his father’s day speech – a speech that was reflected in a racist cartoon making the rounds in the Af-blogosphere. HT: Over at Too Sense, there’s a critique of racists cartoons that includes the one on Obama father’s day speech –Obama is seen as talking white.

This Rev. Jesse Jackson saga is ……developing….

Wait for the tape, if it can be aired on the Network, but there’s always YouTube. Jackson may not be as lucky as Hagee to get a YouTube purge.

We await the reaction:

“He’s black, but he’s not one of them..”

“See, he’s not one of us”…  he talks white”

On the bright side of it. Psssst, the GOP and Rove are struggling to define Obama. Their job is made more difficult.

Yeah, The fix is in. It goes down today, the vote on FISA. Just imagine, Senators Leahy and Feingold aside, there’s not an ounce of principle to be found. Senators are helping to conceal a crime – in plain view, states Jonathan Turley, Professor of Constitutional Law, MSNBC:

Watch the Video: Hiding a Crime

There was also a recent court ruling, on July 3, that senators choose to ignore. Our senators choose to ignore that this president committed a crime, not once but x 30. Not too long ago, a sexual act, a BJ between two adults, merited impeachment. Yet here we are  – our civil liberties are being trampled and our legislators tells us, “Don’t worry, It’s a compromise.”

Read the following article and weep.

Salon.com – Suing George W. Bush: A bizarre and troubling tale

U.S. officials went to extremes to stifle our legal challenge to Bush’s warrantless surveillance — but a federal judge says the program is criminal, anyway.”

On July 3, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court in California made a ruling particularly worthy of the nation’s attention. In Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation Inc. v. Bush, a key case in the epic battle over warrantless spying inside the United States, Judge Walker ruled, effectively, that President George W. Bush is a felon.

Judge Walker held that the president lacks the authority to disregard the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA — which means Bush’s warrantless electronic surveillance program was illegal. Whether Bush will ultimately be held accountable for violating federal law with the program remains unclear. Bush administration lawyers have fought vigorously — at times using brazen, logic-defying tactics — to prevent that from happening. The court battle will continue to play out as Congress continues to battle over recasting FISA and possibly granting immunity to telecom companies involved in the illegal surveillance.

The story of how Al-Haramain’s lawyers negotiated the journey thus far to Judge Walker’s ruling — a team of seven lawyers that includes me — sheds light on how much is at stake for the Bush administration and the country. It is a surreal saga, involving a top-secret document accidentally released by the government, a showdown between Bush lawyers and a federal judge, the violent destruction of a laptop computer by government agents, and possibly even the top-secret shredding of a banana peel.

Call me Alice — because this is a tale directly from Government Secrecy Wonderland, the bizarre and unnerving adventures of suing President Bush for apparently violating a federal law. I’ll swear under penalty of perjury that what follows is true and correct. Otherwise, you might not even believe it.

The secret document

FISA requires a warrant for electronic surveillance inside the U.S. for intelligence gathering. President George W. Bush secretly violated FISA for nearly six years, starting shortly after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. FISA makes those violations felonious and provides for civil liability to the victims. I am one of seven lawyers in Oregon and California representing three of those victims in Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation Inc. v. Bush, a civil lawsuit against the president.

[.]

Our proof is a top-secret classified document, which the government accidentally gave to Al-Haramain’s lawyers in August of 2004. We call it “the Document.” It appeared in a stack of unclassified materials that the lawyers had requested from OFAC. Six weeks later, after the government realized its blunder, FBI agents personally visited each of the lawyers and made them return their copies of the Document. But the agents made no effort to retrieve copies that the lawyers had given to two members of Al-Haramain’s board of directors, who lived outside the United States.

[.]

The FBI vs. the judge

[.]

The state secrets

[.]

Laptop lunacy

[.]

In fact, we’d only done what Judge King had said we could do. In a responding letter to the judge, we also pointed out that CIA directives don’t apply to us because we aren’t CIA employees. Nevertheless, in another moment of fear, we destroyed our drafts and notes for the secret filings. We no longer had copies of the secret documents we had filed.

[.]

Next page: I wondered whether the portion of my brain that remembers the Document was also “derivately classified,” making its presence in my skull unlawful

go read the whole article at Salon. com all three pages word by word

On FISA, where is Barack? Will he at least vote “present” !!!???

What hypocrisy!  

World Leaders Ponder Global Food Crisis over an 18-course Meal of caviar, sea urchins, milk fed lamb, champagne and wines flown in from Europe and the U.S. View complete menu. Pass the pepto.

