Women Count Reacts to Ludacris Lyrics

Women Count, in a letter to its members, demands action be taken against the rapper Ludacris and his label Def Jam for releasing a song with such offensive lyrics. They also call on both parties, and the Obama campaign demand the song be pulled from the shelves.

The leadership of both parties must step up to condemn such hateful speech and demand apologies. The Obama campaign has criticized the lyrics, but we call on the presumptive party nominee, who is the celebrated subject of the new song, to go even further: It is not enough to condemn the song, we are calling on our presumptive Democratic Nominee to call on the artist and the label to pull the song and make a public apology. Now.

---

E-mail now. Send an e-mail to (http://www.defjam.com/site/contact.php) and demand that the song be pulled out of circulation and that Ludacris and his record label issue an apology.

Tell your friends. Forward this e-mail to everyone you know. We promised that we’d jump on these issues. But we need you to take it from here.

Join our movement. Sign up (http://www.womencountpac.com/Site/Welcome.html) and join our fight. Get involved in the direction the women’s movement is taking. Make sure that your voice is heard.

McCain Up 4 in USA Today/Gallup Poll

Gallup/USA Today Poll: McCain +4

Republican presidential candidate John McCain moved from being behind by 6 points among "likely" voters a month ago to a 4-point lead over Democrat Barack Obama among that group in the latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. McCain still trails slightly among the broader universe of "registered" voters. By both measures, the race is tight.

Apparenty no European vacation bounce for Obama. Issue wise McCain had a strong week even though media focused on the visuals that favored Obama. Could this be showing that Americans are paying more attention to substance than show?

Ignoring Supply and Demand

There is one element of the energy debate that is really quite simple. Lack of supply leads to increased prices. Democrats have claimed that drilling will have little effect on prices. However, President Bush repealed the moratoreum against off shore drilling, and prices dropped. They dropped because speculators see additional drilling as more likely to occur, and that keeps them from gambling on a shortage. Now there are a myriad of positions one can take on drilling. Drill here, don't drill there, drill everywhere, whatever you choose. However, the argument that a lack of supply isn't driving up prices is dishonest and foolish. The American people don't need an economics degree to recognize that the energy crisis is due to a lack of energy. While energy alternatives should be developed, there also needs to be a recognition that there is an immediate need for supply that is clearly effecting the economy. High energy costs effects everyone from businesses to individuals, and Congress should have the backbone to have an honest discussion about where the country stands.

Obama's Stagecraft Hits a New Low

The National Review Online is reporting that the Obama campaign approved the leak of a 'private prayer' in Jerasalem, in Obama's Prayerful Stagecraft.

What initially seemed to be a journalistic scoop of dubious moral propriety now seems to be a case of an Israeli paper being played by the Barack Obama campaign. Maariv, the second most popular newspaper in Israel, was roundly criticized for publishing the note Obama left in the Kotel. But now a Maariv spokesperson says that publication of the note was pre-approved for international publication by the Obama campaign, leading to the conclusion that the "private" prayer was intentionally leaked for public consumption

The Obama campaign's showmanship is in large part what has propelled Senator Obama to his party's nomination. However, in this case his showmanship has revealed him as disrespectful and shallow. This is a sacred location and tradition for many people that Senator Obama just exploited for votes. A little respect for other people's faith, culture, and traditions should be a no-brainer for someone who likes promote himself as a citizen of the world.

Obama Backtracking On Iraq

Senator Obama’s statements on Iraq have become increasingly difficult to follow. ABC News tracks the latest controversy about whether or not Senator Obama said additional troops would help reduce violence during the debate on the surge in Iraq. At that time on Face the Nation he said that additional troops would not reduce violence, and on MSNBC he predicted the surge would fail. As ABC notes,

Asked about these predictions on Sunday's Meet the Press, Obama told NBC's Tom Brokaw that "I know that there's that little snippet that you ran," referring to the MSNBC clip, "but there were also statements made during the course of this debate in which I said there's no doubt that additional U.S. troops could temporarily quell the violence. But unless we saw an underlying change in the politics of the country, unless Sunni, Shia, Kurd made different decisions, then we were going to have a civil war and we could not stop a civil war simply with more troops."

So according to Senator Obama he stated that more troops would help, and he stated more troops would not help. However, ABC has found that other than a reference to an immediate short-term reduction in violence in neighborhoods, Senator Obama did not make a statement about increased troop levels helping to reduce violence. As ABC notes, "It doesn't seem he made any comments along those lines until August 2007."

