How do voters feel about the two major-party presidential candidates this year? As the marathon 2008 campaign for the White House enters its final four months, a solid majority views both Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain favorably. At the same time, a majority of voters also believes both men are flip-floppers who will change their opinions for political reasons. Voters are also skeptical that either man will be able to end the partisan gridlock in Washington. According to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, 63 percent of registered voters have a favorable opinion of Obama, while 59 percent have a favorable opinion of McCain. Read More
Throughout the primary season one of the things that infuriated me the most,
something I highlighted often, was that the difference between Obama and Clinton
on Iraq going forward, if either one became president, was non-existent.
What's now playing out further proves it.
However, the McCain camp, needing something to deflect from McCain's South American Distraction Tour, struck hard. I got this from the McCain camp earlier today, which was accompanied by a link to this post, which I offer so you can see where they're going with this one.
“It's official. The Obama campaign has entered John Kerry territory
when it comes to changing positions on Iraq.” - Phil Klein
Good luck with that one, Phil.
For a long time it's been clear that Iraq was not going to be the issue it
was for Democrats in 2006. Why? Because the Democratic Congress and Speaker
Nancy Pelosi blew it by doing nothing. Not even a PR campaign. It's been the
most pathetic display of floundering seen in a long time, trumped only by Pelosi's
recent collapse on FISA.
However, on Iraq, the fact remains that John McCain has now adopted the Democratic view, particularly after his 100 years remark, which landed like a thud. No
doubt Karl Rove quickly advised McCain to get out of that one. So move he did,
talking about withdrawal by 2013. It's actually McCain that's showed his most twisted
self on Iraq, though Obama and his team have yet to capitalize on that one,
which is how they should have reacted today. Not by defending Obama's views,
but by drawing out McCain's recent comments.
“By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom,’’ Mr. McCain said at the Columbus Convention Center. “The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced.’’ The United States, Mr. McCain added, “maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role.’’
Responding very defensively, Obama gave the talking heads a lot to squawk about.
Scarborough was all over Rachel Maddow today, who was exactly correct on Obama.
Because Senator Obama has been saying the same things for months and months.
He's just gotten more credit than he deserved for his speech, which had nothing
whatsoever to do with his actions in the Senate.
Obama won the primaries with his anti-Iraq war speech being his image foundation, so now he'll have to live with it in the general election. That's why Scarborough and others reacted like they did. Win by the speech, die by it? I don't think so.
Let's go back to the most telling moment in the primary season to review. Obama
in the Dartmouth debate, when Russert
called the Dems out on Iraq, asking for a pledge to pull out by 2013. Here's
the exchange with Obama:
RUSSERT: Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term,
more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?
OBAMA: I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would
be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there.What I
can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office --
which it appears there may be, unless we can get some of our Republican colleagues
to change their mind and cut off funding without a timetable -- if there's
no timetable -- then I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission
of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians, and making sure that
we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there.
I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't
want to make promises, not knowing what the situation's going to be three
or four years out.
Clinton and Edwards joined Obama in refusing to pledge a full redeployment
from Iraq by 2013. It was a big moment.
What McCain and his team are doing is getting on record as Obama prepares to
take a trip to Iraq and beyond. They sense Obama's caution on Iraq, something
that doesn't comport to the "wild-eyed flaming liberal" label they
want for him. They also expect him to be more circumspect after talking to the military brass in Iraq. They believe they're setting a trap.
But guess what? Obama never was a flaming liberal, as I've documented over and
over. He's not a progressive either. He's a pragmatic Democratic politician
with superior gifts of communication who convinced many he was something he's
not so he could win over Democratic primary voters and activist support to get
the nomination.
Obama has been saying the same thing on Iraq forever. It's why Samantha
Power's Iraq gaffe could have been so much trouble for him if Obama's supporters
had been paying attention. They weren't. They thought the bottom line was his
now famous anti Iraq war speech, on which, by the way, no
one reported at the time.
