Jack & Jill Politics

NYT: Barack isn't closing the Racial Gap Fast Enough

You know I love my JJP political junkies, concentrating on the state-by-state trends. But these trends from the NYT show clear signs for concern:
Only 24% of White Voters have a favorable opinion of Michelle Obama...That's why the New Yorker Cover is such a HUGE F#CK-UP.

I'm confident that all of this mess will be overcome...when Barack tours Europe and the Middle East...when we see "The Next Leader of the Free World" stride thru these countries like the liberator that Bush/Rumsfeld had wet-dreams about being in Iraq...When Barack accepts the nomination at Mile High...When Barack decimates McCain in the debates...If the majority of caucasians can't vote for the BEST candidate, then this country will deserve to LINGER in the muck-and-mire.

How quickly they elaborated on the title of that poll report.

Brits pick Obama 5 to 1 over McCain
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/14/bar...

Y'all see this ish!

Don't Vote for a Democrat

Now someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't 9/11 happen on the watch of an Republican administration?

Or did Al Gore get credit for winning Florida and his administration was in the White House at the time?

CNN is highlighting the Kevin Powell Towns(sp) congressional race. Towns referred to Powell being violent towards women.

Towns is in trouble. He's scraping the barrell.

Nation's Poorest 1% Now Controls Two-Thirds Of U.S. Soda Can Wealth - A report on growing disparities in the concentration of U.S. aluminum-can wealth, released Tuesday by the Department of Commerce, revealed that 66 percent of the nation's recyclable assets are now held by the poorest 1 percent of the population. Data showed that over-salvaging of cans by a small and elite group of can-horders has created a steadily growing and possibly unbridgeable gap between the rich and the mega-poor. More satire...

An opportunity lost.
Obama's speech about the opportunities Bush squandered after 9/11.

Another McCain Co-Chair Bites the Dust

Jim Courter- Finance Co-Chair, Chief Executive of Telecom Corp. IDT

Jim Courter is resigning from the campaign after the FCC slapped IDT with a $1.3M fine last week for failing to disclose information about its contracts in Haiti.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/...

I have seen various comments about McCain's gambling habits.....Makes me think the msm would be playing this 24/7 if Obama was known to bet thousands at a time for years and years. Below from blgs.tnr.com
Angela


06.07.2008

John McCain's Gambling Problem

Michael Scherer and Michael Weisskopf have a great piece in Time this week about what the two candidates' gambling habits say about their political (and, potentially, governing) styles. Short version: McCain is a high-stakes craps player who loves the pure, adrenalin-pumping, rush of the game. Obama is an exceedingly low-stakes poker player who sizes up his odds methodically and rarely loses money.

It's a great insight into the two personalities. And there's an even better scoop a little further down. While I knew most of the details of Obama's poker-playing, I had no idea McCain was such a hard-core gambler:

In the past decade, [McCain] has played on Mississippi riverboats, on Indian land, in Caribbean craps pits and along the length of the Las Vegas Strip. Back in 2005 he joined a group of journalists at a magazine-industry conference in Puerto Rico, offering betting strategy on request. "Enjoying craps opens up a window on a central thread constant in John's life," says John Weaver, McCain's former chief strategist, who followed him to many a casino. "Taking a chance, playing against the odds." Aides say McCain tends to play for a few thousand dollars at a time and avoids taking markers, or loans, from the casinos, which he has helped regulate in Congress. "He never, ever plays on the house," says Mark Salter, a McCain adviser. The goal, say several people familiar with his habit, is never financial. He loves the thrill of winning and the camaraderie at the table.

Only recently have McCain's aides urged him to pull back from the pastime. In the heat of the G.O.P. primary fight last spring, he announced on a visit to the Vegas Strip that he was going to the casino floor. When his aides stopped him, fearing a public relations disaster, McCain suggested that they ask the casino to take a craps table to a private room, a high-roller privilege McCain had indulged in before. His aides, with alarm bells ringing, refused again, according to two accounts of the discussion.

"He clearly knows that this is on the borderline of what is acceptable for him to be doing," says a Republican who has watched McCain play. "And he just sort of revels in it." [emphasis added].

A few thousand dollars at a time?* Wow. That's more than borderline unseemly, I'd say--easily several hundred thousand dollars over a period of 5-10 years if McCain plays regularly. It's certainly a far cry from the $1-ante games Obama played in Springfield.

At the end of the piece, a former Obama colleague, refering to Obama's contemplative gambling style, tells Time, "If he runs his presidency the way he plays poker, I'll sleep good at night." I think the converse is true of McCain--I'd sleep pretty poorly if he were to run his presidency the way he plays craps. (And I think the odds are high that he would. He certainly seems to run his campaign that way...)

*Of course, if by "a few thousand dollars at a time" Scherer and Weisskopf mean "a few thousand dollars a hand roll," then we're potentially talking millions of dollars over a period of several years, not hundreds of thousands. We'd be in real pathological territory--nothing particularly borderline about it.

--Noam Scheiber

From DailyKos

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/14/173...


Obama down by four points in South Dakota
by brownsox
Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:50:06 PM PDT
Rasmussen. 7/9. MoE 4.5%. (3/4 numbers in parentheses)
McCain (R) 47 (48)
Obama (D) 43 (38)


Obama now trails by just four points in this traditionally red state. This follows other Rasmussen polls showing him ahead in Montana, and tied in North Dakota.
Bush defeated both Gore and Kerry 60% to 38% in South Dakota. If McCain is at 48% and 47% in two successive polls here, it's doubtful he's going to be able to reach the level of support Bush enjoyed.
And if states like North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana are actually in play, if these are the new "swing states", it's very difficult to see McCain's path to 270 electoral votes.


Update: And what of the traditional swing states? Witness:
Iowa:
Rasmussen. 7/10. MoE 4.5%. (June numbers in parentheses)
Obama (D) 48 (45)
McCain (R) 38 (38)
Michigan:
Rasmussen. 7/10. MoE 4.5%. (June numbers in parentheses)
Obama (D) 47 (45)
McCain (R) 39 (42)
Minnesota:
Rasmussen. 7/10. MoE 4.5%. (June numbers in parentheses)
Obama (D) 52 (52)
McCain (R) 34 (39)

From FiveThirtyEight.com

Today's Polls, 7/14

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/07/todays-p...

In Michigan, Rasmussen has Barack Obama moving into an 8-point lead. Obama had led by 3 points in Rasmussen's June poll, although other pollsters had shown numbers closer to the 8-point lead that Rasmussen found today.It does not surprise me that Obama had a little bit of oopmh in his Michigan numbers, even if his performance elsewhere has been tepid. The fact that Obama did not campiagn there -- and had no field offices set up, etc. -- while McCain had done so fairly vigorously, was surely affecting the numbers. But we're now far enough removed from that period that the state is regressing back to its underlying demographic reality, and particularly its high unemployment rate.

Michigan may be moving further from the Ohio end of the spectrum and closer to the Pennsylvania end of the spectrum. That's a very important development because there are quite a few ways that Obama could win the White House while losing Ohio only, but many fewer if both Ohio and Michigan were lost. Of note: we now attribute Obama with about a 4.5 percent chance of winning the election while having lost the popular vote.

I still can't believe the punditocracy sees Michigan as a swing state.

Even with Romney on the ticket, Barack will win Michigan by at least 10 points.

Need to check on this: Is Mr. Obama on Larry King tonight? Tuesday 7/15?

OOPS! CANCEL! Thanks Truth!

PPP Poll: Obama Slightly Ahead in Colorado
A new Public Policy Polling survey shows Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. John McCain, 47% to 43%, mainly on the strength of the Hispanic vote.

The state has a small black population, and McCain leads 46% to 45% among white voters. Obama's 58% to 34% lead among the state's growing Hispanic population gives him the advantage overall.

Political Insider: Colorado could swing Democratic.

Rich, but rejected

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/realestate/13...


Say it with me,

awe, poor babies.

lol

Rangel to relinquish apartment used as office

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/nyregion/15ra...

Obama Will Meet Palestinian Leaders in the West Bank

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/us/politics/1...

He won't go into a mosque HERE, but meet with leaders in PALESTINE.

Oh, what a fun photo op THAT will be.