ABC Article From the Fact Check Desk: Did Obama Say During the Debate Over the Surge That "There's No Doubt that Additional U.S. Troops Could Temporarily Quell the Violence?"

CNN Can't Help But Love Obama

Last week CNN on the front page of its web site featured an article titled Unlike McCain, Many Seniors Surf the Web. Listed in their technology section, is this really a politically unbias approach to discussing seniors on the internet? In another more dubious manner CNN again showed that it just can't contain its Obama Love by citing a poll from a German tabloid as reported by Newsbusters*,

How many Germans would vote for Barack Obama for our president? CNN claims to know. During the last weekend that Barack Obama was in Germany, CNN used a graphic on the Wolf Blitzer show that claimed that 72% of Germans preferred Obama with only a mere 11% who favored John McCain. Of course, CNN didn't think it relevant to mention that only 501 Germans were even polled, nor that the poll was conducted by German pollster Emnid for a notorious tabloid newspaper named Bild -- not the most trustworthy of sources.

Apparently people are seeing this bias as statistic show that CNN's credibility ranking has dropped significantly in the last ten years**,

Changing public views of CNN perhaps best exemplify these trends. In 1998, 42% of those familiar enough with CNN to rate the network said they believed all or most of what CNN reported, significantly more than for any broadcast or cable news outlet tested. Today, just 28% give CNN the highest believability rating, a share which is statistically indistinguishable from most other television news sources.

* News Busters - CNN's Questionable Use of Tabloid's Poll to Tally German Obama Support

** The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press - Online Papers Modestly Boost Newspaper Readership

McCain Obama News Links

The Audacity of Ego - Boston Globe

Obama’s Prayerful Stagecraft – National Review Online

McCain Gains On Obama in Poll – ABC News

Why You Think Obama Is Dangerous – Canada Free Press

McCain Wins Rochester Again – Fosters Democrat

McCain campaign: Obama shortchanged injured troops - AP

John McCain: One Prisoner of War's Fresh Appraisal of U.S. in 1973 – US News and World Report

Why Obama snubbed the troops: no photo op allowed - Hot Air

Obama: I Have Become a Symbol - Washington Post

McCain Promotes Drilling for Oil Off the US Coast – USA Today

Women voters aren't warming to 'cool' Obama – Chicago Sun

Obama: McCain 'Wildly Inappropriate' for Wounded Troop Criticism

From the AP McCain campaign: Obama shortchanged injured troops

Republican John McCain's campaign on Saturday sharply criticized Democratic rival Barack Obama for canceling a visit to wounded troops in Germany, contending Obama chose foreign leaders and cheering Europeans over "injured American heroes."

Obama's campaign called the accusation "wildly inappropriate." His spokesman has claimed that the visit to a military hospital in Germany was scrapped after the Pentagon raised concerns about political activity on a military base. Earlier, though, the campaign had said Obama decided the visit might be seen as inappropriate politicking. However, the Pentagon said the senator was never told not to visit.

---

"Senator McCain knows full well that Senator Obama strongly supports and honors our troops, which is what makes this attack so disingenuous. This politicization of our soldiers is exactly what Senator Obama sought to avoid," Vietor said.

Obama was flying from London to Chicago on Saturday when the McCain campaign issued a statement from Joe Repya, a retired Army colonel who said Obama had broken a commitment to visit the wounded Americans.

"Several explanations were offered, none was convincing and each was at odds with the statements of American military leaders," Repya said. "For a young man so apt at playing president, Barack Obama badly misjudged the important demands of the office he seeks."

If Senator Obama sought to avoid 'politicization' of his scheduled meeting with the troops, why not ditch the cameras and campaign staff and go visit the injured soldiers quietly under the radar? Apparently it is 'wildly inappropriate' and 'disingenuous' for Senator McCain to confront Senator Obama with facts. The facts remain, as they have from the begining, the Pentagon never told Senator Obama he couldn't visit the hospital simply that he could not campaign there. The facts are that Obama first said he didn't go because he thought it was 'inappropriate' to visit the troops on his campaign's dime. Then he blamed it on the Pentagon. So Senator Obama and his campaign can be express outrage at the McCain campaign if they'd like, but McCain isn't the one snubbed wounded American soldiers.