::: :::

What sanctions?

US exports to Iran – `the axis of evil’ – rose under Bush. We exported cigarettes, bras, fur clothing, perfumes, bull semen and weapons.

::: :::

Wall Street needs a Headline to drive oil price higher?

Iran Says It Will Hit U.S. Ships, Israel, If Attacked (Update2)

::: :::

Main Street needs a Headline to drive oil prices lower?

Iranian president says no war with US, Israel  

::: :::

Dog days of summer, or slow news day: In Alabama Police arrest a goat and the dog came along for the ride.

All week I’ve been gnashing my teeth over what I saw as Obama’s rapid move to the center. Yesterday, I was down to my pin feathers. Overnight I reposed the question to myself that BooMan, our frog-in-chief, asked in response to  one of my comments to his essay Keeping Things in Balance –

I wrote without reservation:

Idredit: “Barr is looking good”  

BooMan:“Are you not concerned about losing?”

On reflection a few days later, Yes. I. dred.it.

So,

I’ve been doing a lot of reading….and, asking myself why did Obama pivot? I’m one of those who thought Obama, the politician, has to dance in the general election campaign with those who brought him to the dance. Is he being a shrewd, ruthless politician – one who abandons his base, the many volunteers who worked their hearts out for him to retire the Clintons? Obama promised us change and unambiguously said he’d pull our troops out of Iraq. And there’s the FISA telecom immunity issue.  

Well, I’ve discovered we should read beyond the headlines. There’s a lot of lazy reporting being laid on our tables.

As this post by Arianna Huffington reveals, Opinions are all over the place.

Here are the persons who led me to shed my Chicken Little feathers:

During the howling and protests on Tuesday, July 1st, BooMan wrote, posted at 12:26:51 AM EST:

 

BooMan:

Can the Blogosphere Please Grow Up?

Barack Obama gave a speech today in Independence, Missouri. You can read the transcript here. It was another moving, excellent performance of the kind we’ve come to expect from Obama. Apparently, we now take it for granted that Obama will give a great speech, because we no longer give him any credit for them. He spoke of patriotism and of what it means to love this country. Here’s just one example:

“I believe those who attack America’s flaws without acknowledging the singular greatness of our ideals, and their proven capacity to inspire a better world, do not truly understand America.

Of course, precisely because America isn’t perfect, precisely because our ideals constantly demand more from us, patriotism can never be defined as loyalty to any particular leader or government or policy. As Mark Twain, that greatest of American satirists and proud son of Missouri, once wrote, “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” We may hope that our leaders and our government stand up for our ideals, and there are many times in our history when that’s occurred. But when our laws, our leaders or our government are out of alignment with our ideals, then the dissent of ordinary Americans may prove to be one of the truest expression of patriotism.”

If you missed it, please read the entire essay and the comments – get the flavor of how worked over we were and for some, still are.

Hours later Al Giordano offered Smart Dissent – seeing things clearly on Obama’s strategy to win the General Election. Giordano repeats essentially BooMan’s essay – Can the Blogosphere Please Grow Up? Giordano’s essay was posted July 1st, at 3:59 PM; regardless of time zones it’s quite likely he may have read BooMan’s post.

Nevertheless, Smart Dissent is also a MUST read:

Al Giordano: Smart Dissent.

“Please put aside 28 minutes and 22 seconds today to give your full attention to the video of that speech. And then, if you still feel this nominee is offering more of the same as previous nominees, come back here and make your case at least with the benefit of the full knowledge of what exactly was trampled upon during yesterday’s Chicken Little stampede.

Obama said:

    “…it is worth considering the meaning of patriotism because the question of who is – or is not – a patriot all too often poisons our political debates, in ways that divide us rather than bringing us together.  I have come to know this from my own experience on the campaign trail.  Throughout my life, I have always taken my deep and abiding love for this country as a given.  It was how I was raised; it is what propelled me into public service; it is why I am running for President.  And yet, at certain times over the last sixteen months, I have found, for the first time, my patriotism challenged – at times as a result of my own carelessness, more often as a result of the desire by some to score political points and raise fears about who I am and what I stand for.

     So let me say at this at outset of my remarks.  I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign.  And I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine.”

That last turn of phrase received such great applause from the Missourians in that hall because most people understand that an early skirmish in the general election fight will determine to what extent Republican nominee John McCain – the former prisoner of war in Vietnam – will or will not have the elbow room to impugn Obama’s patriotism. McCain and his surrogates have tried to go there so far with limited success.

