It’s no surprise Europeans dote on Obama: he’s weak and has socialist leanings. From his event in Berlin: 

In this new world, such dangerous currents have swept along faster than our efforts to contain them. That is why we cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone. None of us can deny these threats, or escape responsibility in meeting them. Yet, in the absence of Soviet tanks and a terrible wall, it has become easy to forget this truth. And if we’re honest with each other, we know that sometimes, on both sides of the Atlantic, we have drifted apart, and forgotten our shared destiny.

Or, you might say that ingrate Europe has behaved like a bratty teenager, living off the blood and treasure of the United States while scorning her.

How many German troops are fighting in Afghanistan? None, because their soldiers are not allowed to fight. They just do peaceful duties.

In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common.

No kidding. But that’s all Bush’s fault for being such a cowboy.

In America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe’s role in our security and our future.

Yes, because Europeans are pussies. When Yugoslavia fell apart, who came to the rescue? The USA. The Dutch UN “peacekeepers” in Srebrenica who allowed the Serbs to massacre Muslims under their protection were later awarded medals for their service. 

That’s Europe today, buddy.

Both views miss the truth — that Europeans today are bearing new burdens and taking more responsibility in critical parts of the world; and that just as American bases built in the last century still help to defend the security of this continent, so does our country still sacrifice greatly for freedom around the globe.

Who violated the UN sanctions against Saddam, enbabling him to become a threat? The French and Russians.

That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.

What a load of meaningless piffle.

A counter campaign poster here.

Gaffe or just plain bullshit? Obama in Israel said this:

However, Obama is not on that committee. This one is hard to explain away as a slip of the tongue — like the 58 states or seeing the fallen soldiers sitting in the Memorial Day audience.

No, this is Clintonesque Al Gore-like lying (clumsy and easily found out).

The actual membership of the committee is here.

Another gaffe from the supposed smoothie. I guess he’ll need those extra years because he’ll be busy finding those other seven or eight states.

VIDEO HERE.

From Instapundit:

RASMUSSEN: “The belief that reporters are trying to help Barack Obama win the fall campaign has grown by five percentage points over the past month.” Gee, do you think? Plus this: “A separate survey released this morning also found that 50% of voters believe most reporters want to make the economy seem worse than it is. A plurality believes that the media has also tried to make the war in Iraq appear worse that it really is.”

And newspapers wonder why they are losing influence and readers. Yesterday the LA Times featured a frontpage story headlined:

“Iraqi president embraces Obama’s withdrawal plan”

That makes Obama seem to be right about Iraq.

But wait, that was not what Maliki said or meant. Did the LAT correct the bungled story today? No.

The front page of the LA Times read like an Obama endorsement by Maliki. But wait, that’s not what he intended:

A German magazine quoted Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki as saying that he backed a proposal by presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months.

“U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months,” he said in an interview with Der Spiegel that was released Saturday.

“That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes,” he said.

But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks “were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately.”

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements, echoing statements that the White House made Friday after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush.

Hot Air notes:

Here’s the exchange from Spiegel’s English translation, duly hyped by Reuters as tacit evidence of Liberal Jesus’s foreign-policy sagacity.

SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?

Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. US presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months. Assuming that positive developments continue, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes.

The unasked follow-up question: How about the 14-month timetable that Obama wanted to set in January 2007 to start pulling troops out before those positive developments could occur? How keen does that look in hindsight? To repeat a point made yesterday, the only reason a timetable or “time horizon” is arguably a responsible strategy now is because it was properly rejected as being irresponsible then. Maliki hints at that in another part of the interview:

So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat. But that isn’t the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias.

Exactly, which at least partly explains why Bush is more willing to compromise now on some sort of informal schedule. Compare Maliki’s justification for the timetable to Obama’s justification in his big Iraq speech. The pacification of the country is almost incidental, something to congratulate Petraeus on and then quickly move past.

To the extent conditions in Iraq seem to affect his rationale at all, he offers this: “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.” I.e. it didn’t work, so let’s get out. Back to Maliki for a rebuttal:

SPIEGEL: In your opinion, which factor has contributed most to bringing calm to the situation in the country?

Maliki: There are many factors, but I see them in the following order. First, there is the political rapprochement we have managed to achieve in central Iraq. This has enabled us, above all, to pull the plug on al-Qaida. Second, there is the progress being made by our security forces. Third, there is the deep sense of abhorrence with which the population has reacted to the atrocities of al-Qaida and the militias. Finally, of course, there is the economic recovery.

Read it all.

…a self-righteous fool. And a fool that could become president.

This is worth revisiting. The pledges Obama makes here are foolish and sometimes contradictory (missile defense is a way to end nuclear threats). But consider how righteous he seems in making such statements. HT: Maggies Farm.

..and that’s no compliment. “Hamilton Madison & Jay” take Obama apart one paragraph at at a time:

Barack Obama has penned a relatively naive op-ed in today’s New York Times regarding his “plan” for Iraq. After giving a one over, we can only assume this man literally knows of nothing that has occurred in that nation:

The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

First things first, senator, the man’s name is Nouri Kamel Mohammed Hassan al-Maliki. Please show some respect for an ally. Secondly, the call you celebrate was a guarantee from the beginning. In fact the 1920’s brigades that originally fought against us in Iraq, then joined us as the Anbar Awakening unfolded said just as much. The Iraqis do not want us there one moment longer than we are needed. But right now, we still have a job to do. Your idea for a “phased redeployment” will give AQI and other forces (other foreign terrorists and Iranian elements) hope that once we are gone they can go back to attacking the rightful government of Iraq. It is naive to think your idea is the same as Prime Minister Maliki’s. Additionally, the prime minister’s idea will not be splashed across the front page of every major newspaper. In other words, he will not announce the date of withdrawal. (more…)

New York Daily News:

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.