The truth is that Senator Obama is much more in his element now, in the general
election. Winning the primary was always going to be his toughest battle, because
appealing to partisans just isn't his thing, because he's not a partisan. McCain's
getting an education. His team better ramp up fast. At this rate the only way they'll beat Obama is to swiftboat him. They've wasted too much time already.
NBC reports 2,300 Marines that were scheduled to redeploy will be extended
in Afghanistan until November. They also reported a possibility of more troops
being deployed to Afghanistan, though where they'll come from is obviously an issue. This further confirms
the reality in Afghanistan, which continues to deteriorate.
Last month a record number of U.S. troops were killed in that country. Via
the AP, they report 2,200 Marines having their tours extended:
The Pentagon has extended the tour of 2,200 Marines in Afghanistan, after
insisting for months the unit would come home on time.
The 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, which is doing combat operations in
the volatile south, will stay an extra 30 days and come home in early November
rather than October, Marine Col. David Lapan confirmed Thursday.
Military leaders as recently as Wednesday stressed the need for additional
troops in Afghanistan. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
has repeatedly praised the work of the 24th MEU in fighting Taliban militants
in Helmand Province....
The Obama team had a conference call with senior foreign policy advisor Susan
Rice and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Clinton administration
Sarah Sewall. The topic of discussion was Admiral Mullen's recent comments concerning
the need for more troops in Afghanistan. Below is the podcast:
It's taken me a while to warm up to Susan Rice, because we got off to a rocky
start when she openly tried to deny Obama's "no preconditions" stand
he made during the primaries that was caught on tape during a debate. But I've
listened to her many times recently and have reevaluated my position. Obviously,
she was caught in a tough position because of a misstatement by Obama from which
he's had to walk back. Today on the call Rice again rose to the occasion, getting
my attention particularly when she made a point to talk about Pakistan, while
discussing the deteriorating position in Afghanistan. Considering I harp on
this all the time, it was indeed welcome. It's clear Obama is being very well
served by Rice. Her continued widening of the conversation to include Pakistan
is evidence of a much broader view of foreign policy than McCain's team. It's
a regional and global response, which simply must include Central Asia
if we're going to combat terrorism. They get it. McCain does not.
On a personal note, having a strong, capable woman leading on foreign policy
is a tremendously positive symbol to people like me who cover the subject regularly.
It's a wonderful shift from a presidential point of view, because so few women
are given a voice on these subjects. After Condoleezza Rice's abysmal performance
in every job she's had with the Bush administration, one would hope we'd get
a better example of competency and foreign policy literacy, as well as a show
of strength to match The Boys. Susan Rice has so far delivered on all these.
Against the backdrop of McCain's silence on Central Asia, the comparison is
stark. McCain's national security dialogue is very myopic, Iraq centric, with
no forward thinking at all to the real dangers we face beyond Iraq. Because
when McCain sees beyond Iraq he only mentions Iran. There is no doubt we face
complex challenges there, but nothing compares to the dangers currently unfolding
in Central Asia.
You cannot have a discussion about Afghanistan or terrorism without including
the former Soviet Union "stans," Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. These are areas that John McCain doesn't seem
to have discovered at all. He's stuck in a 9/11 mind set, ignoring the post
9/11 reality and dangers.
Obama's team understands the wider threat. All we get from McCain's team on
the global threats is silence. It's alarming. It also reveals an inability for
McCain to think about multiple national security challenges at the same time,
as well as how they all play a part in our strategic assessment on how to address
these issues. McCain is a one step at a time plodder in a modern era that demands
holding multiple and complex dangers and how to address them in your head at
once. It's another strike against him and proving further that valiant military
service doesn't mean you have the mental agility to be commander in chief in
the modern era. McCain's simple thinking worries me more and more. David Corn has more.
Sarah Sewell ended the call by addressing the 2,300 troops being kept in Afghanistan,
which has a bottom line that the way we are current allocating troops is ineffective,
counterproductive and hindering our ability to focus on the biggest threats,
due to our continuing focus that Iraq is the real danger, when it clearly is
not.