"Barack Obama, the likely Democratic presidential nominee"

::

That's a revealing choice of words. It looks like everybody knows there's going to be a "coup" attempt in Denver.

Obama on Larry King tonight.

Funny: Obama Releases List of Approved Jokes About Himself

July Italian Vogue goes "All Black" (editorialy anyway) pix and more:

http://jezebel.com/5024967/italian-vogues-all-b...

Do you know how hard I've been trying to find this issue? If anyone can give me the name and number of a bookstore carrying it, I'll call them and order it from them.

try here:

http://www.magazinecafeny.com/index.html

they're located in NYC but can ship and it says they'll have copies July 16 and you can reserve your copy now :)

thanks! :)

Thanks!

My friend and I "elephants&flowers" have been trying to find it too..will definitely give you a shout when we see it..

Please do the same

Maliki’s strong statements do provide the opportunity for withdrawal — a withdrawal based on the improved security brought on by the surge

Ha! The only reason why he didn't say "get the fuck out of our country!" was because it would be bad form.

Huh? Today's speech is basically the same as the Op-Ed, and he clearly states more than once that he was against the surge for various reasons.

You're getting those hits from a neo-con site, right?

And you were doing so well for a minute there.

Pete's a good friend, and the executive director at Vets for Freedom, who I'm currently working with.

Okey-dokey. Here's another returning vet's perspective:

"We had to build a concrete barrier in Sadr City," Leming said. "Those were some of the worst moments for me. It took seven weeks. We worked on it at night because that was the safest time to do the work, but they still shot at us."

Andrew Sullivan - Welcome Home, Mike

First off, I'm a Navy guy, but I'm pretty sure that ordnance is expended in war (read: people get shot, and shot at).

Second, don't you think it's a little low to use an article where someone is giving thanks to God for a family member's safe homecoming to prove a point?

Personally, I don't think so. It is real experiences that make the best points.

When will we see that donor list since Vets for Freedom is coordinating with the McCain campaign.

Ah, the donor list issue.

Can you show me another 501(c)(4) that's opened up their donor lists to the public? I contribute to them; does that help?

There's no coordination between VFF and the McCain campaign. I won't get into my personal situation, but pains have been taken to remove even the appearance of impropriety.

Ah yes the shell game yes they are a 501c which is a charity but they also are 527 which totals 5 donors
http://opensecrets.org/527s/527cmtedetail_contr...
So riddle me this how can you run national commercials which parrots the McCain talking points on less than $3000 in donations?

You know, I'm not sure on the rules involving tax-exempt status, but I don't think an organization can be a 501-anything AND a 527. Like I said, could be wrong, though.

Now, having said that, Vets for Freedom does have a PAC-which is completely seperate from the 501(c)(4). And if that's what you're referring to (which you'll say it is to prove your point!!), I haven't-yet-been involved in the PAC side of things, so I can't speak intelligently about it.

Obama's speech to La Raza...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

Compare and contrast with his message to the NAACP....

HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cristina-page/hhs...
We are truly in the Dark Ages

This is SCARY.

T: I'm BOWING DOWN!! Please let me know when I may arise!!! THIS IS BRILLIANT!!!

Need to vent a bit. Please bear with me.


I saw this today and I feel compelled to write a short note to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

Dear Senator Clinton:

I am a young, professional, fairly well-educated(I'm being modest) African American woman. During the primaries I supported Senator Obama vigorously and without equivocation even when things may not have been going his way sometimes. I paid very close attention to you if only to understand how your platform compared with that of his, so that I could articulately, and intelligently, promote him. And I did. Every chance that I got, even speaking to random people in the subway, in the supermarket. Everywhere. Because I think a President Obama is what the country needs now.

Throughout my life I have involved myself in numerous efforts to further the empowerment of my community and women's issues, equally. Even though you were not my candidate of choice, I fully appreciated the challenges that you faced as a woman and at times chided the media for treating you in a way that was uncalled for(btw, Senator Obama did not fare any better by virtue of being a man, after all, he is a black man - need I say more?). So yes, I empathized with you as a woman.

But, during that time I was, to put it mildly, nonplussed by the tactics of your campaign - you, your husband, and your surrogates. I could not fathom why a woman who has proven herself to be smart and competent would run her campaign in such a shoddy manner, and resort to "do-or-die" type strategies to draw parallels between herself and her opponent.

Emotionally, I began to withdraw from you. It was very difficult for me to arrive at the conclusion that I did not see your journey to be the President as a fight for me: a young woman of color. I couldn't identify with you and didn't see your "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling" as one that would make MY path easier. One, it appeared to me, rightly or wrongly, that your quest was nothing other than a quest to acquire power. And two, when all your "feminist supporters" stood up for you, on one hand, I was pleased to see that women were coming together, but on the other hand, none of them looked like me and the hysteria that ensued appeared to be "white girlfriends" thing rather than a fight for ALL women. It seemed more about the past than the future.

Of course, I acknowledge that I could be wrong in my perception. But, I fear I may not be, as I survey the post-primary terrain, and your place in it. I am nothing if not a good Democrat. I want to us to win. Yeah, I said, we've got to unify. So when you and Obama appeared in Unity, New Hampshire, I pushed my skepticism aside because this could not have been easy for either of you. Or, maybe it was because after all you are both political animals. My friends and I excitedly talked about how integral you were going to be in an Obama administration, especially when it comes to healthcare, and particularly if you were standing on her own without all those handlers affecting your decision making .

When you were both in New York, I was happy for you, and for him, until some lady named Caroline Schaeffer(I think) appeared on the evening news announcing that Obama had not gone far enough to embrace you. I said, "WTF? Dude it's been six weeks, SIX weeks, everyone's doing the best they can given the circumstance and we have an election to win!!!! Barack cannot spend his time catering to every whim and fancy of every single group. THAT IS A LOSING PROSPOSITION!!!".

It took a while but I eventually calmed down...until this weekend, that is, when Jill Iscol leaked a private phone conversation between herself and Obama. It appeared that your buddy by going public was once again poking at the scabs of the festering wounds that appeared to threaten our party's coalition. Now I read that Susie Tompkin Bell and Lynn Forrester have joined the throng of the "aggrieved holdouts" and appear to be publicly pressuring the presidential nominee for your party to pick you as VP or else????? Again, I say - WTF????

What is it that your supporters, and by extension you, expect Obama to do? They say you want to be VP. They say you want your campaign debt paid. They say you want the legacy that you and your husband tarnished to be polished. Or else what Senator Clinton? OR ELSE WHAT? Please tell us. PLEASE. What do you expect him to do? Get down on his knees and deliver a public cunnilinctus to you and your girls? A public fellatio to Bill Clinton, perhaps? Would that be enough? WOULD IT?

Listen, I suspect that you still desire to be President. And, I would happily vote for you in 2016 IF you call off your attack dogs, IF you tell your supporters to stand down, IF you and your supporters cease and desist in your well coordinated efforts to undermine AND emotionally blackmail AND manipulate Senator Obama. You and your high-profile supporters must allow Obama to do whatever is in his power to allow the Democrats to retake the reigns of government in this country, without unnecessarily constant distractions.

If not, please understand that we have short memories. Should you try again for the presidency, we will not forget. Women are not stupid. The black community is not stupid. So, here's a suggestion: until Obama, through careful and thoughtful deliberation says you are his VP(or not), please put on your big girl panties and LET'S WIN THIS THING. We have a rough couple of months ahead of us. The media is not making it easy. The opposition is not doing us any favors. And, ironically, neither are you!

Kisses,
T.
ps. Could you call off your attack operatives in the NY media, will ya? Tell 'em to stop the unfounded, non-sensical attacks on Obama.

Oh--snap! I hope you send this letter.

hehhe..good letter. Are you going to send it?

Aww! So the establishment Dems who are so used to having their rings kissed are complaining because Obama won't jump when they say "jump".

GOOD WORK BARACK!