First Posted at: Obama: McCain 'Wildly Inappropriate' for Wounded Troop Criticism

Obama Political Cartoon

McCain - No Pentagon Regultaion Prevents Obama from Visiting Wounded Troops

McCain: "I know of no Pentagon regulation that would have prevented him from going their without the media and the press and all the associated people...

...If I had been told by the Pentagon that I couldn't visit those troops and I was there and wanted to be there I guarantee you there would have been a siesmic event, and so I think he had the opportunity to go without th media, and I'll let the facts speak for themsleves."

The Obama camp can still give no reason for cancelling the trip other that finding out that media and campaign staff would not be allowed in the hospital.

Whose Looking Out for Small Town America?

There has been criticism of Senator McCain's campaign making stops in small towns in Pennsylvania and Ohio this week, while Senator Obama tours the world with a throng of media. Obviously the images for Senator Obama are much grander; adulating crowds, foreign leaders hugging the Senator, and the media swooning the site of Senator Obama in Ray-Bans and a flak jacket. Yet what is troubling is that the media isn't just mocking Senator McCain for his stops in local restaurants and grocery stores, that's part of the deal when running for office; but they're talking down about 'regular America'.

The importance of the American voter is being ignored. America is close to being a 50/50 mix of big cities and small towns, and the only way you find out about what people are concerned about in these towns is to go there and talk to them. Granted most small towns are not flashy, their citizens often don't scream or swoon at the sight of a famous politician. However, if asked you will find out how the economy is effecting their lives. You will find out if their job have gone overseas, or if high gas prices are threatening their way of life. Maybe the imagery of the McCain campaign could be improved, maybe he's just not going to be the rock star media darling candidate, but it seems like he should receive some credit for doing the work, and meeting small town America.

Media Afraid to Report on Obama Biography

CBS News reports in its article End Of The Obama Affair reports that tensions are building among the Obama campaign and members of the media due to hyper-control of biographical and other information.

Reporters who have covered Obama's biography or his problems with certain voter blocs have been challenged the most aggressively. "They're terrified of people poking around Obama's life," one reporter says. "The whole Obama narrative is built around this narrative that Obama and David Axelrod built, and, like all stories, it's not entirely true. So they have to be protective of the crown jewels." Another reporter notes that, during the last year, Obama's old friends and Harvard classmates were requested not to talk to the press without permission.

This is what's troubling about Senator Obama, no on really knows who he is, and the media is partly to blame. Their job isn't to ogle the candidates it's to find out information, and most just aren't willing to do that. Many reports out this week show that the media is miffed that the McCain campaign called them on their Obama love fest. They routinely site that Senator McCain in 2000 jokingly referred to the media as his base as proof that they aren't bias. However, anyone with eyes and ears can tell that this year Obama is their paramour.

The problem with the obsession is that no one is reporting on facts and issues. Still no one has asked if Senator Obama believes in 'black liberation theology'. No one has asked why he has some many ties to shady people like William Ayers or Tony Rezco. No one asks why he hasn't conducted hearings on Afghanistan as committee chair. No one has asked him about the money directed to Reverend Pfleger's church while he was in the Illinois state Senate. These are fair questions for a presidential candidate, yet the media sits on its hands and belly-aches when anyone points out that they are not doing their job, and the public misses out on important information.

Obama No Cameras Then No Troops

The Wall Street Journal Reports...

The Obama camp said they canceled the event after the Pentagon ruled it was a campaign event, and needed to be funded from the senator’s election kitty.

“Senator Obama did not want to have a trip to see our wounded warriors perceived as a campaign event when his visit was to show his appreciation for our troops and decided instead not to go,” Obama advisor, retired Gen. Scott Gration, said in a statement.

How about visiting the troops without the media tagging along, then it wouldn't look like a campaign event. Senator Obama is spending $5 on advertising during the Olympics, but won't visit wounded soldiers on his campaign's dime? Apparently, it's more important for him to have the media take pictures of him at the Ritz Carlton gym lifting weights, than to take a moment leave the press behind and talk to the people who defend this country.