Hundreds of Central New Yorkers flocked to Hanover Square this morning to
hear Sen. Hillary Clinton talk about renewable energy and show their support
for Clinton in her first visit to Upstate New York since she withdrew from
the presidential race. ... .. "We will have a new president in January
and one I am very confident will have the vision to bring our country together,"
Clinton said during her speech.
The crowd of several hundred responded to Clinton like she was a rock star,
using cell phones to snap pictures, hugging her, and asking for her autograph
on any scrap of paper they could find.
There's video too.
Obviously, her political prowess has not diminished at all, much to the chagrin of Hillary haters. No one who followed Clinton, especially since she finished the primary season so strongly, is surprised at all. In fact, as months go by Hillary is going to be the one who gains in respect. She was good at this game when the primary began, but now she's unsurpassed. One can only imagine what the economic debate would be today with all the bad news cascading out if Hillary had won. No one can link up economic woes with solutions like she can. Obama needs her on this one.
Watching and listening to John McCain talk about the economy is down right painful. If Clinton was our nominee she would have cleaned his clock. Obama needs a running mate who can do just that, because the economy is going to be center stage this year.
An independent market-research firm, AIMRCo (Adult Internet Market Research Company), has discovered that many websites focused on adult or erotic material have experienced an upswing in sales in the recent weeks since checks have appeared in millions of Americans' mailboxes across the country.
Other things in the news this afternoon include what I've covered here for months: Destroying
Hillary Clinton, which comes with a part
two.
The
New York Times
Magazine offers a preview of a whopper of a profile of El Rushbo, which
comes on the news of an 8-year $400 million contract. (Ed Schultz will be impossible
to live with this weekend.) But let's face it, from "Operation Chaos"
to the "My Ding-a-ling" show on Al Gore's legendary... ahem...
package brushing, the right-wing raconteur has been the number one blow hard voice in
all U.S. media. He's not what he used to be, but his advertising dollars keeps
Clear Channel and many others happy, especially since now Rush has become a spokesperson for so many of them.
"I consider myself a defender of corporate America." - Rush Limbaugh
As for the picture above, it's from Northern California recently. My husband
has a big fat black and beautiful diesel truck, so when he saw the gas prices
where we may end up living, all he could do was sigh and say, "Good thing
it's beautiful up here."
Interesting that McCain is in South America babbling about free trade agreements,
while Barack Obama is talking about national service. Meanwhile, Starbucks announces
the closing of 600 stores, gas prices skyrocket, and if you've traveled around
your town or other towns recently you'll see a lot of sales. Oh, and GM may
be in chapter 11 soon, which Pat Buchanan brought up today, as did WSJ recently. Think about that one for a second.
So why is Obama trying to see how many big Democratic presidential quotes he can jam into a speech, while John McCain is talking free trade? Are these guys that clueless? This election season is turning into quite a bizarre experience so far.
You have to love this story. It's especially priceless to me after Wesley Clark rhetorically kicked McCain around this week.
"McCain was down at the end of the table and we were talking to the head of the guerilla group here at this end of the table and I don't know what attracted my attention," Cochran said. "But I saw some kind of quick movement at the bottom of the table and I looked down there and John had reached over and grabbed this guy by the shirt collar and had snatched him up like he was throwing him up out of the chair to tell him what he thought about him or whatever. I don't know what he was telling him but I thought, good grief, everybody around here has got guns and we were there on a diplomatic mission. I don't know what had happened to provoke John but he obviously got mad at the guy and he just reached over there and snatched him."
I don't think Clark's in any danger, though. The man doesn't suffer fools very well.
Now, accounts diverge on the exact nature of the new chain of command. One
top McCain source said that Schmidt "assumed full operational control
of the campaign today" and described Davis as "a general manager."
But Charlie Black, another top adviser, said Davis was still in charge.
"Steve is going to function under Rick as a [chief operating officer],"
Black said. "Rick still has authority over all things. Steve works for
Rick."
But Black made sure to not diminish Schmidt's elevated role in the campaign.
"He'll be the maestro who conducts the symphony," Black said of
Schmidt's position in driving McCain's message.