Those words put up a barrier around their ability to do so in deeper ways. Obama’s “I will not stand idly by” was a warning shot.

The people in the room got it. They know what is at stake in a depth that perhaps not every progressive pundit or blogger does.

I myself relate very intensely to the paradox, cited by Obama yesterday, that it is often the greatest patriots whose patriotism becomes questioned by lesser lights:

go read the whole thing

(emphasis added)

Here we are on Friday. This may cap the week that was.. what a whiplash!

In addition to mounting criticism on his FISA stand, Obama gave a thoughtful speech on Patriotism and he got bashed. Obama made a policy statement on Bush’s faith-based programs and it was reported he would expand the program. As it turned out, Obama said he would abolish Bush’s faith-based program calling it little more than photo-ops. Obama promised he would be replacing the Bush program with a Council on Faith. It did not help that the Matthew 25 Network began airing a pro-Obama message on Christian radio, Dobson’s home town included.

On Wednesday, Obama is said to have “revised, refined his policy on troop withdrawal from Iraq.” Seen as walking away from a promised troop withdrawal, Obama held a presser to amplify; which prompted Josh Marshall, to post this observation on the lazy journalism being served up:

Josh Marshall:

Please, Please, Reporters with Brains

I spent most of today in bed with some kind of nasty cold. So I only caught up on any news this evening. And I must confess to being little short of astounded by the avalanche of press BS I’m reading on Barack Obama’s position on Iraq.

The McCain camp seems to have a lot of reporters eating out of its hands since many journalists don’t appear to grasp the basic distinction between strategy and tactics. I’ve even had normally sensible journalist colleagues forwarding me RNC press releases like they’re passing on the revealed truth. McCain’s campaign actually put out a statement claiming that Obama “has now adopted John McCain’s position that we cannot risk the progress we have made in Iraq by beginning to withdraw our troops immediately without concern for conditions on the ground.”

I’ve watched this campaign unfold pretty closely. And I’ve listened to Obama’s position on Iraq. He’s been very clear through this year and last on the distinction between strategy and tactics. Presidents set the strategy — which in this context means the goal or the policy. And if the policy is a military one, a President will consult closely with his military advisors on the tactics used to execute the policy.

For the McCain campaign to put out a memo to reporters claiming that Obama has adopted McCain’s policy only shows that his advisors believe that a sizable percentage of the political press is made up of incorrigible morons. And it’s hard to disagree with the judgment.

The simple truth is that this campaign offers a very clear cut choice on Iraq. One candidate believes that the US occupation of Iraq is the solution; the other thinks it’s the problem. John McCain supports the permanent deployment of US troops in Iraq. That is why his hundred years remark isn’t some gotcha line.

It’s a clear statement of his policy. Obama supports a deliberate and orderly withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. It’s a completely different view of America’s role in the world and future in the Middle East.

Reporters who can’t grasp what Obama is saying seem simply to have been permanently befuddled by George W. Bush’s game-playing over delegating policy to commanders.

More examples of lazy, biased journalism:

When AP Takes sides

WSJ editorial paints Obama as Bush’s ideological heir

The truth be told. Charles Krauthammer, via Andrew Sullivan, plucked all my remaining feathers. Andrew Sullivan observes that Krauthammer is in panic. Big Time.

Krauthammer: A Man of Seasonal Principles

You’ll notice Barack Obama is now wearing a flag pin. Again. During the primary campaign, he refused to, explaining that he’d worn one after Sept. 11 but then stopped because it “became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism.” So why is he back to sporting pseudo-patriotism on his chest? Need you ask? The primaries are over. While seducing the hard-core MoveOn Democrats that delivered him the caucuses — hence, the Democratic nomination — Obama not only disdained the pin. He disparaged it. Now that he’s running in a general election against John McCain, and in dire need of the gun-and-God-clinging working-class votes he could not win against Hillary Clinton, the pin is back. His country ’tis of thee.

Damned if Obama wears a flag pin, damned if he doesn’t. Krauthammer’s criticism and insults of our standard bearer reminds me of a domestic fight. Don’t intervene, you’re likely to generate unintended consequences.

Krauthammer is in panic mode means Obama is on the right track and the GOP and Neo-cons are sh*t scared.