Hmm, I dunno, maybe Barack doesn't have time to gladhand and scratch other people's backs and raise money for them...because he's too busy trying to play catch up...playing catch up because he had to battle Hillary into June while McCain has has since February to relax and unwind...and he wouldn't have had to battle Hillary well into June if the superdelegates had shut it down one way or the other instead of standing on the sidelines with their finger up in the air seeing which way the wind blows. The same superdelegates and elected officials who are complaining in July about Obama not being seen with them are the same folks who didn't want to be seen with Obama back in March during the Rev. Wright Trials & Tribulations. Maybe Obama can't help Senator So N So with their fundraising because he's too busy having to raise funds to help Hillary pay down her $20 million dollar debt...a debt she should be asking her 18 million hard working supporters to pay. It just seems like Barack is not buck dancing and coon smiling enough for these people. Nothing he does or doesn't do will satisfy him, and these are things they require of him that they don't require of any other (white) candidate. Hmm.

Tell the truth and shame the D.

This is exactly what I thought but you said it better.

Speaking of Hillary,

Her campaign is sending out letters to donors asking permission to roll a $2,300 contribution to Clinton's 2008 general election coffers to her 2012 senate election fund instead of offering a refund.

http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/hillary-c...

And it cannot be found only two hours after you posted.

Which she will then roll into a 2012 Presidential election fund. She ain't foolin' nobody.

Yep! That's what I got out of the article...

The letter she sent out...hold it up in a mirror and it reads...."For Presidential Campaign 2012"

Only thing...Barack will be on his second term

Sepia: CO-SIGNING!! And another thing - where is the money that the DNC is suppose to be raising on behalf of THEIR CANDIDATE???? Where is the VIGOROUS CAMPAIGNING?? Does billary have the "ear" of some of the superdelegates to "do something disruptive" at the DNC Convention??? Inquiring minds got ta know!!!

They'll be okay; they can't stay miffed.

I'm not so sure. Besides following the 'Black-Blogosphere', I have recently started checking out the pro-Hillary blogs. Not much love for Obama on the pro-Hillary blogs, and it seems that their contempt is escalating...even spreading, as the article points out. The Democrats' doctrine of hatred has finally caught up with all of them...

Er, you've been on here for months trying to destroy the reputation of a decent human being...."Doctrine of hatred"? LOL

Watch out for that Karma, Karmi.

That piece is another hit job with only a brief appearance at balance.

Barack is behind schedule with the general election campaign because the primary extended much farther into the spring than would have been necessary had his primary opponent not been so dead set to destroy him.

Text of Obama's Plans For Iraq Speech:

Sixty-one years ago, George Marshall announced the plan that would come to bear his name. Much of Europe lay in ruins. The United States faced a powerful and ideological enemy intent on world domination. This menace was magnified by the recently discovered capability to destroy life on an unimaginable scale. The Soviet Union didn't yet have an atomic bomb, but before long it would.

The challenge facing the greatest generation of Americans - the generation that had vanquished fascism on the battlefield - was how to contain this threat while extending freedom's frontiers. Leaders like Truman and Acheson, Kennan and Marshall, knew that there was no single decisive blow that could be struck for freedom. We needed a new overarching strategy to meet the challenges of a new and dangerous world.

Such a strategy would join overwhelming military strength with sound judgment. It would shape events not just through military force, but through the force of our ideas; through economic power, intelligence and diplomacy. It would support strong allies that freely shared our ideals of liberty and democracy; open markets and the rule of law. It would foster new international institutions like the United Nations, NATO, and the World Bank, and focus on every corner of the globe. It was a strategy that saw clearly the world's dangers, while seizing its promise.

As a general, Marshall had spent years helping FDR wage war. But the Marshall Plan - which was just one part of this strategy - helped rebuild not just allies, but also the nation that Marshall had plotted to defeat. In the speech announcing his plan, he concluded not with tough talk or definitive declarations - but rather with questions and a call for perspective. "The whole world of the future," Marshall said, "hangs on a proper judgment." To make that judgment, he asked the American people to examine distant events that directly affected their security and prosperity. He closed by asking: "What is needed? What can best be done? What must be done?"

What is needed? What can best be done? What must be done?

Today's dangers are different, though no less grave. The power to destroy life on a catastrophic scale now risks falling into the hands of terrorists. The future of our security - and our planet - is held hostage to our dependence on foreign oil and gas. From the cave-spotted mountains of northwest Pakistan, to the centrifuges spinning beneath Iranian soil, we know that the American people cannot be protected by oceans or the sheer might of our military alone.

The attacks of September 11 brought this new reality into a terrible and ominous focus. On that bright and beautiful day, the world of peace and prosperity that was the legacy of our Cold War victory seemed to suddenly vanish under rubble, and twisted steel, and clouds of smoke.

But the depth of this tragedy also drew out the decency and determination of our nation. At blood banks and vigils; in schools and in the United States Congress, Americans were united - more united, even, than we were at the dawn of the Cold War. The world, too, was united against the perpetrators of this evil act, as old allies, new friends, and even long-time adversaries stood by our side. It was time - once again - for America's might and moral suasion to be harnessed; it was time to once again shape a new security strategy for an ever-changing world.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We could have done that.

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

Our men and women in uniform have accomplished every mission we have given them. What's missing in our debate about Iraq - what has been missing since before the war began - is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq and its dominance of our foreign policy. This war distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize. This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century. By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe.

I am running for President of the United States to lead this country in a new direction - to seize this moment's promise. Instead of being distracted from the most pressing threats that we face, I want to overcome them. Instead of pushing the entire burden of our foreign policy on to the brave men and women of our military, I want to use all elements of American power to keep us safe, and prosperous, and free. Instead of alienating ourselves from the world, I want America - once again - to lead.

As President, I will pursue a tough, smart and principled national security strategy - one that recognizes that we have interests not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi, in Tokyo and London, in Beijing and Berlin. I will focus this strategy on five goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

My opponent in this campaign has served this country with honor, and we all respect his sacrifice. We both want to do what we think is best to defend the American people. But we've made different judgments, and would lead in very different directions. That starts with Iraq.

I opposed going to war in Iraq; Senator McCain was one of Washington's biggest supporters for war. I warned that the invasion of a country posing no imminent threat would fan the flames of extremism, and distract us from the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; Senator McCain claimed that we would be greeted as liberators, and that democracy would spread across the Middle East. Those were the judgments we made on the most important strategic question since the end of the Cold War.

Now, all of us recognize that we must do more than look back - we must make a judgment about how to move forward. What is needed? What can best be done? What must be done? Senator McCain wants to talk of our tactics in Iraq; I want to focus on a new strategy for Iraq and the wider world.

It has been 18 months since President Bush announced the surge. As I have said many times, our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence. General Petraeus has used new tactics to protect the Iraqi population. We have talked directly to Sunni tribes that used to be hostile to America, and supported their fight against al Qaeda. Shiite militias have generally respected a cease-fire. Those are the facts, and all Americans welcome them.

For weeks, now, Senator McCain has argued that the gains of the surge mean that I should change my commitment to end the war. But this argument misconstrues what is necessary to succeed in Iraq, and stubbornly ignores the facts of the broader strategic picture that we face.

In the 18 months since the surge began, the strain on our military has increased, our troops and their families have borne an enormous burden, and American taxpayers have spent another $200 billion in Iraq. That's over $10 billion each month. That is a consequence of our current strategy.

In the 18 months since the surge began, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. June was our highest casualty month of the war. The Taliban has been on the offensive, even launching a brazen attack on one of our bases. Al Qaeda has a growing sanctuary in Pakistan. That is a consequence of our current strategy.

In the 18 months since the surge began, as I warned at the outset - Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the purpose of the surge. They have not invested tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues to rebuild their country. They have not resolved their differences or shaped a new political compact.

That's why I strongly stand by my plan to end this war. Now, Prime Minister Maliki's call for a timetable for the removal of U.S. forces presents a real opportunity. It comes at a time when the American general in charge of training Iraq's Security Forces has testified that Iraq's Army and Police will be ready to assume responsibility for Iraq's security in 2009. Now is the time for a responsible redeployment of our combat troops that pushes Iraq's leaders toward a political solution, rebuilds our military, and refocuses on Afghanistan and our broader security interests.

George Bush and John McCain don't have a strategy for success in Iraq - they have a strategy for staying in Iraq. They said we couldn't leave when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is down. They refuse to press the Iraqis to make tough choices, and they label any timetable to redeploy our troops "surrender," even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government - not to a terrorist enemy. Theirs is an endless focus on tactics inside Iraq, with no consideration of our strategy to face threats beyond Iraq's borders.

At some point, a judgment must be made. Iraq is not going to be a perfect place, and we don't have unlimited resources to try to make it one. We are not going to kill every al Qaeda sympathizer, eliminate every trace of Iranian influence, or stand up a flawless democracy before we leave - General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker acknowledged this to me when they testified last April. That is why the accusation of surrender is false rhetoric used to justify a failed policy. In fact, true success in Iraq - victory in Iraq - will not take place in a surrender ceremony where an enemy lays down their arms. True success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future - a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge. That is an achievable goal if we pursue a comprehensive plan to press the Iraqis stand up.

To achieve that success, I will give our military a new mission on my first day in office: ending this war. Let me be clear: we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 - one year after Iraqi Security Forces will be prepared to stand up; two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, we'll keep a residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq: targeting any remnants of al Qaeda; protecting our service members and diplomats; and training and supporting Iraq's Security Forces, so long as the Iraqis make political progress.

We will make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy - that is what any responsible Commander-in-Chief must do. As I have consistently said, I will consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government. We will redeploy from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We will commit $2 billion to a meaningful international effort to support the more than 4 million displaced Iraqis. We will forge a new coalition to support Iraq's future - one that includes all of Iraq's neighbors, and also the United Nations, the World Bank, and the European Union - because we all have a stake in stability. And we will make it clear that the United States seeks no permanent bases in Iraq.

This is the future that Iraqis want. This is the future that the American people want. And this is what our common interests demand. Both America and Iraq will be more secure when the terrorist in Anbar is taken out by the Iraqi Army, and the criminal in Baghdad fears Iraqi Police, not just coalition forces. Both America and Iraq will succeed when every Arab government has an embassy open in Baghdad, and the child in Basra benefits from services provided by Iraqi dinars, not American tax dollars.

And this is the future we need for our military. We cannot tolerate this strain on our forces to fight a war that hasn't made us safer. I will restore our strength by ending this war, completing the increase of our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines, and investing in the capabilities we need to defeat conventional foes and meet the unconventional challenges of our time.

So let's be clear. Senator McCain would have our troops continue to fight tour after tour of duty, and our taxpayers keep spending $10 billion a month indefinitely; I want Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future, and to reach the political accommodation necessary for long-term stability. That's victory. That's success. That's what's best for Iraq, that's what's best for America, and that's why I will end this war as President.

In fact - as should have been apparent to President Bush and Senator McCain - the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was. That's why the second goal of my new strategy will be taking the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are recording messages to their followers and plotting more terror. The Taliban controls parts of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia. If another attack on our homeland comes, it will likely come from the same region where 9/11 was planned. And yet today, we have five times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan.

Senator McCain said - just months ago - that "Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq." I could not disagree more. Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. That's what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said earlier this month. And that's why, as President, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win.

I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions - with fewer restrictions - from NATO allies. I will focus on training Afghan security forces and supporting an Afghan judiciary, with more resources and incentives for American officers who perform these missions. Just as we succeeded in the Cold War by supporting allies who could sustain their own security, we must realize that the 21st century's frontlines are not only on the field of battle - they are found in the training exercise near Kabul, in the police station in Kandahar, and in the rule of law in Herat.

Moreover, lasting security will only come if we heed Marshall's lesson, and help Afghans grow their economy from the bottom up. That's why I've proposed an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance each year, with meaningful safeguards to prevent corruption and to make sure investments are made - not just in Kabul - but out in Afghanistan's provinces. As a part of this program, we'll invest in alternative livelihoods to poppy-growing for Afghan farmers, just as we crack down on heroin trafficking. We cannot lose Afghanistan to a future of narco-terrorism. The Afghan people must know that our commitment to their future is enduring, because the security of Afghanistan and the United States is shared.

The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights.

Make no mistake: we can't succeed in Afghanistan or secure our homeland unless we change our Pakistan policy. We must expect more of the Pakistani government, but we must offer more than a blank check to a General who has lost the confidence of his people. It's time to strengthen stability by standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people. That's why I'm cosponsoring a bill with Joe Biden and Richard Lugar to triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people and to sustain it for a decade, while ensuring that the military assistance we do provide is used to take the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda. We must move beyond a purely military alliance built on convenience, or face mounting popular opposition in a nuclear-armed nation at the nexus of terror and radical Islam.

Only a strong Pakistani democracy can help us move toward my third goal - securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states. One of the terrible ironies of the Iraq War is that President Bush used the threat of nuclear terrorism to invade a country that had no active nuclear program. But the fact that the President misled us into a misguided war doesn't diminish the threat of a terrorist with a weapon of mass destruction - in fact, it has only increased it.

In those years after World War II, we worried about the deadly atom falling into the hands of the Kremlin. Now, we worry about 50 tons of highly enriched uranium - some of it poorly secured - at civilian nuclear facilities in over forty countries. Now, we worry about the breakdown of a non-proliferation framework that was designed for the bipolar world of the Cold War. Now, we worry - most of all - about a rogue state or nuclear scientist transferring the world's deadliest weapons to the world's most dangerous people: terrorists who won't think twice about killing themselves and hundreds of thousands in Tel Aviv or Moscow, in London or New York.

We cannot wait any longer to protect the American people. I've made this a priority in the Senate, where I worked with Republican Senator Dick Lugar to pass a law accelerating our pursuit of loose nuclear materials. I'll lead a global effort to secure all loose nuclear materials around the world during my first term as President. And I'll develop new defenses to protect against the 21st century threat of biological weapons and cyber-terrorism - threats that I'll discuss in more detail tomorrow.

Beyond taking these immediate, urgent steps, it's time to send a clear message: America seeks a world with no nuclear weapons. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we must retain a strong deterrent. But instead of threatening to kick them out of the G-8, we need to work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert; to dramatically reduce the stockpiles of our nuclear weapons and material; to seek a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons; and to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global. By keeping our commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we'll be in a better position to press nations like North Korea and Iran to keep theirs. In particular, it will give us more credibility and leverage in dealing with Iran.

We cannot tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of nations that support terror. Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is a vital national security interest of the United States. No tool of statecraft should be taken off the table, but Senator McCain would continue a failed policy that has seen Iran strengthen its position, advance its nuclear program, and stockpile 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. I will use all elements of American power to pressure the Iranian regime, starting with aggressive, principled and direct diplomacy - diplomacy backed with strong sanctions and without preconditions.

There will be careful preparation. I commend the work of our European allies on this important matter, and we should be full partners in that effort. Ultimately the measure of any effort is whether it leads to a change in Iranian behavior. That's why we must pursue these tough negotiations in full coordination with our allies, bringing to bear our full influence - including, if it will advance our interests, my meeting with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing.

We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives. If you refuse, then we will ratchet up the pressure, with stronger unilateral sanctions; stronger multilateral sanctions in the Security Council, and sustained action outside the UN to isolate the Iranian regime. That's the diplomacy we need. And the Iranians should negotiate now; by waiting, they will only face mounting pressure.

The surest way to increase our leverage against Iran in the long-run is to stop bankrolling its ambitions. That will depend on achieving my fourth goal: ending the tyranny of oil in our time.

One of the most dangerous weapons in the world today is the price of oil. We ship nearly $700 million a day to unstable or hostile nations for their oil. It pays for terrorist bombs going off from Baghdad to Beirut. It funds petro-diplomacy in Caracas and radical madrasas from Karachi to Khartoum. It takes leverage away from America and shifts it to dictators.

This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the long-term threat from climate change, which will lead to devastating weather patterns, terrible storms, drought, and famine. That means people competing for food and water in the next fifty years in the very places that have known horrific violence in the last fifty: Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Most disastrously, that could mean destructive storms on our shores, and the disappearance of our coastline.

This is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern - this is a national security crisis. For the sake of our security - and for every American family that is paying the price at the pump - we must end this dependence on foreign oil. And as President, that's exactly what I'll do. Small steps and political gimmickry just won't do. I'll invest $150 billion over the next ten years to put America on the path to true energy security. This fund will fast track investments in a new green energy business sector that will end our addiction to oil and create up to 5 million jobs over the next two decades, and help secure the future of our country and our planet. We'll invest in research and development of every form of alternative energy - solar, wind, and biofuels, as well as technologies that can make coal clean and nuclear power safe. And from the moment I take office, I will let it be known that the United States of America is ready to lead again.

Never again will we sit on the sidelines, or stand in the way of global action to tackle this global challenge. I will reach out to the leaders of the biggest carbon emitting nations and ask them to join a new Global Energy Forum that will lay the foundation for the next generation of climate protocols. We will also build an alliance of oil-importing nations and work together to reduce our demand, and to break the grip of OPEC on the global economy. We'll set a goal of an 80% reduction in global emissions by 2050. And as we develop new forms of clean energy here at home, we will share our technology and our innovations with all the nations of the world.

That is the tradition of American leadership on behalf of the global good. And that will be my fifth goal - rebuilding our alliances to meet the common challenges of the 21st century.

For all of our power, America is strongest when we act alongside strong partners. We faced down fascism with the greatest war-time alliance the world has ever known. We stood shoulder to shoulder with our NATO allies against the Soviet threat, and paid a far smaller price for the first Gulf War because we acted together with a broad coalition. We helped create the United Nations - not to constrain America's influence, but to amplify it by advancing our values.

Now is the time for a new era of international cooperation. It's time for America and Europe to renew our common commitment to face down the threats of the 21st century just as we did the challenges of the 20th. It's time to strengthen our partnerships with Japan, South Korea, Australia and the world's largest democracy - India - to create a stable and prosperous Asia. It's time to engage China on common interests like climate change, even as we continue to encourage their shift to a more open and market-based society. It's time to strengthen NATO by asking more of our allies, while always approaching them with the respect owed a partner. It's time to reform the United Nations, so that this imperfect institution can become a more perfect forum to share burdens, strengthen our leverage, and promote our values. It's time to deepen our engagement to help resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, so that we help our ally Israel achieve true and lasting security, while helping Palestinians achieve their legitimate aspirations for statehood.

And just as we renew longstanding efforts, so must we shape new ones to meet new challenges. That's why I'll create a Shared Security Partnership Program - a new alliance of nations to strengthen cooperative efforts to take down global terrorist networks, while standing up against torture and brutality. That's why we'll work with the African Union to enhance its ability to keep the peace. That's why we'll build a new partnership to roll back the trafficking of drugs, and guns, and gangs in the Americas. That's what we can do if we are ready to engage the world.

We will have to provide meaningful resources to meet critical priorities. I know development assistance is not the most popular program, but as President, I will make the case to the American people that it can be our best investment in increasing the common security of the entire world. That was true with the Marshall Plan, and that must be true today. That's why I'll double our foreign assistance to $50 billion by 2012, and use it to support a stable future in failing states, and sustainable growth in Africa; to halve global poverty and to roll back disease. To send once more a message to those yearning faces beyond our shores that says, "You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now."

This must be the moment when we answer the call of history. For eight years, we have paid the price for a foreign policy that lectures without listening; that divides us from one another - and from the world - instead of calling us to a common purpose; that focuses on our tactics in fighting a war without end in Iraq instead of forging a new strategy to face down the true threats that we face. We cannot afford four more years of a strategy that is out of balance and out of step with this defining moment.

None of this will be easy, but we have faced great odds before. When General Marshall first spoke about the plan that would bear his name, the rubble of Berlin had not yet been built into a wall. But Marshall knew that even the fiercest of adversaries could forge bonds of friendship founded in freedom. He had the confidence to know that the purpose and pragmatism of the American people could outlast any foe. Today, the dangers and divisions that came with the dawn of the Cold War have receded. Now, the defeat of the threats of the past has been replaced by the transnational threats of today. We know what is needed. We know what can best be done. We know what must done. Now it falls to us to act with the same sense of purpose and pragmatism as an earlier generation, to join with friends and partners to lead the world anew.

In the 18 months since the surge began, as I warned at the outset - Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the purpose of the surge. They have not invested tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues to rebuild their country.

The junior Senator from IL is factually incorrect.

When's he taking off for Iraq again?

On what specific points is he incorrect?

1. That no political progress has been made,
2. That the Iraqi government is not contributing fiscally to their future.

And before you ask me to refute it with information, see above.....

Did he say they are not contributing fiscally at all?

Political progress is a subjective term, open to interpretation.

How does this relate to withdrawing? And if you contend that "political progress" is a goal, then why do you oppose withdrawing?

Repubs can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't seek to salvage the surge without invoking withdrawal.

For a country who is standing up a new form of government-one that is alien to them-passing any sort of major legislation is political progress. Hell, even Congress said that passing of those three laws would constitute progress when they included them as benchmarks (you know, those things you don't hear about anymore, especially since Iraq has met 15 of the 18).

Here's the funny thing: I didn't say-nor have I ever said- anything about opposing a withdrawal. I know-as probably most veterans do-that there's no way on earth we can maintain our current force structure in Iraq. It's just not possible.

What I am against is a withdrawal based on information that does not take into consideration the facts on the ground.

I am against leaving a battleground-in this case, Iraq-where our enemies are on the verge of complete, irreparable (sp? haven't seen my spell checkers lately) defeat.

I am against leaving a mess for my son to have to clean up, should he decides to put on this country's uniform-all because someone decided it was the politically expedient thing to do.

The "facts on the ground" is such rhetoric.

We don't get facts. We get spin and propaganda and noise.

Decreased violence is rhetoric? Really?

"For a country who is standing up a new form of government-one that is alien to them-passing any sort of major legislation is political progress."

That sounds like typical american patronzing BS. Just to remind you, Iraq did have a political history before Saddam.

And decreased violence? Yes compared to last year. But what about before you decided to bomb them? How about we judge violence and "stablilty" in Iraq by a standard that is more unversal. Maybe the same standard you are using to judge your own feelings of safety in the US? Such republican BS. You attack them, destablize them and send their country into a violent spiral. And when it becomes a little less worse, you have the guts to claim progress? The fact that you consider the current situation in Iraq progress is a sad testimony to how far your president and you imperialist neo-con's have lowered the bar to judge safety and stablilty in Iraq. Get outta here!

Right on!

It's kinda as if we are trying to recreate the globe in our own image and likeness. Somehow those words seem familiar.

But after all this time, money and blood, is it enough on both counts?

Evidence/links, please.

I know why I didn't like Clinton and now detest it, why Inever would have supported her for president, even if she had become the presumptive nominee. I know why I don't like McCain, why I find his gaffes and outright lies appallingly offensive, why I believe he is so unqualified to be president, let alone commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces. I know that blacks are not a monolithic people, and I myself as an Independent was initially unimpressed with Obama, until February 3, 2008, when Michelle Obama spoke at UCLA, after my candidate of choice, John Edwards, had suspended his campaign.

But you seem to hate Obama with an unnatural hatred, and I wonder why that is so? Is it personal? Is it Negro envy a la Harold Ford, Jr, Bob Johnson, Jesse Jackson, et al.? Is it the crabs in a barrel mentality so prevalent in the black community? Inquiring minds want to know. . . .

None of the above. Hell, it's not hate.

I oppose Sen. Obama's stance on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the War on Terror as a whole. I could really care less about him being black or white, as long as he provides me and my family with the sense of security that I feel we currently have. I don't believe he'll do that.

There are other things about Obama's policies that I am not a fan of, but don't always get into them because I don't feel qualified enough to have an opinion. I haven't even read Greenspan's book, which makes me more clueless on economic issues than a certain senator from AZ.

My beef with Clinton was personal; I just didn't like her.

I could really care less about him being black or white, as long as he provides me and my family with the sense of security that I feel we currently have.

Wait! You feel you're safer with the Dim Son/Darth/Surly McMorton administration?! Those are some good drugs you're on, D. :)

On and the New York Times? When it comes to Obama is sometimes part of the same tabloid corporate media that apportions erroneous information to Obama. They're more covert and less vehement about it is all.

Forget Greenspan; he's one of the reasons we're in such horrible economic shape, as he was a major proponent of deregulation. You want to learn economic issues, read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations or John Perkins' Confessions of An Economic Hitman.

Call the NYT what you will, but they damn sure don't lean conservative.

From that bastion of conservative thought, the New York Times, on the lack of political progress in Iraq:

Iraq’s parliamentary leaders on Wednesday pushed through three far-reaching measures that had been delayed for weeks by bitter political maneuvering that became so acrimonious that some lawmakers threatened to try to dissolve the legislative body.

More than any previous legislation, the new initiatives have the potential to spur reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites and set the country on the road to a more representative government, starting with new provincial elections.

The voting itself was a significant step forward for the Parliament, where even basic quorums have been rare. In a classic legislative compromise, the three measures, each of which was a burning issue for at least one faction, were packaged together for a single vote to encourage agreement across sectarian lines.

“Today we have a wedding party for the Iraqi Parliament,” said Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, the speaker, who is a Sunni. “We have proved that Iraqis are one bloc and Parliament is able to find solutions that represent all Iraqis.”

In 2007, there was this from the guys who should know what's going on there:

On February 8, Iraq’s Council of Representatives passed a $41.1 billion 2007 budget by an overwhelming majority. The budget enjoyed support from political representatives of all communities in Iraq.


Historic budget for Iraq with more than $40 billion in Iraqi money helping to meet Iraqi needs. Over $10 billion is dedicated to reconstruction and capital investment this year.

The budget, providing for $7.3 billion for security-related expenses, is an important boost to the counterinsurgency effort at the start of the Baghdad Security Plan.

Represents a 35 percent increase over security-related funding last year.

To complement direct funding for security, the Government of Iraq has also allocated $150 million for demobilization of militias and other combatants. The budget will support economic opportunities and reintegration for militia members and potential recruits.

And then this, from the Iraq Development Program:

The draft budget, which is yet to be endorsed by the country's parliament, represents an increase of 18% over the 2007 budget, Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement.
Around $13 billion would go towards investment, an increase of 30% over this year, and up to $11.4 billion would go towards reconstruction and development in local regions and provinces, the statement said.

The budget would depend mainly on revenues from Iraq's crude oil sales which were estimated by the country's Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani at $36 billion this year. A sum of nearly $4 billion which Iraq would get from selling three mobile licenses in August would be also added to next year's budget.

The Central Bank of Iraq predicted that oil revenues would total 88% of the 2008 budget, compared with 95% in 2007.

But then there's also this from CNN:

Iraq's Cabinet on Tuesday approved a supplementary 2008 budget, bringing the total budget to $70 billion -- the highest in the country's history, a government spokesman said.

Iraqi ministers voted in favor of the $21 billion supplementary budget in their regular meeting, spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said.

The measure was approved after amendments and negotiations between Iraq's ministries and institutions, he said.

Officials have said 2008 will be a year for rebuilding and reconstruction in Iraq, where violence has dropped.

That enough to start with?

" We must expect more of the Pakistani government, but we must offer more than a blank check to a General who has lost the confidence of his people. It's time to strengthen stability by standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people. That's why I'm cosponsoring a bill with Joe Biden and Richard Lugar to triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people and to sustain it for a decade, while ensuring that the military assistance we do provide is used to take the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda. We must move beyond a purely military alliance built on convenience, or face mounting popular opposition in a nuclear-armed nation at the nexus of terror and radical Islam"

As a Pakistani national, this paragraph here was a breathe of fresh air. When Obama was quoted as threatening to bomb Pakistani territory earlier in the year, I was skeptical. But this here is the first time I ahve heard a major US politician talk about the people of Pakistan, like we are actual human beings. The rhetoric is always about Pakistan, the Taliban sanctuary. Give their army money so they can bomb their own citizens. But Obama seems seems to understrand that there are deeper socio-economic and political reasons why part of tribal Pakistan are sympathetic to Taliban militants. The war on terror has taken its toll on Pakistani cities, politics and people and we NEED a reason to stay committed to it. Aid to Pakistani army does not make its way to pakistani citizens. I swear, if you guys (Americans) don't elect this guy in November ... Democrats in the US won't be the only ones crying.

Hillary Clinton Asks To Keep Donor Money for 2012

Anybody who thinks we're done with the Clintons (even for this election) got they weave in too tight.

I watch with amazement (well, not really) as every media outlet twists and turns and misrepresents Barack's positions on everything from war to abortion.

And then there's Andrea Mitchell, who has completely come out of the closet in her anybody but Obama propaganda.

Greg Craig just called her on it as only he could and Andrea got so defensive in word and demeanor they both had to laugh it off.

Dude, I just posted this below:


I saw this today and I feel compelled to write a short note to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

Dear Senator Clinton:

I am a young, professional, fairly well-educated(I'm being modest) African American woman. During the primaries I supported Senator Obama vigorously and without equivocation even when things may not have been going his way sometimes. I paid very close attention to you if only to understand how your platform compared with that of his, so that I could articulately, and intelligently, promote him. And I did. Every chance that I got, even speaking to random people in the subway, in the supermarket. Everywhere. Because I think a President Obama is what the country needs now.

Throughout my life I have involved myself in numerous efforts to further the empowerment of my community and women's issues, equally. Even though you were not my candidate of choice, I fully appreciated the challenges that you faced as a woman and at times chided the media for treating you in a way that was uncalled for(btw, Senator Obama did not fare any better by virtue of being a man, after all, he is a black man - need I say more?). So yes, I empathized with you as a woman.

But, during that time I was, to put it mildly, nonplussed by the tactics of your campaign - you, your husband, and your surrogates. I could not fathom why a woman who has proven herself to be smart and competent would run her campaign in such a shoddy manner, and resort to "do-or-die" type strategies to draw parallels between herself and her opponent.

Emotionally, I began to withdraw from you. It was very difficult for me to arrive at the conclusion that I did not see your journey to be the President as a fight for me: a young woman of color. I couldn't identify with you and didn't see your "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling" as one that would make MY path easier. One, it appeared to me, rightly or wrongly, that your quest was nothing other than a quest to acquire power. And two, when all your "feminist supporters" stood up for you, on one hand, I was pleased to see that women were coming together, but on the other hand, none of them looked like me and the hysteria that ensued appeared to be "white girlfriends" thing rather than a fight for ALL women. It seemed more about the past than the future.

Of course, I acknowledge that I could be wrong in my perception. But, I fear I may not be, as I survey the post-primary terrain, and your place in it. I am nothing if not a good Democrat. I want to us to win. Yeah, I said, we've got to unify. So when you and Obama appeared in Unity, New Hampshire, I pushed my skepticism aside because this could not have been easy for either of you. Or, maybe it was because after all you are both political animals. My friends and I excitedly talked about how integral you were going to be in an Obama administration, especially when it comes to healthcare, and particularly if you were standing on her own without all those handlers affecting your decision making .

When you were both in New York, I was happy for you, and for him, until some lady named Caroline Schaeffer(I think) appeared on the evening news announcing that Obama had not gone far enough to embrace you. I said, "WTF? Dude it's been six weeks, SIX weeks, everyone's doing the best they can given the circumstance and we have an election to win!!!! Barack cannot spend his time catering to every whim and fancy of every single group. THAT IS A LOSING PROSPOSITION!!!".

It took a while but I eventually calmed down...until this weekend, that is, when Jill Iscol leaked a private phone conversation between herself and Obama. It appeared that your buddy by going public was once again poking at the scabs of the festering wounds that appeared to threaten our party's coalition. Now I read that Susie Tompkin Bell and Lynn Forrester have joined the throng of the "aggrieved holdouts" and appear to be publicly pressuring the presidential nominee for your party to pick you as VP or else????? Again, I say - WTF????

What is it that your supporters, and by extension you, expect Obama to do? They say you want to be VP. They say you want your campaign debt paid. They say you want the legacy that you and your husband tarnished to be polished. Or else what Senator Clinton? OR ELSE WHAT? Please tell us. PLEASE. What do you expect him to do? Get down on his knees and deliver a public cunnilinctus to you and your girls? A public fellatio to Bill Clinton, perhaps? Would that be enough? WOULD IT?

Listen, I suspect that you still desire to be President. And, I would happily vote for you in 2016 IF you call off your attack dogs, IF you tell your supporters to stand down, IF you and your supporters cease and desist in your well coordinated efforts to undermine AND emotionally blackmail AND manipulate Senator Obama. You and your high-profile supporters must allow Obama to do whatever is in his power to allow the Democrats to retake the reigns of government in this country, without unnecessarily constant distractions.

If not, please understand that we have short memories. Should you try again for the presidency, we will not forget. Women are not stupid. The black community is not stupid. So, here's a suggestion: until Obama, through careful and thoughtful deliberation says you are his VP(or not), please put on your big girl panties and LET'S WIN THIS THING. We have a rough couple of months ahead of us. The media is not making it easy. The opposition is not doing us any favors. And, ironically, neither are you!

Kisses,
T.
ps. Could you call off your attack operatives in the NY media, will ya? Tell 'em to stop the unfounded, non-sensical attacks on Obama.

I saw that. And yet that issue is different from the link I posted.

Both are shady and related, but different.

Craig, I realize that they are different, but it's the "shadiness" and resulting unease that I feel about both issues that relates them for me. T.

craig: I believe that Andrea was disHONORED on the SSSSSSSSSSNAKE List. If not - -
slither into your spot andrea!!

Personally I would like to see the snake list displayed on the main page but I feel that it would take up so much space that we wouldn't have any room left to post comments

dj: THANK YOU for the support! I'm really "New - 4 months" at this "blogging thing". And as I've mentioned before, I started around the time that my Medicare kicked in! :>) :>) My children are saying "Mom"! - with lots of love. :>) I enjoy this. :>)

Yes, I flipped through just at the right time to catch that.

Time for New Black Leaders
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-powell/time...

"Barrow’s endorsement has some in the Black Caucus wondering whether Obama will lift a finger for them after issuing such a harmful blow to a black candidate’s campaign."

They have A LOT of nerve! So NOW, because their butts are on the line, Obama's supposed to be all "Oom-gawa! Black Power!" when they couldn't see fit to support him in the primaries and/or pull the Clintons coattails about their race-baiting??

-CBC (in Dem primaries)

"We're backing Hillary, suckah!"

CBC (now)

"Could you...could you help a brother out?"

Admiral: CO-SIGNING!!!! :>)

Yeah, kind of puts the "arugula" flap in perspective.

"...oh gosh and then I loved it so I bought myself a plane..."

OK, this is a day late, but I still wanted to share something I wrote up this morning in response to the New Yorker cover. Haven't decided what to do with it yet.

...

On the night of Barack Obama’s primary victory in South Carolina, thousands of us who gathered at the victory rally spontaneously erupted in the chant, “Race doesn’t matter!” This wasn’t a profession of faith so much as a willing suspension of disbelief: South Carolina’s January primary also marked the place and time when race did start to matter in the Presidential race.

Race matters, as the conflation of “white” with “American” illustrates. But in critiquing that attitude, Barry Blitt’s cover illustration for this week’s New Yorker commits the same error of judgment that a white man who uses the N-word among black friends would commit if he spoke in the same way among strangers. It’s the kind of faux passé that the privileged have the luxury of committing, and therefore the responsibility not to.

Privilege underlies the even deeper problem of the cover, which is the way it bounces its satire off a deep contempt for Michael Moore’s “stupid white men.” Moore, at least, could profess to be of the group he satirizes; not so for the New Yorker. Thus the magazine does Obama few favors, instead cementing the perception that his campaign is fueled by limousine liberalism. But it also does itself a serious disfavor, demonstrating not just distain but also ignorance of these other Americans. Pauline Kael didn’t know anyone who voted for Nixon; I doubt anyone at the helm of the New Yorker knows anyone who thinks Obama is Muslim. Obama calls for understanding over condemnation, and I hope his supporters – especially the privileged ones – will consider what kinds of attitudinal sacrifices such a politics would entail.

At Daily Kos there's a discussion about Obama's press shop. Some feel that Bill Burton needs to be fired. What do you think?

interesting -- It sounds like that one-note person who was posting vigorously here for a few days just recently - Bag of Health and Politics or something along those lines. S/he kept going off about the "press shop" being bad and how they should hire Harold Wolfson and how better press people could prevent X Y and Z (including apparently Jesse Jackson's Fox comments).

Is that person the one who posted the diary on this at Daily Kos? If so I'm not going to even look for it That person had the self-referential rigidity of an evangelist and the aggressive Know It All-ness of severely unexamined white privilege, it was very creepy to me.

the diary host was slinkerwink, Bag of Health... h/she posted more than a few times on the diary with the same arguments from her/his posts here.

I just posted a comment saying that it seems to me that some people (read "former Clinton" supporters) are trying to change Obama's campaign to a "mini-me" version of Hilary Clinton's campaign by slowly chirping away at certain aspects of the Obama campaign, that Hilary's campaign was "better at".

I'm sorry, but I find that total BS. The same people who were bemoaning Obama for not living up to his "progressive" roots are who was "bowing" to pressures from Republicans is supposed to now "bow" to pressure from Hilary and her supporters.

For a better analysis of the "arm-chair" campaigning, check out Al Giordano's post over at "The Field" : http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/if

No. It's Slinkerwink who did the liveblogging of the credentials meeting in last May. Yeah the other guy can be johnny one note but I can understand where he is coming from. After all it is frustrating to see the media being in the tank with McCain.

But that won't change no matter who Barack has heading his press shop. That's why I couldn't get too involved in that discussion.

The media isn't at all interested in Barack controlling his campaign's media narrative.

I don't care who his bulldogs are, the idiots at the bureaus will keep pushing their own stories, complete with fabrications, distortions, and blatant lies.

I don't know; if the media narrative about Obama was at least objective if not judicious . . .

Good stuff.....though isn't McClatchy an American media company?

Obama: ‘The central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was’

Things You Won't Hear (on Iraq) from the American Media:

Iraq faces dilemma over US troops

The key statement cited by Mr Obama and others was made by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki last Monday in his address to Arab ambassadors in the United Arab Emirates.

The prime minister was widely quoted as saying that in the negotiations with the Americans on a Status of Forces Agreement to regulate the US troop presence from next year, "the direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on a timetable for their withdrawal".

That was the version of Mr Maliki's remarks put out in writing by his office in Baghdad.

It was widely circulated by the news media, and caught much attention, including that of Mr Obama.

There is only one problem. It is not what Mr Maliki actually said.

In an audio recording of his remarks, heard by the BBC, the prime minister did not use the word "withdrawal".

What he actually said was: "The direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on programming their presence."

Let me add to your list
Iraqis make up a third of all asylum-seekers in Germany
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/middleea...

Pre-service crimes often go uncited when vets claim PTSD
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/44132.html


Two high ranking army officers kidnapped in Kirkuk
http://www.aswataliraq.info/look/english/articl...

Obama's position in January 2007:

OBAMA: We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality, uh, we can send 15,000 more troops; 20,000 more troops; 30,000 more troops. Uh, I don't know any, uh, expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to, uh, privately that believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.

Dan Riehl notes Obama's position in July 2007:

"Here's what we know. The surge has not worked. And they said today, 'Well, even in September, we're going to need more time.' So we're going to kick this can all the way down to the next president, under the president's plan."

A Democratic debate in September 13, 2007:

After putting an additional 30,000 troops in, far longer & more troops than the president had initially said, we have gone from a horrendous situation of violence in Iraq to the same intolerable levels of violence that we had back in June of 2006. So, essentially, after all this we're back where we were 15 months ago. And what has not happened is any movement with respect to the sort of political accommodations among the various factions, the Shia, the Sunni, and Kurds that were the rationale for surge and that ultimately is going to be what stabilizes Iraq. So, I think it is fair to say that the president has simply tried to gain another six months to continue on the same course that he's been on for several years now. It is a course that will not succeed. It is a course that is exacting an enormous toll on the American people & our troops.

Democratic debate, January 5, 2008:

I had no doubt, and I said when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence.

The reaction to this year's State of the Union address:

When Bush proclaimed, “Ladies and gentlemen, some may deny the surge is working, but among terrorists there is no doubt,” Clinton sprang to her feet in applause but Obama remained firmly seated.

Obama's released statement that evening: "Tonight Pres. Bush said that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know that's just not true. Yes, our valiant soldiers have helped reduce the violence. But let there be no doubt—the Iraqi government has failed to seize the moment to reach compromises necessary for an enduring peace. That was what we were told the surge was all about. So the only way we're finally going to pressure the Iraqis to reconcile and take responsibility for their future is to immediately begin a responsible withdrawal."

question for readers.

When you look at JJP, in total, is the picture of Duke Ellington, SMALL, almost TINY?

But, grows big once you click on 'Tuesday Open Thread'?

Just want to know if it's everybody or just me.

It looks great rikyrah

doesn't look small

Yesterday everyone was so upset by the cover of the New Yorker the fact that McLaughlin referred to Obama as an Oreo was completely overlooked. He claimed that Jesse was write to be upset because Obama an oreo was the the beneficiary of his hard work.

I do believe I would have been far more upset IF Michelle Bernard hadn't of made a point to go back and check McLaughlin on the Oreo comment. She didn't let it stand. She didn't let it go. She defended Obama. I do believe that's why it upset me, but didn't enrage me; cause somebody Black checked him ASAP on it.

Yeah but she didn't get him to talk about the white privilege aspect that is being ignored in our discussion on racism. I am sick and tired of whites not admitting the ways in which they benefit from racism. Or the whole white as normal, good and rational that is dependent on seeing black as less than, ignorant, and backward.

Did anyone on the program shut him down?

Whether Jesse is justified in his feelings or not, he is not justified in casually leaning in and casually whispering that he wanted to cut the man's balls off because he disagrees with his positions. We haven't seen any of these people wanting to cut, assassinate, backslap, etc. any of the white candidates they disagreed with. When I hear Jesse say he wants to burn Bush's penis for letting the people in Katrina drown, then I'll say Jesse is "justified."

Right on, Town.

Question . . . who on McLaughlin would shut the old geezer down? Clarence Page? Nope. Eleanor Clift? Nope. the Neo-Cons? Nope.

Ain't nobody on there who has the guts to check him; he'd use his booming voice to drown them out anyway.

I have to slightly disagree. I thought Michell Bernard took him to task. As a Black woman, she had to be measured so not to be accused of wagging her finger and jerking her neck around, but she clearly was pissed. She made a very good point, "if Barack is an Oreo than every successful Black person is an oreo."

NMP: Co-signing: I watched MB too. She is careful & sharp!!!

Not only that, but he quoted Jeremiah Wright too. It's one of those things where you go WTF when watching it. I watched it, and still don't believe it. It's a surreal moment where some White rightwinger believes that they can call ANYONE Black an ' Oreo'. I'm still trying to process it myself.

More than anything what bothers me is the way that racism in this election has been talked about in a sense of how it impacts blacks and not about the ways that whites benefit from it. White privilege has totally been eliminated from the discussion.

woman: props to your point!!!

Excellent point.

I don't believe McLaughlin is a rightwinger, but yeah, that was pretty outrageous from an outrageous old man.

You don't believe McLaughlin's a right-winger? Color me surprised since I've thought he was in the neo-con corner for at least a decade, along with Massa Buchanan.

In any case, I noticed some months ago that McLaughlin has a problem with Obama, for some unknown reason, so I'm not surprised at anything he says about him.

Right wing, left wing doesn't matter...all the bigots wear the same suit these days.

The New York Daily News catches Obama in the act of trying to erase the evidence of his poor judgment on the most important issue of the past two years:

"Barack Obama's campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop "surge" in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.

The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a "problem" that had barely reduced violence.

"The surge is not working," Obama's old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province."


Why does Obma feel that it is necessary to 'scrub' his site? This is deceptive, not transparent.

Yeah, because if the New York Daily News says it, it must be so.

Sheesh. First of all, it's the semantics; update is less salacious than scrub. Second, although I haven't been over to the site to confirm that it has been updated, if it has, I'm doubtful that there's been much updating because I'm fairly certain that any major updates will be made AFTER he's visited Iraq and talked to the generals on the ground.

I wasn't always an Obama supporter, though I've never been a repug/neo-con, and several of his proposed policies don't sit well with me. I'm all for objectively analyzing any candidate's platform as well as their words, and I've got no problem calling them out when I perceive that they're not living up to their rhetoric. But this gotcha stuff with Obama needs to stop.

He hasn't flip-flopped, he's remained 'transparent' and he's demonstrated that he is the consummate, suave, debonair cutthroat politician.

Over on The Field, Al Giordano has a fresh blog up about this very same thing - how progressives have picked up the media's fallacious narrative that Obama isn't transparent and has changed positions on a number of issues when, in fact, there have been no substantive changes since his campaign began in February 2007.

I just posted upthread about Giordano's piece. It is definitely one that should be read by many of the progressives.

It's amazing how quickly those who would lamblast the media for their treatment of Barack vis-a-vis Clinton late in the primary campaign are now believing every skewed lied out of its mouth.

Talk about fickle.

I think a more charitable way of viewing it is that he is simply updating his site to reflect his evolving positions.

From what I understand, though, it's not a foregone conclusion that "the surge is working." Violence is down now, but a month or two ago it was up. Then before that, it was down. And before that it was way, way up. The point of the surge was supposedly to allow the Iraqi government to coalesce and come to agreement on the way forward. That hasn't happened. The main political development is that they have formally asked us to get out of there.

Since the surge began in 2007, not only has the security situation in Iraq improved, but the Iraqi government has come together to pass laws on provincial powers, modification to the original de-Baathification plan, and amnesty for criminals who participated in the now-essentially-nonexistent insurgency.

Not to mention the fact that the Iraqi government is now taking a greater fiscal interest in the stability and security of their country, outspending the US by 3 to 1 on reconstruction and security-related expenses.

If Obama now believes that the surge has had some effect and is no longer suggesting that "the surge is not working," good for him. Hopefully, when he travels there, he'll see-and hear, from Iraqis themselves-that the surge has been a success.

Really? I thought that since the surge security had only improved in Baghdad and that in the areas where our troops have decreased, the insurgents have re-merged. That's what I thought I'd read.

Berger: Violence in Iraq Drops

And for those who won't bother to read the article, it's from Multi-National Force-Iraq. You know, the guys actually there doing the job.

What "job" is that supposed to be?

I thought they were there to find and neutralize WMD?

Then if it is working we can pack up and come home aand start getting our own house in order

dj: YEP!

....and I'm all for that. When the Iraqis say, "we got it," we're out the door.

They haven't said that yet (and see my post below about what al-Maliki actually said before you respond!!!).

To leave when the effects of the surge are just starting to be shown-not to mention to flat out lie that those effects exist-is just wrong.

The god of "what Maliki actually said" and the "surge god" are harsh taskmasters.

Let us offer up our friends as a sacrifice on their altars so that they will not turn their wrath upon us.

You are relentless.

Hahahahahaaaaaa!

Just between you and me:....obsessive.

Exactly.

I'm listening to your fearless leader Bush on CNN. He's taught me something profound:
The President doesn't have a magic wand.

You heard him too?

He taught me something just as profound - he shouldn't have been appointed president of anything, and he's a lying, sociopathic, dim-witted piece of crud who has failed at everything he ever attempted, including attempts to get elected president. In fact, the only thing in which he's ever done well is drinking Jim Beam and acquiring good drugs, thanks to his Pappy's connections.

That said, I have to admit, he cracks me up, especially his poor grammar skills -

"I'd 'a done . . . "

"Sure, you have to be careful about the reefs, the reefs are important, but you can drill around the reefs."

And the annoyingly frequent coked-out hard breathing through his nostrils as he purses his lips. . . .

lol,

other than the magic wand thing...that's the only other thing that stood out: the exasperated, anxious panting.

Originally posted by ckim in the other thread: Obama Tracker

Very cool.

The Bush Admin. discriminating on Nigerians..

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/0...
14_furor_over_bush_lawyers_racism_in_deport.html

"Barrow’s endorsement has some in the Black Caucus wondering whether Obama will lift a finger for them after issuing such a harmful blow to a black candidate’s campaign."

They have A LOT of nerve! So NOW, because their butts are on the line, Obama's supposed to be all "Oom-gawa! Black Power!" when they couldn't see fit to support him in the primaries and/or pull the Clintons coattails about their race-baiting??

Barack's endorsement of Barrow is unjustified. Plain simple.

The CBC insinuating that Obama should back a candidate because they are black, while they sang the "I Support Who's More Qualified Regardless Of Color" song is unjustified. Plain simple.

you know, I don't have the time right now, but I hope to get to it today. when brought to my attention last night, I LMAO then too.

good!!! This discussion will be "off the chain"!!!