Yet McCain sources say Schmidt's imprint will be felt beyond a campaign message
that, until recently, had not been clearly defined.
A handful of his fellow Bushworld veterans are also taking on more high-profile
roles. ...
Schmidt was also a right hand man to none other than Dick Cheney, which should tell you something. In addition, he strategized for Supreme Court nominees Samuel A. Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts.
Obviously, the McCain camp has been floundering in the Define Barack Obama department. McCain's had a lot of time to shore up his candidacy, but with Obama announcing a 50-state strategy, plus a focus on younger evangelicals, the GOP has to pump up the volume a bit. They're not close to being where they need to be for fall. Lackluster describes the McCain effort so far, which is likely why Schmidt was promoted.
...and now, just because, here's an afternoon open thread. All topics on the table.
That sound you hear is alarm bells going off. There's so much fodder for this stuff it's hard to know where to start.
Obama
is "moving to the center" is the latest story to explain who the Democratic
nominee is. Reality bites, because Senator Obama isn't moving anywhere. This
is who he is. Faith-based policies that won't be just photos ops comport with
everything about him. Approving of the latest FISA bill, which offers telecom
immunity, as he simultaneously says he'll work to remove it, shouldn't surprise anyone. Obama hopes to project his strength, while not scaring people who might vote for him. It's called working general election political optics. Backing the D.C. gun decision from the Supreme Court, which I support, goes in the FISA
category, too. It's cosmetics that move him forward where he wants to be, closer
to the power that will get him elected. He's a Democrat, not an ideologue. Get used to it.
So to say it's been more than a little amusing to see hard core Obama supporters either
surprised, moved to pull back a little from their candidate, as well as criticize their candidate on being exactly what his record reveals, is an understatement.
For political analysts like me, this is the Obama I've come to know after covering him
for 18 months, so I'm not surprised, disappointed or excited. He is revealing
himself to be the exact person I covered, warts and all, but no less real. But
you have to have at least some compassion for the folks who got suckered; believing that Obama really
was going to offer a "different type of politics," which I guess is
true if you count no ideology at all being new, because in a way it is. Is being non-partisan
and not moored to any Democratic core belief that you won't change a down side for the general election?
Depends on if the Obama supporter believed what he was saying in the primaries.
The real trouble with Obama supporters is they didn't believe their candidate
when he said he was non-partisan. Now they feel stuck somehow with the
real Barack Obama, who is actually now someone they don't seem to recognize.
Arianna Huffington's post Memo
to Obama: Moving to the Middle is for Losersis a good example of someone
who missed the signs by a mile. Now the light has dawned, however late the epiphany, and she seems surprised:
... .. So why start playing to the political fence sitters -- staking out
newly nuanced positions on FISA, gun control laws, expansion of the death
penalty, and NAFTA?
In an interview with Nina Easton in Fortune Magazine, Obama was asked about
having called NAFTA "a big mistake" and "devastating."
Obama's reply: "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated
and amplified."
Overheated? So when he was campaigning in the Midwest, many parts of which
have been, yes, devastated by economic changes since the passage of NAFTA,
and he pledged to make use of a six-month opt-out clause in the trade agreement,
that was "overheated?" Or was that one "amplified?"
Because if that's the case, it would be helpful going forward if Obama would
let us know which of his powerful rhetoric is "overheated" and/or
"amplified," so voters will know not to get their hopes too high....
"Newly nuanced positions"? Really? Hardly.
Stunning that someone as well versed in
the political black arts of the primary flim flam fell for it from Senator Obama.
Because it's not about "moving to the middle" at all. Barack Obama
said he doesn't believe in a red or blue American, but a red, white and blue
America. That partisan politics has crippled any chance of doing business for
the American people. Maybe Ms. Huffington should have believed him. The beauty of Obama's politics is that he can be all things to all people, so long as he moves the conversation along. Party politics has nothing to do with it. If Obama can broker deals that show progress he feels he's won and so have the American people.