This is too rich.  I’ll beg some liberties to quote at length Sullivan’s post – the money quote from Krauthammer and his (Sullivan’s) reaction:

Andrew Sullivan: Krauthammer Panics

A classic today, but this is the money quote:

“Obama’s strategy is obvious. The country is in a deep malaise and eager for change. He and his party already have the advantage on economic and domestic issues. Obama, therefore, aims to clear the deck by moving rapidly to the center in those areas where he and his party are weakest, namely national security and the broader cultural issues. With these — and, most important, his war-losing Iraq policy — out of the way, the election will be decided on charisma and persona. In this corner: the young sleek cool hip elegant challenger. In the other corner: the old guy. No contest…

As Obama assiduously obliterates all differences with McCain on national security and social issues, he remains rightly confident that Bush fatigue, the lousy economy and his own charisma — he is easily the most dazzling political personality since John Kennedy — will carry him to the White House.”

They figure it out eventually (apart from the notion that Obama will “lose” any “war”). Having spent much of the year attacking Obama as a commie atheist alien (Hewitt only this week called Obama’s post primary position a series of “lurches left”), the neocons are now going to have to attack him as a more electable version of the Clinton they came to love and praise in the primaries. Worse: they fear that Obama has shifted because he wanted to – not because they bullied him into it – and so they have no control any more. They won’t be able to use all the usual FoxNews Rovian crap they have long been used to throwing at the Democratic nominee. Charles finishes with a question:

“Of course, once he gets there he will have to figure out what he really believes. The conventional liberal/populist stuff he campaigned on during the primaries? Or the reversals he is so artfully offering up now?

I have no idea. Do you? Does he”

It’s a rhetorical question but I’ll answer it. Yes, I do. And yes, he does. He wants withdrawal from Iraq as prudently as possible. That this might take longer than sixteen months, even though that is the goal, is Bush’s fault, not Obama’s. Yes, he does want to expand access to private healthcare, engage Iran with more than bluster, raise taxes on the successful, pass immigration reform, end torture, and restore America’s moral reputation in the world. And he intends to do it without acting like a rigid, purist ideologue, of the kind Krauthammer admires and of the kind that has driven us into a ditch in Iraq. His adjustments in the post-primary campaign take the hard edges off his clear policy positions, defuse some obvious weaknesses, move aggressively to the center … and use his money advantage to win the thing. Er: he’s a skilled politician.

I know the Republicans are used to Democratic candidates being knocked about and defined and pummeled from the get-go. But Obama is different. Hadn’t you noticed that yet?

Next question.

(emphasis added)

I don’t need a tickle.  How sweet it is! The Neocons are in panic over Obama. They’re hard pressed to define him. Obama is no “Kerry with a tan” as one McCain surrogate groped. And Rove keeps trying. Bless their weeping hearts.

Don’t you just love it? …Skilled, Shrewd and ruthless is what we need in Election 2008.

This is extremely good news and signals that Senator Kennedy, during his fight and recovery from brain cancer surgery, is looking to the future.

Kennedy leads renewed effort on universal healthcare
Presses for bipartisan support before new president takes office – The Boston Globe

Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s office has begun convening a series of meetings involving a wide array of healthcare specialists to begin laying the groundwork for a new attempt to provide universal healthcare, according to participants.

The discussions signal that Kennedy, who instructed aides to begin holding the meetings while he is in Massachusetts undergoing treatment for brain cancer, intends to work vigorously to build bipartisan support for a major healthcare initiative when he returns to Washington in the fall.

Those involved in the discussions said Kennedy believes it is extremely important to move as quickly as possible on overhauling the healthcare system after the next president takes office in January in order to capitalize on the momentum behind a new administration.[.]

Obama’s Senate staff has attended the roundtable discussions. If Obama is elected, Kennedy’s effort to identify points of agreement among senators could smooth the way for the new administration to press ahead on universal healthcare, which Obama has promised to implement within four years.[.]

 “The senator is trying to learn from health reform attempts in the past and to build a fair amount of consensus among his Senate colleagues, House colleagues, and the Obama campaign . . . and find a strategy that could carry with some momentum into the new administration,” said Dr. Jay Himmelstein, a health policy specialist at University of Massachusetts Medical School and a former Kennedy staff member who has been involved in the talks.

The initiative also suggests that Kennedy, who has made healthcare his signature issue in his 45-year Senate career and who is fighting an aggressive brain tumor, is considering his legacy as a new administration arrives in Washington – a moment many see as the best chance for widespread changes in the healthcare system in 15 years.

“You have got to think this will be the Ted Kennedy Health Reform Act, because he’s a beloved figure and he’s championed the issue for so long,” said John Rother, policy director for the AARP, which has been involved in the discussions.