---

NBC and Hot Air are now confirming that Obama did not visit the troops because press would not be allowed to also attend.
Why Obama snubbed the troops: no photo op allowed
MSNBC First Read

Obama No Cameras Then No Troops

Obama McCain – Form vs. Substance

One thing you have to give Senator Obama, he can put on a show. He knows what sunglasses to where with a flak jacket. He knows just the right moments to lose the baby blue tie and roll up his sleeves, and shoot some hoops. He can address thousands of adoring fans, and whip them into a frenzy. He can do all this without addressing any issues. He can fix the world just don’t ask him how.
On the other hand, Senator McCain is not the most gifted speaker to ever run for president. It sort of looks like someone is chasing him when he reads from a teleprompter. He doesn’t look like a J. Crew model, he looks like someone you might run into at the hardware store. However, ask him a policy question anywhere anytime and he’ll give you a thoughtful honest response.

The media seems somewhat baffled that McCain has been closing in on Obama’s lead. No pretty pictures come out of the McCain campaign. He’s talking to folks in restaurants, in grocery stores, and in town halls across America. How could that possibly be more appealing than Senator Obama’s stage show. Screaming fans, massive crowds, the media eating from the palm of his hand, but no ‘world tour bounce’ for Senator Obama.

Substantively, what did come out this week is that Senator McCain was right about the surge. He made a solid foreign policy decision that could have hurt him politically, and the country is better off for it. Could voters possibly be choosing substance over form? Could the media’s crush on Obama be so obvious that voters disregard their glowing reviews of him? Could the fact that Senator Obama doesn’t answer questions, be starting to backfire? Could ‘hope’ and ‘change’ be wearing thin for people paying $4.00 a gallon at the pump? This race could possibly come down to whether voters choose the candidate of substance or choose the candidate of show.

Hype the Obama Effect - the movie

Obama's Foreign Policy Confusion

Senator Obama continues to make foreign policy statements that show off his confusion and inexperience. As Charlie Gibson points out, Senator Obama's speech at AIPAC showed him to be a rookie. Senator Obama has long list of foreign policy misteps. He agreed to meet with foreign dictators in his first term without preconditions, a statement immediately met with criticism from Democrats and Republicans alike. He has stated just this week that their has been progress in Iraq, but isn't convinced the Surge has worked, and this just adds to his litany of condradictory statements on Iraq. He's said Iran isn't a serious threat then said shortly after that it was a grave threat. Polls have shown that voters don't trust Obama as Commander-in-Chief. He is a risky candidate for president in peace time, but a dangerous candidate at a time of war.

Obama Rewrites his own History

The National Review Online catches Obama trying to rewrite his foreign policy response during a YouTube debate last year.

Today:

QUESTIONER: "A year ago in South Carolina you said you would meet, in your first year as president, with President Ahmadinejad without preconditions. Is there anything you have heard today here in discussions with Israeli leaders that has made you rethink that pledge or are you still standing by that?"

OBAMA: "Dan, I think you have to take a look at what the question was in South Carolina and how I responded. The question is would I meet with leaders without preconditions in pursuit ... But I think what I said in response was that I would, at my time and choosing, be willing to meet with any leader if I thought it would promote the national security interests of the United States of America. , And that continues to be my position, that if I think that I can get a deal that is going to advance our cause, then I would consider that opportunity. But what I also said was that there is a difference between meeting without preconditions and meeting without preparation." (Barack Obama, Press Conference, Sderot, Israel, 7/23/08)

As a reminder the question was would Senator Obama meet with leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea in his first term as President without precondidtion. Obama's answer was yes.

Here's the tape...

Obama's Ich Nine Beginner Poster

Something tells me this poster won't play well with anyone who has any recollection, or has read anything about World War II. This is part out of control ego, and part stupidity. Certainly the Obama himself doesn't do the graphics for his campaign, but anyone with a modicum of history or art history knowledge should recognize that using a candidate's face in a decidedly European style poster with German writing harkens back brutal dictators with cult-like followings.

---

Hat tip to TheNextRight for the poster. Hat tip to Fox News for Ich Nine Beginner remark.

A Good Week for McCain Despite the Media

The media has summed up this week as a bad for McCain because of Senator Obama’s rock and roll world tour. However on issues, the week goes to McCain. Finally, people are recognizing that the surge has worked; a strategy change that McCain championed under challenging circumstances. The media spun Maliki’s statement about the withdrawal of troops to sound like it was an endorsement of Obama, but Obama has been wrong on foreign policy throughout this campaign. Discussions about withdrawals are occurring because of the surge, a surge that Senator Obama will not recognize as a success despite overwhelming evidence. If voters view Iraq and foreign policy with more than superficial interest McCain wins hands down.