The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.

Obama’s campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an “improved security situation” paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.

It praises G.I.s’ “hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice.”

Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is “not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events.”

Okay, will he now step up and condemn the “General Betray Us” ad from his pals at MoveOn.org?

I just flew into Atlanta and I’m scarfing down some food and wondering why the Hyatt hasn’t figured out how to adjust the signal on their widescreen TVs (which are everywhere) so that Andersen Cooper’s face isn’t squashed.

Squashed or not, all the usual left-right talking heads are buzzing about something. It must have to do with Obama not being Muslim. We all know that — he worships at the Blame Whitey Church of Christ when he’s not busy revering himself.

But the poor bruised Messiah had his feelings hurt by the left-leaning New Yorker. Michelle Malkin writes:

Barry,

So, you found this satirical New Yorker cover art “tasteless and offensive.”

Welcome to public life.

Guess what? In Washington, political cartoonists and caricaturists spare no one.

*Update* Chris at The Hot Joints reminds me of this truly disgusting cartoon run in the Obama-worshipping Rolling Stone magazine last month:

More examples at American Thinker. 

Jonah Goldberg notes the spectacular self-regard of Obama for Obama.

In his pre-campaign book, “The Audacity of Hope,” Barack Obama proclaims, “I find comfort in the fact that the longer I’m in politics the less nourishing popularity becomes, that a striving for rank and fame seems to betray a poverty of ambition, and that I am answerable mainly to the steady gaze of my own conscience.”

Some might think this odd testimony from a young and inexperienced freshman senator on the cusp of seeking the highest rank, and the most famous position, in the world. It’s a bit like a parish priest saying he’s happy with his modest lot in life and then declaring he’s throwing his hat in the ring to become pope.

But a closer reading reveals a possible explanation. Perhaps he’s an adulation junkie. Maybe the diminishing “nourishment” Sen. Obama receives from “popularity” is actually causing him to ratchet up his pursuit of more and more praise just to get the minimal fix he needs.

That would account for why a man who thinks striving for popularity is a character flaw has nonetheless decided to give his nomination acceptance speech in a 76,000-seat football stadium.

Or it might tell us why a candidate who hasn’t even been nominated yet wants to re-enact some of the most famous scenes from both Reagan and JFK’s highlight reels by holding a rally at Germany’s Brandenburg Gate, even though he’s not a head of state yet. (German authorities, aware of Obama’s rock-star status with the German public, diplomatically suggested that it was up to Obama to decide what is in “good taste.”)

Perhaps Dominic Lawson, writing in the British newspaper The Independent had it right when he recently wrote that Obama is “a man of stunning articulacy, but also stunning self-regard.”

Last July, Obama explained to reporters that he would eventually overtake Hillary Rodham Clinton in the polls because “to know me is to love me.” Some months later, according to The Associated Press’ Ron Fournier, he proclaimed, “Every place is Barack Obama country once Barack Obama’s been there.”

Of course, Obama and his surrogates would say he’s just being lighthearted, he doesn’t really take himself all that seriously.

One problem with that interpretation is that there’s little evidence that he’s interested in dispelling or rebutting the cult of personality he’s developed. Obama himself talks of reversing the ocean’s tides.

The overarching theme to his entire campaign - “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” and all that - is that voting for Obama is proof of the cosmic superiority of … Obama voters.

In a speech in Madison, Wis., Obama told his supporters that rallying to his cause was today’s equivalent of the “greatest generation” rallying to defeat Hitler and Tojo. Oprah merely calls him, “The One,” saying he will help us “evolve to a higher plane.”

Someone get that man one of those “I’m Kind of a Big Deal” T-shirts.

Take his decision to deliver his acceptance speech at Invesco Field at Mile High in Denver. It seems that the venue for the rest of the Democratic convention - the Pepsi Center (occupancy 21,000) - is just too small.

Obama says he wants to give the common folk more “access” to the process. Only a man with an Olympian’s sense of entitlement to mass worship could describe such a choreographed descent upon a place called “Mile High” as an effort to bond with the common man. A demigod, it seems, is never so tall as when he stoops to bask in the adoration of the little people.

Imagine a fiber that could be woven into any fabric that makes everyday garments bullet proof, without compromising comfort or style. Would any reasonable person object to anyone/everyone wearing such clothes? And on what basis? That it would irritate criminals?

The analogy came to mind after hearing Barack Obama oppose the US missile defense shield. In this he agrees with the Russians, who claimed that after Iran shot off nine missiles, it proved the shield was unnecessary because none of the nine could have reached Europe. Israel? Yes.

Many people don’t know that Ronald Reagan conceived the idea of a missile defense shield as a way to make nuclear weapons moot. While the Cold War was still on, he offered the Soviets access to the technology we would develop, thus making a nuclear attack by either side futile. (Paradoxically, this concerned Margaret Thatcher because nukes were a far cheaper deterrent to any Soviet plan to invade Europe than tanks and standing armies.)

Gorbachev knew that his failed commie economy could never afford to build such a system, even with free technology from US. Checkmate to the evil empire.

Richard Fernandez wrote about the strategic advantages of a missile shield — it’s a meaty explanation that comes down to this: introduce sufficient uncertainty to make your enemies think twice before attacking you.

You’d think liberals would embrace missile defense because its objective is to deter war — y’know, give peace a chance. Instead, they’ve mocked it (calling it Star Wars) or fretted that it would upset the Russians. With Russia awash in oil profits, let them build their own.