I guess it all depends on what deal a Democrat is willing to make. Obviously, Obama supporters are finding a little ambiguity in that prospect, which is also giving them, at long last, pause.
Not that Ms. Huffington would have preferred Hillary had she paid attention
to the signals or perhaps read this blog. But she might have backed John Edwards
instead, someone who actually might have walked the walk. But The Obama Light was
too bright, so now we'll never know.
Enter Mr. DailyKos, someone who has now decided that he's
withholding $2,300 from Obama, the maximum he could give, because he's simply
not too impressed with what's happened so far from his candidate.
... Then, he took his not-so-veiled swipe at MoveOn in his "patriotism"
speech.
Finally, he reinforced right-wing and media talking points that Wes Clark
had somehow impugned McCain's military service when, in reality, Clark had
done no such thing.
All of a sudden, there was a lot of cowering when, just days ago, we got
to read this:
When Mr. Wenner asked how Mr. Obama might respond to harsh attacks from
Republicans, suggesting that Democrats have "cowered" in the past,
Mr. Obama replied, "Yeah, I don’t do cowering."
Could've fooled me, and maybe he is. Maybe what looks like cowering to me
is really part of that "moving to the center" stuff everyone keeps
talking about. But there is a line between "moving to the center"
and stabbing your allies in the back out of fear of being criticized. And,
of late, he's been doing a lot of unecessary stabbing, betraying his claims
of being a new kind of politician. Not that I ever bought it, but Obama is
now clearly not looking much different than every other Democratic politician
who has ever turned his or her back on the base in order to prove centrist
bona fides. That's not an indictment, just an observation....
Under the title of "Rewarding Good Behavior," Mr. DailyKos, about
whom I never write or to whom I never link, though this one is just too rich
to resist, has decided that teaching Senator Obama a lesson is the order of
the day. Maybe others will join to... what? Teach Obama a lesson now that he's
gotten the nomination?
See me laughing until I fall off my chair in a fit of hilarity that defies
any other description. Ah, that felt good. ahem... deep breath now ... and off we go.
Senator Obama ducked the MoveOn.org vote on Petraeus, to name one example, got their endorsement
anyway, then once he got the nomination included in his speech a swipe at the
group. That they've decided to support Wesley Clark after he came
under attack for his comments about McCain will be the kiss of political death for the former general, though I'm
certain he appreciates it, but could do without it. He's now a political untouchable for camp Obama, having served his purpose of rousing the questions about the criteria for judging John McCain, while being too nuclear now for Obama to further utilize.
No doubt more activist liberals will fret and moan over Obama's "moving
to the center" or "moving to the middle," pick your cliché, but it's not going to phase the Democratic nominee. This is who he is.
Can't wait until Obama drops his vice presidential bomb. People like me believe Hillary is the strongest
choice, but that's not likely to happen. If recent activities tell us anything,
which they do if you've been paying attention, it's likely that Obama's core supporters
will be in for another rude awakening.
As for me, since my candidate unfortunately didn't prevail, Obama'd better pick someone good. Because having known what to expect from Obama all along, the only thing I want now is for him to win.
No, they won't, said Charles Krauthammer today, they don't have the equipment.
But we do, wink-wink.
Brit Hume was all over the story today on Fox, putting it all in the context
of an Obama presidency. If it happens before the election Obama will have to
support it, of course, or risk losing. Oh, but Brit reminds everyone, this is
all simply speculation. Ya think?
Seymour
Hersh has been writing about it for years, including just recently again.
And for the second time this week, it fell to the State Department to respond.
Tom H. Casey, deputy spokesman, provided Reuters with the U.S. government’s
reaction to the ABC News report:
I have no information that would substantiate that, and I think it’s
rather foolish of people who often have no clue what they’re talking
about to assert things and not even have the courtesy to do so on the basis
of their name.
Later in the day, he elaborated on the question with a useful observation.
Despite Israeli rehearsals and saber rattling on all sides, the final decision
to attack will come down to a handful of officials who are not exactly open
books on their military plans.