Melissa Wagoner, spokeswoman for Kennedy, added that “Making sure each American has access to quality, affordable healthcare is the cause of Senator Kennedy’s life.”

Just watch the rush on both sides to co-sponsor the Ted Kennedy Health Reform Act. The wasted trillions of dollars spent on Iraq demands its passage.

Welcome back Senator.

Is Obama still the reformer he promised us during the primaries? Many are voicing their disappointments that he’s seen as just another same old young flip-flopping politician who will say anything to be elected.

Seriously. Should Obama veer right as appears, he risks giving the election to McCain.

Over the last weeks, Obama’s pronouncements on various issues  are met with disbelief. Whatever happened? On foreign policy Obama drank the neocon kool aid; on social domestic issues he has embraced Alito, Scalia, Roberts and Thomas; on the economy and military Obama caved to the corpgov.

After seven years of BushCheney and neocon cronies lying us into war these moves by Obama are seen as appalling and down right deceptive. He played to our angst and gave the right bromides to clinch the nomination.

Obama has veered Right – Alan Maass

With the nomination finally in hand, Obama announced he was adding a team of political advisers straight out of the pro-corporate, pro-military mainstream of Clintonism.

And to head his economic team, he chose Jason Furman–best known to labor activists for writing a 2005 article defending Wal-Mart as a “progressive success story” and denouncing the efforts of union-backed groups like Wal-Mart Watch to expose the retail giant.

Furman’s appointment was consistent with a series of right turns by Obama. The day after he claimed victory following the last Democratic primaries on June 3, Obama appeared before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, where he committed himself to an undivided Jerusalem, which isn’t even the position of the Bush administration. At a Father’s Day speech, he renewed his blame-the-victim criticisms of Black men as being responsible for the problems of the Black community.

[.]

Obama’s latest lurch came after the U.S. Supreme Court announced its 5-4 decision barring executions of those convicted of child rape. Obama criticized the ruling–which meant lining up with the right-wing extremist wing of the court: John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Damning indeed, but Mr. Maass is not alone. Huffington Post, citing two articles in The Los Angeles Times and Washington Post headlines –

Obama Undercuts His Brand

Sen. Barack Obama is risking his brand as a political reformer, according to reports today in the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. In recent weeks, he has moderated or changed positions on a number of politically-charged issues, leading to criticism from demoralized Democratic activists and charges of “flip-flopping” from conservatives.

The Times reports:

In recent weeks, he toughened his stance on Iran and backed an expansion of the government’s wiretapping powers. On Wednesday, he said states should be allowed to execute child rapists. When the Supreme Court the next day struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns, he did not complain…

…”I’ve been struck by the speed and decisiveness of his move to the center,” said Will Marshall, president of the centrist Progressive Policy Institute…

The Post reports that those who should be his strongest supporters are taking this as a wake-up call:

The switch is not without precedent. On a variety of issues, including gun control and campaign finance regulation, the presumptive Democratic nominee has shown himself willing to settle for incremental changes in the face of political reality rather than to hold out for the sweeping and uncompromising positions he initially stakes out.

But even some who should be his core constituents — in the Democratic Party’s progressive wing and the liberal blogosphere — have taken his recent maneuvers as a wake-up call. They are warning the senator that in his quest to reach voters in the middle of the political spectrum, he risks depressing the enthusiasm of the voters who clinched the nomination for him.

“American voters tend to reward politicians who take clear stands,” said David Sirota, a former Democratic aide on Capitol Hill and author of the new populist-themed book “The Uprising.” “When Obama takes these mushy positions, it could speak to a character issue. Voters that don’t pay a lot of attention look at one thing: ‘Does the guy believe in something?’ They may be saying the guy is afraid of his own shadow.”

[.]

(BTW: Weisman apologized for his earlier racially-insensitive comment )

Until now Karl Rove, McCain’s adviser in the closet, had a tough go at defining Obama. A turtle’s snap,  Grover Norquist just beat him to it.

Obama is Kerry with a tan.

However racially charged the remark, race baiting will be the least of Obama’s worries. He risks alienating all supporters across the color spectrum who see pass his skin tone.  Obama has diminished Hope and the promised “Change we can believe in.”

He appears to forget that the internet community funded his campaign – not just with money, but heavy enthusiasm that’s quickly going lukewarm to cold. The campaign’s fund raising in May is a harbinger. June should give the confirmation that, in turn, hopefully will be his wake-up call.