Meanwhile, in a place where such arguments are not theoretical, Israel:

…has successfully tested a new defence system designed to intercept rockets fired from southern Lebanon and the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, public radio reported on Sunday. The “Iron Dome” system is expected to be fully operational within a year and will be able to intercept the military-grade Katyusha rockets used by Lebanon’s Hezbollah militia and the cruder Qassam rockets favoured by Hamas.Citing Israeli security officials, public radio said the system would also be effective against mortar fire which has a much smaller window of warning.In January Prime Minister Ehud Olmert viewed a prototype of the 200-million-dollar (140-million-euro) system, which is being developed under contract by Rafael Advanced Defence Systems, an Israeli arms manufacturer.

Iron Dome is part of a multi-layered defence system aimed at protecting Israel from both short-range missiles fired by militants in Gaza or Lebanon and longer-range missiles in the arsenals of regional foes Iran and Syria.

by Burt Prelutsky

Seeing how thrilled so many of my fellow Americans are that a black man — even a half-black man — is going to be on the presidential ballot in November I can’t help wishing I were one of them. It’s as if there’s a great big party taking place and I’m stuck outside with my nose pressed against a window. But, frankly, I don’t know what the hoop-de-do is all about.

I mean, it’s always nice to be reminded that America is the place where anyone is free to achieve his dreams, although perhaps not quite yet her dreams. But when it comes to being president of the United States, the commander-in-chief of the best and the most powerful nation on earth, I don’t think we should be getting quite this excited. To me, Barack Obama seems like nothing more than the end result of affirmative action run amok.

His fans insist that it’s unfair to question his qualifications or judge him by his associations. That makes sense because if I were a fan of his, I sure wouldn’t want anyone scratching beneath the surface of a pleasant smile and a soothing voice. And, believe me, if he were auditioning for a job as a TV announcer, I’d hire him. 

The Obamans insist that mentioning any of the man’s disreputable friends and religious mentors is a no-no that smacks of McCarthyism. This is an odd complaint because, one, McCarthy was right when he pointed out that the folks who associated with other people at Communist cell meetings were in fact Communists, and, two, every child is told that he’s going to be judged by the company he keeps. So, let’s face facts — John Dillinger ran with a nicer crowd than this guy.

The first screwball we found out about was Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the gutter mouth whose swinish sermons Obama lapped up for a thousand Sundays. Then there was Bill Ayers, the mad bomber who should have wound up sharing a cell with Ted Kaczynski, but instead was apparently offered the option of becoming a professor. And let us not forget Tony Rezko, who was recently found guilty by a Chicago jury of just about everything except kidnapping the Lindbergh baby. It’s still up in the air whether he’ll be offered the same deal as Bill Ayers, but there’s no getting around the fact that “Professor Rezko” has a nice ring to it.

It probably isn’t cricket to include Michelle Obama in this dirty laundry list of Barack’s associates, and yet it’s hard to simply overlook the fact that he chose to marry this nasty, bitter, openly racist ingrate.

Finally, when it appeared that we couldn’t sink any lower in the barrel, out popped Obama’s longtime friend and religious mentor, Father Michael Pfleger. The first time I became aware of this fellow was when I heard segments on the radio of the speech he delivered at Trinity United. When, later that day, I saw him on TV, I was shocked to see that he was white. Although he seems to have forgotten much of his religious training while serving at Faith Community of St. Sabina, on the South Side of Chicago, he has certainly mastered the black patois. He actually sounded blacker than either Rev. Wright or Louis Farrakhan, but he obviously thinks along the same unsavory lines.

Later in the week, Father Pfleger apologized for his performance, saying, “I regret the words I chose on Sunday. These words are inconsistent with Senator Obama’s life message, and I’m deeply sorry if they offended Senator Clinton or anyone else who saw them.”

Apology not accepted. I, for one, am getting sick and tired of being played by the Obama crowd. Michelle didn’t mean she’d never been proud of America, Barack didn’t mean Iran was a small country we had no reason to fear, and Father Pfleger didn’t mean a word of his racist screed. Right…and a bear doesn’t make do-do in the woods.

Pfleger, by the way, not too long ago urged a crowd of blacks to drag a gun shop owner, John Riggio, into the street “like a rat” and “snuff him,” along with any Illinois state legislators who voted against gun control legislation. When accused of trying to incite murder, Father Pfleger, who prides himself on his street creds, claimed he had no idea that “snuff” is a synonym for murder. So far as I know, nobody bothered asking him, that being the case, exactly what it was he was exhorting the mob to do. Drag Mr. Ruggio out of his place of business and make him sneeze until he agreed to close up shop?

Frankly, I can’t fathom how it is Pfleger still has a job. But, perhaps after what it’s gone through in the past decade, the Church is so grateful that he’s not a pedophile costing them millions of dollars in lawsuits, this creep could walk down State Street at high noon wearing nothing but his turn-around collar and playing a harmonica and still be in line for a red hat.

Some of Obama’s other questionable associates are the thousands of blacks who flock to Trinity United every Sunday, eager to soak up their weekly dose of racist swill, laughing and applauding and shouting their heart-felt “amens;” thousands of nicely dressed black Americans who don’t have to pretend they disagree with a single ugly word of it because, unlike Barack Obama, they don’t happen to be running for president.

 by J.C. Phillips

After months of being transfixed by empty slogans, supporters of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama are finally listening and many do not like what they are hearing. Critics have charged him with flip flopping on a number of issues most significantly his stance on the war in Iraq. 

During this campaign, Obama has been adamant that as president he would “set the mission” to end the war and bring the troops home in 16 months. In what no less an authority than the liberal paper of record, the New York Times identified as a flip (or a flop depending on one’s inclination) Obama now says he will consult with his generals in order to refine his promise to quickly remove troops.

I am disinclined to view this as a change of position. Though he has sought to reassure the left by responding with a hearty, “Don’t be confused, I will bring this war to a close when I am president of the United States.” It would appear that he has finally come around to my way of thinking. He has taken a more moderate approach based on an evolving situation on the ground. 

That the current administration and John McCain, the Republican Party nominee, also want to bring this war to a close as quickly as possible should go without saying. Alas, the left has been so successful at obfuscation that it must be said: Republicans want to end the war – the sooner the better! Republicans want to bring the troops home – the sooner the better! The difference between the Republican position and, until recently, Obama’s position has always been that bringing the war to a responsible close meant victory. To that end, events on the ground would dictate our leaving Iraq as opposed to an arbitrary timetable. 

Obama now says that as commander-in-chief, he will keep his options open. One assumes that means if he is informed that events on the ground do not warrant a redeployment of our troops, we will remain in Iraq beyond his 16 month deadline. That is not a flip flop, but a reasonable position and as it happens, the same position as both President Bush and John McCain. 

Barack is actually a victim of his own success. He did such a remarkable job of demonizing the war effort that any suggestion that he might actually fight the war makes the left apoplectic.

During the Democratic primaries, Obama gained considerable political mileage by pointing out that among the major candidates he was the only one to oppose America’s invasion of Iraq from the beginning. It is a testament to his political skill that he has been able to continually bask in the glow of having the moral courage to oppose the war while a member of the Illinois state senate. Of course at the time, no one much cared what the state of Illinois thought of toppling Saddam Hussein. 

More recently, one wonders where all this moral courage was when called upon to step up to the plate and vote against the wire tap bill that easily passed the U.S. Senate. 

For two years, Congress debated the measure designed to overhaul rules for government eavesdropping in terrorism and espionage cases. Many prominent Democrats had viewed the bill, which rewrites the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as an unacceptable encroachment upon the civil liberties of American citizens. Barack Obama had opposed an earlier version of the bill but supported this latest version in opposition to fellow Democrats Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Harry Reid (D-NV)

What remains unclear is how he can continue to refer to the current administration policy as “brain dead” when he has supported a measure this president fought for, and when he now clearly seems to be adopting the administration’s position on withdrawal from Iraq.

Bret Stephens: 

Richard Nixon came to office with a rumored secret plan to end the war in Vietnam. Maybe Barack Obama’s plan to end the war in Iraq is going to wind up being a secret, too.

The presumptive Democratic nominee set off media firecrackers last week by hinting at further refinements to his strategy for withdrawal. Previous strategies include his January 2007 call for a complete withdrawal by March 2008, followed by his March 2008 call for a complete withdrawal by July 2010, or 16 months after he takes office.

Now Mr. Obama tells us that the 16-month timeline is contingent on (1) “[making] sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable” (my emphasis), and (2) the opinion of “the commanders on the ground.” Also in question is the size of the “residual force” that the Illinois senator envisions for Iraq after the bulk of U.S. forces is withdrawn. Will it be an embassy guard, plus some military advisers and special-ops forces? Or, as suggested in a March paper by Colin H. Kahl, who runs Mr. Obama’s working group on Iraq, an “overwatch force” of between 60,000 and 80,000 soldiers?

Mr. Kahl’s paper, which was written for the moderately leftish Center for a New American Security, is not an Obama campaign document. Nor has it been publicly released, though it was reported on by the New York Sun’s Eli Lake. But it offers a useful window into what serious Democratic policy wonks think is a workable U.S. strategy for Iraq in the next administration.

Titled “Stay on Success: A Policy of Conditional Engagement,” Mr. Kahl presents a middle way between the extremes of “unconditional engagement” – basically, the Bush administration’s approach – and “unconditional redeployment,” which is, or perhaps was, Mr. Obama’s recipe.

On the latter point, Mr. Kahl warns that unconditional redeployment “is insufficient to encourage political accommodation because it offers no ‘carrot’ to groups that would prefer not to accommodate or assurances to those who fear abandonment. It also risks . . . driving the Sunnis back to the insurgency and al Qaeda in Iraq, reigniting sectarian violence and regional tensions.”

Note well: That’s the view of an Obama adviser on the original Obama plan.

Mr. Kahl’s own preferences track closely with those of Gen. David Petraeus, who introduced the phrase “overwatch” in congressional testimony last September. It would involve the rapid withdrawal of three combat brigades, an emphasis on “mentoring and monitoring” Iraq’s Security Forces, continued U.S. pressure on Iraq’s sectarian leaders to come politically to terms, and a round of regional diplomacy. Still, as many as 80,000 troops would remain in Iraq by the end of 2010 in Mr. Kahl’s plan, or halfway into the next administration. How much longer till those troops are withdrawn? Two years? Twenty?

This really does begin to look like a reprise of a Vietnamization strategy – and that’s not a bad thing. Nixon inherited 540,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam on his first day in office. More than 16,000 of those troops were killed in 1968 alone, the year of the Tet Offensive. Yet in 1972, with troop levels at just under 70,000, the U.S. and South Vietnam were able to rout the North’s massive Easter Offensive and force a peace settlement. U.S. combat fatalities that year amounted to 641.

Can a similar policy work in Iraq? The obvious counterargument is that South Vietnam collapsed in 1975. But that collapse had much to do with the inability of a politically crippled Nixon administration to enforce the terms of the Paris Peace Agreement, and with the refusal of Congress to allow the Ford Administration to resupply the South.

Dick Morris: 

The campaign of 2008 started on July 1 when Obama launched his first national advertising buy of the season. How McCain responds and whether or not he does, will have a big impact in determining whether Obama can solidify or expand his current lead in the polls. As always, the media fails to cover the significant events of the campaign — but this is one of the most critical.

The Obama ad, which introduces him as someone who worked his way through college, fights for American jobs, and battles for health care also seeks to move him to the center by taking credit for welfare reform in Illinois which, the ad proclaims, reduced the rolls by 80%.

But there’s one problem - Obama opposed the 1996 welfare reform act at the time. The Illinois law for which he takes credit, was merely the local implementing law the state was required to pass, and it did, almost unanimously. Obama’s implication — that he backed “moving people from welfare to work” — is just not true.

With Obama running the ad in all the swing states (Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia), this gross usurpation of credit affords the McCain campaign an incredible opportunity for rebuttal.

Victor Davis Hanson:

One way to envision the McCain-Obama presidential race is as a boxing match — particularly like the famous Mohammed Ali championship fights.

The deliberate McCain is like a Sonny Liston or George Foreman trying to cut the ring in half and force his lighter-footed opponent onto the ropes. For McCain, this comes in the form of numerous proposed town-hall debates, where he hopes that face-to-face questions and answers will fall on his less-seasoned opponent like sudden haymakers.

In turn, Obama is like Ali; his style is to keep moving — and stay out of reach of his opponent. Obama does this through rhetorically masterful addresses to large, adoring crowds. He knows that the more McCain is forced to spar at a distance via set speeches in front of a Teleprompter, the more he wears down the elder senator, who appears outclassed on the evening news.

Or maybe the better analogy is Aesop’s fable of the tortoise and the hare. At 71, a slower McCain keeps plodding along at a steady pace, hoping that an overconfident, dashing Obama will rest on his wide lead in many polls, coast, make some more gaffes, and then let him crawl on by. Something like that happened in the Republican primary when the once dead-last, written-off McCain eventually walked past all his front-running rivals.

Pundits talk a lot about Obama’s current 12-15 point lead in the recent L.A. Times/Bloomberg and Newsweek polls. Less noticed is that the two are dead even in the venerable Gallup survey — not to mention that we have more than four months to go until election.

At some point, the steady McCain hopes crowds will tire of the glitzy “hope and change” rallies and demand that the soaring Obama comes down to earth to focus on more mundane, detailed positions that will alienate part of the electorate and so cut down his lead.

McCain must also feel like the mythical Menelaus, who tried to wrestle with the malleable Proteus, the sea god who turned into all sorts of different creatures to evade capture. Each time McCain thinks he can catch hold of Obama, the agile senator changes shape and slips away.

The embarrassing Rev. Jeremiah Wright? Obama has evolved from “I can no more disown him” to going well beyond that by quitting Trinity United Church of Christ altogether.

How about McCain’s effort to tackle Obama as a blinkered protectionist who wants to overturn the NAFTA accords? No longer. Now Obama dismisses his recent protectionist talk as “overheated and amplified” rhetoric while campaigning in Midwestern primaries.

Can McCain the combat veteran still take down Obama as the liberal proponent of gun control? Nope. Obama says he supports the recent Supreme Court decision striking down Washington, D.C., gun laws — attributing his earlier approval of similar gun-control legislation to the indiscretions of an aide who filled out a questionnaire wrongly.

McCain couldn’t even hold the changeable Obama to his primary pledge to use public campaign funds, and thereby cut down his opponent’s significant edge in private cash contributions. The cash-rich Obama has now sworn off public financing.

And the “judges” — Big Baloney — are in the tank for one of the fighters. Which means Obama can whiff, hit below the belt or bite McCain’s ears and the media will not hold him accountable.

This campaign is not just about liberal/conservative or Democrat/Republican. As voters, we have to ask ourselves other more fundamental questions this time around with two such antithetical choices: How do we define competency and leadership when a war veteran is set against an anti-war idealist, when one who has seen it all is challenged by one who still wants to see it all, when experience and deliberation are set against hope and change?

McCain and Obama are archetypes who transcend the usual politics. And that’s why we can evoke everything from boxing to the Ancient Greeks to figure out who should win.

Obama :

There is a lesson to be learned from generations who have served - from soldiers and sailors; airmen and Marines; suffragists and freedom riders; teachers and doctors; cops and firefighters. It’s the lesson that in America, each of us is free to seek our own dreams, but we must also serve a common purpose, a higher purpose.

When you choose to serve - whether it’s your nation, your community, or simply your neighbor - you are connected to that fundamental American ideal that we want Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness not just for ourselves, but for all Americans. That is why this is a great nation. Because time and again, Americans have been willing to serve on stages both great and small; to draw on the same spirit that launched America’s improbable journey to meet the challenges of each defining moment in our history.

One of those moments came on September 11, 2001. Whether you lived in Manhattan or thousands of miles away in Colorado, you felt the pain and loss of that day not just as an individual, but as an American. You also felt pride - pride in the firefighters who rushed up the stairs while workers rushed down; pride in the police who provided comfort, and the neighbors who lent a hand; pride in your citizenship, and the tattered flag that flew at Ground Zero. That’s why Americans lined up to give blood. That’s why we held vigils and flew flags. That’s why we rallied behind our President. We were ready to step into the strong current of history, and to answer a new call for our country. But the call never came.

Maybe not to Obama and his anti-military party. But thousands of men and women heard the call and joined the military or decided to remain in the military.

How did Democrats reward such service? With pity (soldiers are victims of Bush) or contempt (uneducated or vicious killers terrorizing civilians in the night).

Instead of a call to service, we were asked to go shopping. Instead of a call for shared sacrifice, we gave tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans in a time of war for the very first time in our history.

The nation was already in recession — the tax cuts stimulated the economy and put money into everyone’s pocket. Bush asked Americans to carry on their lives as normal, to not be cowed, much as FDR tried to soothe the American psyche.

Going shopping was just one example of hundreds of activities. Obama should know better.

Here is an excerpt of Bush’s speech to the nation:

“Americans are asking, “What is expected of us?” I ask you to live your lives and hug your children.

I know many citizens have fears tonight, and I ask you to be calm and resolute, even in the face of a continuing threat. I ask you to uphold the values of America and remember why so many have come here.

We’re in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them. No one should be singled out for unfair treatment or unkind words because of their ethnic background or religious faith.

I ask you to continue to support the victims of this tragedy with your contributions. Those who want to give can go to a central source of information, Libertyunites.org, to find the names of groups providing direct help in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

The thousands of FBI agents who are now at work in this investigation may need your cooperation, and I ask you to give it. I ask for your patience with the delays and inconveniences that may accompany tighter security and for your patience in what will be a long struggle.

I ask your continued participation and confidence in the American economy. Terrorists attacked a symbol of American prosperity; they did not touch its source.

America is successful because of the hard work and creativity and enterprise of our people. These were the true strengths of our economy before September 11, and they are our strengths today. “

Maybe Obama was in church that night, listening to his pastor claim 9/11 was chickens coming home to roost.

Instead of leadership that called us to come together, we got patriotism defined as the property of one party, and used as a political wedge to take us into a war that should have never been authorized and never been waged.

No, we got the Democrat leadership calculating how to exploit terror for political benefit. Such as the Jay Rockefeller memo, and the disgracefully politicized 9/11 Commission. Or politicizing efforts to safeguard the nation, such as FISA surveillance (which Obama just flip-flopped on).

Those are wedges, Barry.

We have lost precious time. Our nation is less secure and less respected in the world. Our energy dependence has risen, and so has the specter of climate change. More of our children have been left behind, and our American Dream risks slipping away. The burden of service has fallen on to the backs of our military - and their families - who have endured tour after tour of duty bravely and brilliantly, even though they haven’t always gotten the care and support they have earned.

Tigerhawk:

When Barack Obama asks us to believe in one of his changes, it is never quite clear whether the rubes to be fooled are the Great Unwashed who agree with the Flop or the naifs who agreed with the Flip. The eternal question always is, “who are the rubes”?

Well, in what is obviously a gust-busting turn, the editors of the New York Times are beginning to worry that they are the rubes. In this morning’s lead editorial (”New and Not Improved”), they detail and denounce many of Obama’s post-Hillary pivots to the center. As their irritation builds, I’m thinking that there are only three positions that could explain this editorial.

First, that the editors genuinely believe that Obama could win the general election with his primary season policy ideas. It is believable that they think this because they live inside a Manhattan cocoon, but silly. Second, that the editors would rather that Obama lose than compromise his principles. This seems unlikely in the cold light of a November morning, however satisfying it might feel to spew such romantic drivel on the Fourth of July. Or, third, the editors know that Obama’s pivots will be much more believable to the swing voters if the Times denounces them. This theory holds that the editors are pretending to be outraged so as to further deceive the rubes who prefer the Flop to the Flip.

It is so hard to know which explanation to believe.

For bonus comedy gold, note well the gun-control lie embedded in the editorial (emphasis added):

Mr. Obama endorsed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the District of Columbia’s gun-control law. We knew he ascribed to the anti-gun-control groups’ misreading of the Constitution as implying an individual right to bear arms.

Dudes. In the just-decided Heller case, all nine of the Justices of the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment describes an individual right to bear arms. Are you lying to your own readers, or are you so wedded to your own reading of the Constitution — the anti-freedom reading — that you will not give it up even when Ruth Bader Ginsberg (for example) disagrees with you?

Meet the new hack, same as the old hack. ABC News:

There’s been lots of speculation this week about whether Sen. Barack Obama has an Iraq problem. He does now.

His comments Thursday, saying that he will “continue to refine” his plan to withdraw combat troops from Iraq inside of 16 months, seems likely to leave the campaign on the defensive on this issue for days or weeks.

And it increases the likelihood that his trip to Iraq later this month will not turn out like Obama wants it to.

There will be only one relevant question now out of Obama’s trip now: Do you stand by your plan? Obama is unlikely to give a direct, yes-or-no answer — and that’s where Sen. John McCain and his allies can and will pounce.

Obama has almost always built in some wiggle room into his proposal — including promises to consult with commanders on the ground — but surely not always. For point of reference, go to Obama’s own campaign Website:

“Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.”

That’s pretty unequivocal.

Obama’s migration to the political center has been well-documented, and is already a frame McCain is building around his candidacy. But Iraq — this is qualitatively different, an issue that lives on a higher plane, since opposing the war was the rationale for his candidacy in the first place.

Former NYC Mayor Ed Koch used to ask crowds, “How’m I doin’?” One could rightly ask that of Barack Obama who has garnered the Democrat nomination with the thinnest of resumes.

What successes can he cite? Boston.com took a look at one of Obama’s pet projects as an Illinois pol, a public housing project that used private contractors to get things done.

That sounds good on paper, except things didn’t get done, or done right, and many of those private contractors were financial supporters of Obama.

As a state senator, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee coauthored an Illinois law creating a new pool of tax credits for developers. As a US senator, he pressed for increased federal subsidies. And as a presidential candidate, he has campaigned on a promise to create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund that could give developers an estimated $500 million a year.

But a Globe review found that thousands of apartments across Chicago that had been built with local, state, and federal subsidies - including several hundred in Obama’s former district - deteriorated so completely that they were no longer habitable.

Grove Parc and several other prominent failures were developed and managed by Obama’s close friends and political supporters. Those people profited from the subsidies even as many of Obama’s constituents suffered. Tenants lost their homes; surrounding neighborhoods were blighted.

Some of the residents of Grove Parc say they are angry that Obama did not notice their plight. The development straddles the boundary of Obama’s state Senate district. Many of the tenants have been his constituents for more than a decade.

“No one should have to live like this, and no one did anything about it,” said Cynthia Ashley, who has lived at Grove Parc since 1994.

Obama’s campaign, in a written response to Globe questions, affirmed the candidate’s support of public-private partnerships as an alternative to public housing, saying that Obama has “consistently fought to make livable, affordable housing in mixed-income neighborhoods available to all.”

The campaign did not respond to questions about whether Obama was aware of the problems with buildings in his district during his time as a state senator, nor did it comment on the roles played by people connected to the senator.

Among those tied to Obama politically, personally, or professionally are:

Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to Obama’s presidential campaign and a member of his finance committee. Jarrett is the chief executive of Habitat Co., which managed Grove Parc Plaza from 2001 until this winter and co-managed an even larger subsidized complex in Chicago that was seized by the federal government in 2006, after city inspectors found widespread problems.

Allison Davis, a major fund-raiser for Obama’s US Senate campaign and a former lead partner at Obama’s former law firm. Davis, a developer, was involved in the creation of Grove Parc and has used government subsidies to rehabilitate more than 1,500 units in Chicago, including a North Side building cited by city inspectors last year after chronic plumbing failures resulted in raw sewage spilling into several apartments.

Antoin “Tony” Rezko, perhaps the most important fund-raiser for Obama’s early political campaigns and a friend who helped the Obamas buy a home in 2005. Rezko’s company used subsidies to rehabilitate more than 1,000 apartments, mostly in and around Obama’s district, then refused to manage the units, leaving the buildings to decay to the point where many no longer were habitable.

Campaign finance records show that six prominent developers - including Jarrett, Davis, and Rezko - collectively contributed more than $175,000 to Obama’s campaigns over the last decade and raised hundreds of thousands more from other donors. Rezko alone raised at least $200,000, by Obama’s own accounting.

One of those contributors, Cecil Butler, controlled Lawndale Restoration, the largest subsidized complex in Chicago, which was seized by the government in 2006 after city inspectors found more than 1,800 code violations.

Obama: 

“Throughout my life, I have always taken my deep and abiding love for this country as a given,” Obama said in the 29-minute address to about 1,150 people crowded into a gymnasium at the Truman Memorial Building, named for former president Harry S. Truman.

“It was how I was raised. It was what propelled me into public service. It is why I am running for president. And yet at times over the last 16 months, my patriotism has been challenged — at times as a result of my own carelessness, more often as a result of the desire by some to score political points and raise fears about who I am and what I stand for.”

Another day, another Democrat whining that his patriotism has been called into question. Who and where are the phantoms making such accusations? Why is it that only Democrat politicians seem to hear them? My heavens, could this just be a straw man the Dems like to build and smash?

Well, Protein Wisdom had enough and wrote this:

“Surely we can agree that no party or political philosophy has a monopoly on patriotism.”

Surely, I can disagree.

Surely, I can state categorically that any political philosophy that has as its core value some variation of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is antithetical to American values and, therefore, unpatriotic.

Surely, I can state categorically that any political philosophy makes the “world’s” feelings a priority over American interests or sovereignty is antithetical to American values or survival and, therefore, unpatriotic.

Because dissent, especially from O! Enlightenment, is patriotic.

Surely.

Last year, when MoveOn.org ran a full-page ad in the New York Times (at a discount) headlined “General Betray Us” Obama refused to vote to condemn the slur on a patriotic military man.

Furthermore, Obama was perfectly willing to use debatable issues about the military to cast aspersions on Republican patriotism, saying.

A party that presided over a war in which our troops did not get the body armor they needed, or were sending troops over who were untrained because of poor planning, or are not fulfilling the veterans’ benefits that these troops need when they come home, or are undermining our Constitution with warrantless wiretaps that are unnecessary?

That is a debate I am very happy to have. We’ll see what the American people think is the true definition of patriotism.

Oh, the warrantless wiretaps? Obama now supports them.

 “I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.”

So said Gen. Wesley Clark, acting as a surrogate for Barack Obama’s campaign, invoking John McCain’s military service against him in a personal attack, the very kind of politics Obama says he abhors.

But how about this: when McCain was offered early release by the North Vietnamese because his father was an admiral, he felt honor bound to refuse and spent an additional five years in prison.

Has Obama done anything close that indicates character? Toughness of will? Honor?

Please.

As for Wesley Clark, he is widely despised in the military as an arrogant showboat. In 2003 the New Yorker profiled him.

Shelton, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was Clark’s boss in 1999 when Clark was unceremoniously told that he was being removed from his position as Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. “I’ve known Wes for a long time,” Shelton said.

“I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. . . . Wes won’t get my vote.” Shelton has refused to explain how he came to his conclusion.

Bill Ayers, former Weatherman terrorist and friend of Obama, writes on his blog: 

On the death penalty, I’m an abolitionist; on education and health care, a universalist; on economic growth, a minimalist, while on economic policy, a socialist; on military power deployed in the service of occupation and conquest, a pacifist; on the possibility of progressive political change, a pessimist of the head and an optimist of the heart.

Good to know. But what’s an economist minimalist? Someone who likes poverty?

Click for more. Even more here.

Obama — part Jimmy Carter,  part Al Gore?

Barack Obama released his first general election ad on Friday, which seems aimed above all to answer some early concerns about his biography and experience. It’s a well made ad, but it also offers an example of the kind of brazen padding of the resume that Obama will inevitably need to engage in, and which will carry serious risks for him.

About 46 seconds into the ad, we are told that Obama “passed laws” that “extended healthcare for wounded troops who’d been neglected,” and in the usual manner of these political commercials we are given a little citation at the bottom. The citation reads “Public Law 110-181 1/28/08”. That law is the only federal legislation cited in the ad — the other two items mentioned were from the Illinois legislature and referred to other issues raised in the ad.

Public Law 110-181 was the 2008 defense authorization bill. It passed the Senate by 91 to 3 in January, with six Senators not voting. Among those six absentees was Barack Obama. So he cites a bill he didn’t even vote for. Did he contribute to it in some way that might be reasonably referred to as extending healthcare for wounded troops who’d been neglected? It certainly doesn’t seem that way, as even Obama supporters at the Daily Kos discovered when they tried to answer some of the bloggers who pointed to Obama’s citation of the bill.

George Will:

Listening to political talk requires a third ear that hears what is not said. Today’s near silence about crime probably is evidence of social improvement. For many reasons, including better policing and more incarceration, Americans feel, and are, safer. The New York Times has not recently repeated such amusing headlines as “Crime Keeps on Falling, But Prisons Keep on Filling” (1997), “Prison Population Growing Although Crime Rate Drops” (1998), “Number in Prison Grows Despite Crime Reduction” (2000) and “More Inmates, Despite Slight Drop in Crime” (2003).

If crime revives as an issue, it will be through liberal complaints about something that has reduced the salience of the issue — the incarceration rate. And any revival will be awkward for Barack Obama. Liberalism likes victimization narratives and the related assumption that individuals are blank slates on which “society” writes. Hence liberals locate the cause of crime in flawed social conditions that liberalism supposedly can fix.

Last July, Obama said that “more young black men languish in prison than attend colleges and universities.” Actually, there are more than twice as many black men ages 18 to 24 in college as there are in jail. Last September he said, “We have a system that locks away too many young, first-time, nonviolent offenders for the better part of their lives.” But Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute, writing in the institute’s City Journal, notes that from 1999 to 2004, violent offenders accounted for all of the increase in the prison population. Furthermore, Mac Donald cites data indicating that:

“In the overwhelming majority of cases, prison remains a lifetime achievement award for persistence in criminal offending. Absent recidivism or a violent crime, the criminal-justice system will do everything it can to keep you out of the state or federal slammer.”

Obama sees racism in the incarceration rate: “We have certain sentences that are based less on the kind of crime you commit than on what you look like and where you come from.” Indeed, in 2006, blacks, who are less than 13 percent of the population, were 37.5 percent of all state and federal prisoners. About one in 33 black men was in prison, compared with one in 79 Hispanic men and one in 205 white men.

I keep reading that Barack Obama is smart, yet he continues to reveal an astonishing degree of historical ignorance. 

One of the obvious implications of last week’s Supreme Court decision, which granted inmates at Guantanamo Bay the right of habeas corpus to appeal their detention, is that if Osama bin Laden were captured alive by U.S. forces, the al Qaeda founder could end up in a U.S. civilian court afforded all the protections of law abiding American citizens. 

When Barack Obama was asked about this on June 18th, he suggested that Osama could be adjudicated in the manner of the Nazi War Crime Tribunals at Nuremberg. Obama argued, “I think what would be important would be for us to do it in a way that allows the entire world to understand the murderous acts that he’s engaged in and not to make him into a martyr and to assure that the United States government is abiding by the basic conventions that would strengthen our hand in the broader battle against terrorism.”

The following day, John McCain replied on his website giving Obama a short history lesson.  McCain wrote, “Unfortunately, it is clear Senator Obama does not understand what happened at the Nuremberg trials and what procedures were followed. There was no habeas at Nuremberg and there should be no habeas for Osama bin Laden….By citing a historical precedent that does not include habeas, he sends a signal of confusion and indecision to our allies and adversaries and the American people.” \

It also signifies that Barack Obama does not understand 20th Century History.  Yet this should hardly come as a surprise.  Up until a few weeks ago, Obama thought it was the Americans, not the Soviets, who liberated Auschwitz. 

How did the Nuremberg Trials come about in the first place?  They came about when Nazi Germany surrendered to the Allied powers in May 1945.  The last time I checked Osama bin Laden is the founder of al Qaeda, a terrorist organization and not the head of state or head of any government.  How does an entity that is not a nation state (although harbored by some) enter into an instrument of surrender?  Terrorist organizations like al Qaeda have changed the terms of war as we understand it.

Wasn’t the Messiah spos’d to be “post racial?” 

(Reuters) Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said on Friday he expects Republicans to highlight the fact that he is black as part of an effort to make voters afraid of him.

Highlight how? Does Obama think his race is a secret?

“It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy,” Obama told a fundraiser in Jacksonville, Florida. “We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid.

“They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”

Inexperienced? Yep. Plus naive, economically ignorant, stuck in the past, socialistic and too chummy with scummy people.

He said he was also set for Republicans to say “he’s got a feisty wife,” in trying to attack his wife Michelle.

No, she’s a whiny, elitest ingrate.

“We know the strategy because they’ve already shown their cards. Ultimately I think the American people recognize that old stuff hasn’t moved us forward. That old stuff just divides us,” he said.

Obama, born to a white mother from Kansas and a black father from Kenya, has cast himself as a candidate who can bridge divides within the country, including those involving race.

Whoop, there it goes. Them crafty Republicans got Reuters to let it slip that Obama is part black!

The notion that Republicans are anti-minority is just so regressive, as this collection of Bush cabinet officials demonstrates.

It’s also old, divisive fear mongering.

Rightwing Nuthouse notes:

We expected it, of course. It is his greatest political weapon and he will use it again and again, shamelessly accusing the GOP of bringing up his race (even, as this proves, when they don’t) in order to deflect criticism away from he and his wife for anything they say or any associations in their past.

The press will let him get away with it because they are terrified of being accused of racism themselves.

What makes Obama’s race card such an effective weapon is that it is virtually impossible to accuse him of using it. He is the oppressed minority. You don’t question oppressed minorities in this country. Anything they define as racism is accepted almost without question. To do so is to prove your racism. Ergo, the perfect “Catch 22:” If the GOP denies Obama’s charges of “racism” and accuses him of using the race card, the blowback on the GOP will be “Who are you to question a black man when he says he’s been slimed by a racist smear?” – the subtext being that you are racist for questioning him.

The flip side of that is if the GOP says nothing, the charge goes unanswered and they are convicted in the court of public opinion as racist pigs.

Bee-utiful.