The McCain campaign also called out the media for its blatant bias in its new web ad. The media doesn’t like to be criticized, but they’re not even able to deny this weeks Obama love-fest. While continuing attacks on the media may sound like sour grapes to some, it is a reality that needs to be addressed. This week made it abundantly clear to any rational or balanced thinker that the press is in the tank for Obama, and in the long run public recognition of this is a plus for McCain.

It’s hard to deny that there is some frustration coming from the McCain camp and supporters. The obsurdity of the New York Times trying to dictate a candidate's foreign policy would get on anyones nerves. However, while understandable it isn’t helpful. It gives the media another opportunity to sum up the campaign as angry, frustrated, or not as strong as the Obama campaign.

However, a couple state polls show this race as getting even closer. Rasmussen shows McCain with a ten-point lead in Ohio. A Detroit News poll has Obama up only 2 points in Michigan. While state polls seem to be all over the board, it suggests that the country isn’t as enamored with Obama as the media is, and it’s another good sign for the McCain campaign. The race is extremely tight despite a numerous reports singing Obama’s praises, and that another reason that this is a good week for McCain.

Countering Obama Supporter's Racial Charges

This blog has not addressed race because of of a lack of understanding in how to handle the issue an appropriate and useful manner. However, the gentleman in the folowing clip makes an excellent point about how many Obama supporters use race as a wedge issue, and how to counter these claims of racism.

Media's Obama-Love Results in Unlikely No Obama Coalitions

As stated in several posts if there is one thing Clinton and McCain supporters can fully agree on it is that the mainstream media is in the bag for Obama. The lack of reporting on Obama flip-flops is a major source of frustration for both Clinton and McCain supporters. It is rarely mentioned that Obama signed a pledge saying he would take public financing before changing his mind. The media glosses over the Senator’s multitude of contradictory statements about Iraq. His change of position on gun control receives little attention. There has been almost no coverage on Senator Obama’s plans to continue President Bush’s faith based initiatives under a new name. With the exception of Jesse Jackson’s cutting remarks, the media has all but forgotten Obama’s associations with controversial clergy members, and other less than admirable associates.

However, the reality of politics is that a campaign rarely points out the flaws and shady dealings of their own candidate. The media's rose-colored interpretation of Obama in many ways is what has made Obama a viable candidate. They may see their Obama worship as admirable, but Senator Obama remains inexperienced, and in many ways a risky and unknown entity.

In this context it is understandable why the Clinton campaign may have underestimated Senator Obama. How could a candidate with strong 20 year ties to a radical preacher and a church that openly preaches ‘black liberation theology’; who has a good friend and major fundraiser under indictment for fraud; who has zero foreign policy in a time of war possibly win the nomination? The answer turns out to be the press.

Now that the general election is upon us, it is becoming clear to McCain supporters what Clinton supporters already have known, that Senator Obama has not been held accountable for his actions. As all the network news anchors follow Senator Obama to Iraq and Europe, McCain supporters are left scratching their head as Senator McCain’s visit to Iraq last Thanksgiving was not covered by any of the networks at all. McCain supporters suddenly can relate to Clinton supporter’s frustration, as it becomes clear that a victory in November will have to come despite this incredible media bias.

This has formed a somewhat odd alliance of McCain and Clinton supporters. Sites like Nobama Mission, Nobma Network, The No Unity Report, Democrats4McCain, and Clintons4McCain have emerged with the basic understanding that their members and readers may disagree on a variety of issues, but agree that McCain (and/or Clinton) are preferable to Obama. Many of us Independents don’t have qualms about voting for or associating with members of either party, but it is amusing to find under the same umbrella ‘Leftist Lesbian Atheist for McCain’ and ‘Evangelicals for McCain’. Now that's a broad coalition. The common thread is the recognition that Senator Obama is ill-suited to become President and Commander-in-Chief.

Obama's Civilian National Security Force.

The Obama quote is, "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

This was slipped into a speech addressing public service, and I'm going to have to confess that I'm dumbfounded. What in the world is he proposing? A non-military security force that is funded the same as the miltary? What are their powers and why are civilians being put in charge of national security? Why shouldn't we rely on our military to achieve national security objective? Isn't that's the whole reason for having a military. This needs some serious explaining. Any new government organization comparable in size and funding to the military would need explaining, but a civilian national security force is radical and illogical.
Hat Tip to Savage Politics

Obama's Politically Convenient Outrage

First off let me be perfectly clear, I don’t like attacks on candidate’s families and spouses. That being said, Senator Obama’s remarks in defense of his wife are pure political opportunism. Most of the criticisms of Michelle Obama are based on things she said on the campaign trail. You can’t have it both ways, statements made on the trail are open to critique. Phil Graham says something stupid he gets criticized, same goes for Michelle Obama. She made some comments that people were truly offended by, and the ensuing criticism is what happens when surrogates mess up.

Second, Senator Obama specifically mentioned Sean Hannity in his criticism. This has nothing to do with criticism of his wife; this has to do with Sean Hannity clearly articulating the numerous problems with Obama’s candidacy. McCain supporters weren’t thrilled when Hannity criticized McCain as the Republican nominee, and Obama supporters aren’t thrilled that he routinely points out Senator Obama’s radical associations. However, he’s not a name-caller. His criticisms aren’t below the belt; they are that of a conservative. If Senator Obama could find one instance of Sean Hannity calling his wife names, or treating her in a derogatory manner then I’ll take back my criticism and apologize.

Finally, what makes Senator Obama’s complaints so decisively political is his blanket condemnation of the McCain campaign and conservatives in general.

“SENATOR OBAMA: I wouldn't say the McCain campaign itself, but I would say that the apparatus of conservative columnists, blogs and the like. Talk shows, talk radio....When you see in the span of two or three or four weeks essentially the same talking points being used on a whole variety of shows or a whole variety of columns, over and over again....Hillary Clinton was subject to this, others have been subject to this in the past...It is part of our political environment that I'd like to change.”

First off, nice touch bringing Senator Clinton into this, but I didn’t hear any of this outrage when Senator Obama’s buddy Pastor Pfleger called Clinton a white supremist. In fact Senator McCain came to Clinton’s defense and Senator Obama didn’t bother. Second, is Senator Obama really going to make the argument that nasty bloggers, columnists, and personalities are only on the right? I know that plays well into the current political atmosphere where everything conservative is considered evil, but Senator Obama knows this is bunk. Every few weeks, a left wing blogger has to be told to stop making fun of the way Senator McCain’s teeth look, because his dental problems were a result of torture. It only takes a few moments to look through blogs to find accusations that Senator McCain is a war criminal because he was a fighter pilot in Vietnam. The Politico article Who’s smearing Whom shows that Obama surrogates have made numerous derogatory remarks about Senator McCain’s service. While at the same time Obama claims ‘The Smears are Coming! The Smears are Coming!’ citing that eventually he will be victim of ‘the Republican attack machine’ and 527’s. Yet the McCain campaign has been vigilant in not allowing any questionable campaigning to occur in their camp.

Obviously this is good campaigning by team hope. No one is going to challenge Obama for defending his wife. The problem is that this is another case of misrepresentation. Group all Republicans and conservatives into one group with George Bush and Karl Rove and declare them all evil. Forget that the party nominated its most un-Bush-like candidate, and just stereotype all those people as the same and forget about the truth.

Obama Iraq Documentary

Obama Iraq

Planned Parenthood Kicks Off The Silly Season

Planned Parenthood has released new ads against John McCain criticize him for dodging a question about birth control and Viagra. Now I'm a girl, I get it, it's obnoxious that insurance companies cover Viagra but not birth control; but what in the world does that have to do with becoming president? Did Planned Parenthood think he should propose an executive decree that Viagra and birth control be treated the same by the insurance companies? I say, thank God he didn't answer that question, or every late night talk show along with YouTube would be playing that quote on a continuous loop from now until election day. The only thing that the clip shows is that Senator McCain is incredibly accessible to the media, and he doesn't screen his questioners.

Jib Jab Campaigning Video

Send a JibJab Sendables® eCard Today!

McCain Doctrine / Surge Success Leaves Obama Spinning

Barack Obama - “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.”

This is the crux of Obama’s Iraq problem. He doesn’t want to look back, but he has based his campaign on his original statement against the Iraq War; yet he’s shown no particular incite since that initial decision. Senator Obama doesn’t want Senator McCain to discuss tactics because Senator McCain has been tactically correct, while Senator Obama has demonstrated zero understanding of military tactics.

The Obama strategy for months has been to tie Senator McCain to President Bush and the Iraq War. However, this simplistic approach ignores historical realities. Senator McCain bucked his party, and the president, and called for Donald Rumsfeld’s removal as Secretary of Defense. