Palin Defends Us From Russia

Cindy McCain reminds us that Alaska is close to Russia.



And the McCain campaign points out that Palin is commander of the Alaska National Guard.



Thank goodness for Sarah Palin. She is the only thing preventing Russia from marching down through defenseless Canada and kidnapping Mariner Moose.

McCain's Houses

It's good to see Obama hitting him on this.





This is the kind of bullshit issue Americans really care about.


Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters

Obama Returns Fire

A very powerful ad airing on radio in Ohio:


Good for Barack. They need to get this thing on TV there.

The McCain campaign is clearly freaked out by it.

More from McCain's Respectful Campaign

This is just silly.



The "symbol" quote is a gross misrepresentation, and the McCain campaign has to know it.

I'm sure this is doing a lot to contribute to the debate over energy policy, economic growth, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, education, global warming, deficit spending, entitlements, etc.

Next thing you know, Obama will be promising world peace:



Boy, what a jackass that guy was!

Who Benefits from a Consensus for Withdrawal?

Michael Crowley says McCain because it allows him to shift the debate from his unpopular advocacy of a long-term stay to who will be better at wrapping up.

Polling shows that McCain is basically even with Obama on Iraq. On other foreign policy issues, McCain leads by a wide margin. On practically every other issue, such as economic policy, Obama leads. Therefore, Iraq is a drag on McCain's only strength. If McCain can get Iraq out of the way, he has a cleaner shot at Obama on foreign policy.

Media Cowardice

The headline - Analysis: Obama, McCain both have lobbyist ties - and tone of this CNN article imply that McCain and Obama are equally influenced by lobbyists. But I'd say this is a real difference:

During this campaign, lobbyists and trade groups donated $181,000 to McCain, while Obama received $6,000, according to the New York Times.

The article goes on to explain that those numbers "only include registered lobbyists and trade groups -- not big companies that could have lobbyist ties." Well yes, but there's an important difference between a collection of individuals who happen to work for a large company and a person who is explicitly paid to represent companies, industries, or other groups on their behalf with regard to legislation and other government policy.

The right has worked the refs so well that the media is completely afraid to call 'em like they see 'em. Instead, they lead the public to believe the Nader line that both parties are exactly the same when there is an objective difference.

The Irrelevance of Gaffes

If Obama made these gaffes, the right would claim that they are evidence of inexperience.

However, nobody suggests that these gaffes are evidence of McCain's lack of experience because we don't question his experience. They also are not evidence of McCain's age.

McCain's gaffes are evidence of the fact that such gaffes are completely irrelevant to evaluating a candidate's preparedness for office.

McCain's Despicable Attack

McCain: "I had the courage and judgment to say that I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Sen. Obama would rather lose the war in order to win a political campaign."

This is what class looks like, McCain:

Despite differences with his Republican counterpart, Obama said that he and McCain both want to see success in Iraq.

"John McCain doesn't want to see us take a wrong strategy when it comes to fighting the war on terror," he said. "I think John McCain wants to see America safe, just like I do. And so, I respect his best judgments in many of these issues, but I think it's important to recognize that, on the majority of issues that we've faced in terms of foreign policy, not just over the past four years, but over the past six, seven years, that my batting average is pretty darn good."

Adopting Obama's Foreign Policy

Hilzoy has a great post showing how Obama's positions on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran are gaining support.

On Afghanistan, McCain has said in the past that Iraq is the focus in the war on terror and that any additional troops in Afghanistan should come from NATO, not the U.S. Recently, he has copied Obama's call for three additional brigades in Afghanistan, saying only that he would be open to the additional troops coming from NATO.

On Iran, Bush is now negotiating with the second coming of Hitler.

On Iraq, McCain has claimed that Obama is wrong because he does not know the facts on the ground, but now Maliki, the guy who really knows the facts on the ground, agrees with the 16-month timetable (the weak backtrack under pressure from Bush notwithstanding). Hilzoy:

By two days ago, McCain was left with basically two messages: (a) timetables would be a disaster, and Obama's embrace of them just shows how naive he is; and (b) McCain got the surge right and Obama got it wrong. It's a pretty weak foundation for a candidacy.

It was against this backdrop that Maliki comes out in favor of Obama's proposal to withdraw combat troops from Iraq in 16 months (though he is careful not to endorse Obama.) McCain has to call Obama naive on Iraq. But that is a lot harder to do if Maliki agrees with Obama. It's hard to say that Maliki is insufficiently familiar with the facts on the ground. It's hard to call him naive. And whatever you think of Maliki's motives, it's also a lot more complicated to make the case that he doesn't know or care what's best for his country. In Presidential elections, uncomplicated cases are key. "Obama has only been in the Senate for three years; he doesn't have the experience to get Iraq right" is an uncomplicated case. There is no such uncomplicated explanation for Maliki's being wrong.

***

Worse, lot of the more obvious ways of responding to Maliki's statement are fraught with danger for McCain. Responding that Maliki either doesn't know what he's talking about or is somehow untrustworthy and bad directly undercuts our reasons for staying in Iraq. We are there in support of the Maliki government, which we are hoping will become capable of running the country without our presence. The more ignorant, untrustworthy, or otherwise bad Maliki is, the less likely it is that he will succeed, and the less clear it is why we should try to help him.

Saying, as McCain has, that Maliki only supports a timetable for political reasons is almost as bad, since it rather obviously implies that the Iraqi people really want us to leave. (As, in fact, they do.) Again, this raises the question: what on earth are we doing there? If the Iraqi people want us out, and their Prime Minister is asking for timetables, why not just take 'yes' for an answer?

If the Iraqi people want us out, we have two choices. First, we leave. As McCain said four years ago, "I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people." McCain does not seem to have seriously considered this option, which would deprive him of yet another distinction between himself and Obama.

Second, we continue to occupy Iraq whether the Iraqi people and their government want us to or not. We have not paid much attention to the wishes of the Iraqi people for some time now -- in fact, I'm always struck, listening to Bush and McCain, by the way in which they consistently describe the question how long we stay in Iraq as one to be answered solely by them, in consultation with the commanders on the ground, as though Iraq's government and its people had no say in the matter at all.

This has, of course, always been true. This administration has never cared much about what the Iraqi people think. But Maliki's comments might make it clearer to the American people that it's not enough to ask whether a candidate supports staying in Iraq; you need to ask whether he supports staying in Iraq even if the Iraqi government asks us to leave. Asking McCain that question would force him to chose between maintaining our presence in Iraq and maintaining the idea that that presence has something to do with helping the Iraqi people.

Moreover, explaining why it would be OK to override the wishes of the Iraqi government presents yet another problem for McCain. The obvious default position is that when a country's government asks us to withdraw our troops, we should do so. To say that that's not true in a given case, like Iraq, you need to provide some sort of explanation. Part of that explanation would normally be: the government is unrepresentative or dysfunctional or awful in some way, and so its wishes do not carry the weight they would in, say, Switzerland.

But saying something like that about the Iraqi government -- that it doesn't really speak for the Iraqi people, or isn't capable of making its own decisions about Iraqi territorial integrity -- would undercut McCain's claims about progress in Iraq. Again, McCain would have to choose: does he say that Iraq's government has made some real political progress, and is capable of making its own decisions? In that case, he should accept its wishes. Does he say that he can disregard its requests on matters of Iraqi sovereignty? In that case, he undercuts a lot of his claims that the surge has enabled real and lasting progress in Iraq.

As I see it, Maliki's statement is all upside for Obama. It neither poses risks for him nor presents him with problems. But it's a minefield for McCain. And this will, I think, become clearer as time goes on, when people begin to ask him these sorts of questions.

In a Strange Way This is Cool

I like the fact that both wacko Presidential candidates are from Georgia.

The Media's Love of McCain

Max Bergmann at the Huffington Post says the events of this week should have mortally wounded McCain's campaign:

This is the week that should have effectively ended John McCain's efforts to become the next president of the United States. But you wouldn't know it if you watched any of the mainstream media outlets or followed political reporting in the major newspapers.

During this past week: McCain called the most important entitlement program in the U.S. a disgrace, his top economic adviser called the American people whiners, McCain released an economic plan that no one thought was serious, he flip flopped on Iraq, joked about the deaths of Iranian citizens, and denied making comments that he clearly made -- TWICE. All this and it is not even Friday! Yet watching and reading the mainstream press you would think McCain was having a pretty decent political week, I mean at least Jesse Jackson didn't say anything about him.

John Cole adds to the list.

Is Obama too Old to be President?

A little fun on another boring July campaign day.

And this.

RNC Ad on Energy

Yes, the RNC talking up the virtues of bucking the party is comical. And yes, there is a certain dissonance in advocating more drilling and investment into alternative fuels.

However, Obama needs to get out in front of this issue. I think that more domestic drilling is a gimmick. It is a diversion of resources that will result in no perceptible reduction in gas prices to the consumer. But that is a difficult sell. He needs to publicize a clear and simple plan to reduce gas prices or the hardship that they cause.

Gas prices could very well be the most important issue in this election.

UPDATE: Obama has a response ad airing in the same states as the RNC ad. Not enormously effective, but decent.

Flanking Obama's Right

I share John Cole's frustration with left-wingers who howl at every position of centrist pragmatism that Obama takes despite the fact that he has always run as a center-left pragmatist. These are probably the same self-absorbed bozos that voted for Nader. Just as you'd rather have had Gore than Bush, you'd rather have Obama than McCain. Big picture, guys. John Cole:

The sum total of this behavior is to validate GOP frames (aided, of course, by a media establishment that loves a “gotcha” and is wholly in the tank for McCain) that Barack is a flip-flopper and can’t be trusted, and watching these various interest groups daily hamstring Obama is going to give me an ulcer or high blood pressure or both. I can’t decide what is driving it, but it is maddening. Whether it is a need to feel relevant, the naivete of single issue voters, an unwillingness to recognize the demands of a general election, spite from former Hillary supporters, complete ignorance regarding Obama’s stated position on an issue (see his “flip-flop” on Iraq in which he said the same thing he has been saying for over a year- he will continue to refine his withdrawal policy as he gets additional information), or a desire for accountability after eight years of Bush, the end result is to force Obama into a box on many issues and refuse to allow him the flexibility he needs to win in November.

Obama: A Candidate I Could Support?

Based on this Slate article, Obama is slowly molding into a candidate I could see voting for.

Unfortunately, based on the article, four things (taxes, health care, the war and abortion, although the last one is not mentioned) prevent me from doing so. I do agree with him on immigration.

And the fact that I don't believe what the article calls his "recalibrations" just yet.

McCain Plays Craps, Obama Plays Poker

What their gambling may say about them.

The McCains - Just Regular Folks

We've all been told repeatedly that Obama is too elitist and out-of-touch to be President, so it must be true.

I'm a Democrat, so I'm not allowed to mention the fantastically opulent lifestyle of the McCains. It would be class warfare. If I have anything but reverence for their wealth, I'm just jealous.

Bush's Third Term

You might be surprised who it is.

In Defense of Flip-Flops

Ruth Marcus brings some sanity to the discussion:

When it comes to flip-flops, one candidate's outrageous reversal can be another's welcome pragmatism. Liberal bloggers are flaying Obama for a "craven" flip-flop because he once vowed to filibuster any wiretapping bill providing immunity for telecommunications providers. Now he plans to vote for one.

Smart politics, yes, but also sensible as a matter of substance. Whatever your position on immunity, crafting a workable wiretapping regime for the future, not punishing companies for past transgressions, should be the central issue in the debate over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. If Obama is edging toward the center on this, or on free trade, we should praise the flip, not hate the flopper.

Indeed, some flip-flops might even be evidence of open-mindedness -- not a bad attribute in a president, as the past eight years have taught. The downside to flip-flop politics is making politicians reluctant to change course lest they be exposed to accusations of spinelessness.

Take one example that supposedly shows McCain in a bad light. I'm a lot more interested in whether it makes sense to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling in light of higher energy prices, changed geopolitical circumstances and improved technology than I am in whether McCain has flipped on this issue.

St. Barack

The more things Obama changes his mind on the more he seems just like any other politician.

The Huffington Post also has an article about how Obama seems to be abandoning the same people who helped him get the nomination. This isn't really that surprising. Just ask Jeremiah Wright.