“It’s always amazing that there are lots of anonymous sources
out there who profess to know the inner will of officials in other countries,
Israel or otherwise,” Mr. Casey said.
... .. Having reasoned with reporters, Mr. Casey turned to comedy. “You
know, I need to find this guy, because apparently he’s an expert on
the Israeli military, an expert on Iran and an expert on nuclear issues at
the same time,” he said. “Let’s get him a Nobel Prize.”
ABC News, for its part, offered a follow-up article today that included doubts
that war was on the horizon. Hirsch Goodman, a national security analyst in
Tel Aviv, dismissed the story as “just the latest in the hype that has
been generated in the last few weeks.”
Juan
Cole on the "senior Pentagon" sources, who no doubt will never
be named:
... This second "red line" is pure bullshit. There is no evidence
that Iran is enriching uranium to weapons grade at all, much less that it
is making enough highly-enriched uranium that it will be able to make a bomb
in 2009.
You can't use low-enriched uranium to make a bomb.
The IAEA says that there is no evidence--zilch, zero, nada-- that Iran has
facilities for enriching to weapons grade or that it is trying to do so.
Instead we get rumors about bomb, bomb, bombing Iran. But in an election year,
no one should get too comfortable.
Gail Sheehy's Vanity Fair piece is online. Bill doesn't use a Blackberry, anonymous sources, etc. Some of it, however, rings true. I ran into Sheehy at Clinton's women's generation event in D.C. She was talking to everyone she could. Today on MSNBC she elaborates on her piece, talking about how Clinton ended up coming across "not as a fake man," says Sheehy, but... Oh Lordy, what in the world can you say about that one? Bill wants Hillary as veep. Bill. Bill. Bill. You get it.
Watch, read, discuss.
The undeniable truth is that Hillary today is as strong as Obama. The best case I can see for why she should be at the top of any short list he has for vice president. Whether she is or not tells a whole different tale. The ending being the difference between Democrats winning and losing.
Comfortable with Religious Language, Obama Poaches from McCain Base
BY TAYLOR MARSH
Senator McCain is at a real disadvantage on this one. He just can't talk the
language. Obama clearly can, which has the potential of not only wrestling some
voters from the GOP, but also making people more comfortable with Barack Obama,
who remains largely an unknown. This outreach should surprise no one. Secondarily, it might also help with the Muslim
smears and rumors permeating this season, because it's clear when Obama talks
religion it's something he knows at some personal level.
There's no doubt churches can make a difference.
Their community outreach can change lives. It's certainly something Hillary
Clinton has utilized throughout her career and would if she were the nominee,
though her style is quieter than Obama's, but with a religious foundation running
just as deep. Just as long as no Democrat allows compromise on women's civil
rights or gay rights to become part of the package. What happens at the root
level, things like "conversion therapy," as well as Catholic hospitals
not providing the full spectrum of choices for women, including something as
basic as sex education and Plan B options, shouldn't be ignored for the surface
level pandering that some religious institutions offer as a guise.
Democratic Party policies represent a special opportunity for someone who can
articulate the convergence of humane policy prescriptions with a faith-based
rationale for implementing them. Of course, there is a constitutional line that
must be walked. But anyone who doubts that churches, especially in urban communities,
can make a real difference in lives hasn't felt the impact of these organizations. These same institutions can also impact votes, which Democrats should in no way ignore, especially given that our policies offer solutions that go well beyond the GOP's pick yourself up by your own bootstraps foundation.
John DiIulio was the director of George W. Bush's Office of Faith-Based and
Community Initiatives, with the Obama campaign releasing this statement from him:
"Senator Barack Obama has offered a principled, prudent, and problem-solving
vision for the future of community-serving partnerships involving religious
nonprofit organizations. He has focused admirably on those groups that supply
vital social services to people and communities in need. His plan
reminds me of much that was best in both then Vice President Al Gore's and
then Texas Governor George W. Bush's respective first speeches on the subject
in 1999. Especially in urban America, all the empirical evidence
continues to show that local faith-based organizations can make a measurable
civic difference. His constitutionally sound and administratively feasible
ideas about community-serving partnerships hold special promise for truly
disadvantaged children, youth, and families. Many good community-serving initiatives
can be built, expanded, or sustained on the common ground that Senator Obama
has staked out for us here,” said John DiIulio.
When talking to evangelicals and reaching out to faith-based groups, it's clear
that the Democratic Party has a natural hook. It's the way we come at civic
involvement and government's role in being our brother's keeper.
They are also trying to take advantage of signs that some conservative Christians
are rethinking their politics, urged along by a new generation of leadership
and intensified concern about issues including climate change, genocide, AIDS
and poverty. ... And polls indicate that evangelicals and other religious
voters are already migrating away from their overwhelming support of the Republicans,
some because of disillusionment about the war, others because of concern about
global warming, still others because of uncertainty about the economy.
Mr. Obama is also reaching out to young evangelicals, the so-called Joshua
generation, a group that would seem to be a fertile ground for recruitment.
Leaders of the movement of progressives on religion and values, including
Mara Vanderslice, Eric Sapp and Burns Strider (who advised Senator Hillary
Rodham Clinton), are also working alongside the Obama campaign to
attract support from these younger religious voters....
Obama's reach into traditional GOP territory is stirring the wingnut Bible
thumping beast, however. Dr. Dobson and Tony Perkins don't like Obama coming
in to their turf. They're going to fight like mad to keep it from happening.
Because if this GOP line is crossed by Democrats it could realign the religious
so that values voters think beyond abortion and women's civil rights to broader
areas where faith can have a huge impact as well.
Why shouldn't matters of war and peace and poverty form a faith-based avenue
by which to lure people to the Democratic Party? As long as the Constitution
is the guide, with non-discrimination, protections for secular individuals and freedom from
religion having a place, there's no reason this can't have a positive outcome.
But this is by no means an easy task.
"Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea – so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them – or against the people you hire – on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work."
Whatever your thoughts on religion, this puts real pressure on John McCain,
which is a very good thing. That said, it also could boomerang to bring Dobson
and Perkins to his side, because their right-wing reactionary views are supported
by McCain's voting record. By trying to divide and conquer Obama could actually
stir the wingnut faith-based beast.
This move from Obama, which I believe Clinton would have also done, however differently, could have real impact, including down ticket. If it gives the GOP heartburn and makes McCain squirm it's worth the effort.
In the last
twenty-four hours Wesley Clark called John McCain out on judgment, something that
is correct and a sound shot questioning McCain's competence on national security.
But what everyone heard and reported was something else, with a little lunacy thrown in by a Hillary hater with too much venom to spare. What Clark said had nothing whatsoever to do with McCain's
honorable military service, that much is clear if you take his statement in
its entirety.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think Bar- I think Joe has it exactly backwards
here. I think being President is, is about having good judgment. It's
about the ability to communicate. As one of the great Presidential
historians Richard Newsted said, "The greatest power of the Presidency
is the power to persuade." And what Barack Obama brings is incredible
communication skills, proven judgment. You look at his meteoric rise in politics,
and you see a guy who deals with people well, who understands issues, who
brings people together and who has good judgment in moving forward. And I
think what we need to do, Bob, is we need to stop talking about the old politics
of left and right, and we need to pull together and move the country forward.
And I think that's what Barack Obama will do for America.
Bob Schieffer: Well you, you went so far as to say that you thought John
McCain was, quote, and these are your words, "untested and untried,"
And I must say I, I had to read that twice, because you're talking about somebody
who was a prisoner of war. He was a squadron commander of the largest squadron
in the Navy. He's been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for lo these
many years. How can you say that John McCain is un- untested and untried?
General?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy
making, it's a matter of understanding risk. It's a matter of gauging your
opponents, and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never
done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his
service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands
and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a
voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over
the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large
squadron in Air- in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn't a wartime squadron.
He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's
like when diplomats come in and say, 'I don't know whether we're going to
be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What
about your reputation? How do we handle it-'
Obama has distanced himself from Clark completely.
"As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator
McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General
Clark," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.
Well that was predicatable. "Rejecting" Clark's statement is foolish,
unless this is some concocted good cop, bad cop routine. Because there is nothing whatsoever wrong with what Clark said, unless you parse
it, truncate it or are just looking for a faux fight, which is what happened, or you're a politician ready to serve yourself up as
a paragon of patriotic perfection. Besides, Obama's criticism simply serves up Clark to the press dogs. Is
that the intention?
But if you want to read something reprehensible, it's not Clark. Stop over
to see Ben Smith's
column if you haven't already.
"A lot of people don't know ... that McCain made a propaganda video
for the enemy while he was in captivity," wrote Americablog.com's John
Aravosis. "Putting that bit of disloyalty aside, what exactly is McCain's
military experience that prepares him for being commander in chief?"
"Getting shot down, tortured and then doing propaganda for the enemy
is not command experience," Aravosis wrote in the blog post, titled "Honestly,
besides being tortured, what did McCain do to excel in the military?"
Not having Hillary to hate has obviously caused Mr. Americablog's last wheel to come off. Joan
Walsh calls it. To add, this is the type of crap that makes people walk
away from being Democrats. It asks the wrong question completely, while taking valid points off the table because the track is so unseemly.
McCain isn't beyond questioning just because he's a military veteran, especially
since he backed the Iraq war, the surge, as well as comments like the length
of time he envisions us in Iraq, coupled with the reality he's yet to mention Pakistan and Central Asia. Wesley Clark was on target. Somebody of stature had to say it and did. We simply cannot cede this ground.
"There are many important issues in this Presidential election, clearly one of the most important issues is national security and keeping the American people safe. In my opinion, protecting the American people is the most important duty of our next President. I have made comments in the past about John McCain's service and I want to reiterate them in order be crystal clear. As I have said before I honor John McCain's service as a prisoner of war and a Vietnam Veteran. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. I would never dishonor the service of someone who chose to wear the uniform for our nation. John McCain is running his campaign on his experience and how his experience would benefit him and our nation as President. That experience shows courage and commitment to our country - but it doesn't include executive experience wrestling with national policy or go-to-war decisions. And in this area his judgment has been flawed - he not only supported going into a war we didn't have to fight in Iraq, but has time and again undervalued other, non-military elements of national power that must be used effectively to protect America But as an American and former military officer I will not back down if I believe someone doesn't have sound judgment when it comes to our nation's most critical issues." - General Wesley Clark (retired)
UPDATE from Obama camp sent to me earlier today when I was traveling:
"Senator Obama had a terrific conversation with President Clinton and is honored to have his support in this campaign. He has always believed that Bill Clinton is one of this nation's great leaders and most brilliant minds, and looks forward to seeing him on the campaign trail and receiving his counsel in the months to come," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.
What will the rabble write about now?
Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe assured CNN’s Candy Crowley
that former President Bill Clinton and presumptive Democratic nominee Barack
Obama will be discussing Clinton’s role in the campaign within the next
two days.
“I believe that in the next 24 to 48 hours they will talk and off we
will go,” McAuliffe stated on Sunday’s Late Edition....
We've been through the blind quotes and anonymous sourcing many times before.
But who exactly benefits from postulating that the former POTUS has an ax to
grind with Senator Obama? The mind reels. Something tells me that the former President of the United States has better things to do than pout. Seriously, if Hillary can come out so strongly and graciously to support Barack Obama, who thinks her husband cannot?
Answer: only those who want to undermine the power of Hillary Clinton and her president husband.
It's really been a disgrace lately, with far too many hack "journalists" speculating about what is surely spun for political fodder. Obviously, people either have too much time on their hands. Are too interested
in spinning news out of whole cloth. Or they just don't want Obama and Clinton
to get along. You choose.
As for me, I'm at 39,000 feet again, so you all will have to ponder
it by yourself for a while. I'll check it when I can.
For now, consider this an open thread. Try not to hurt each other and don't mess up the place.
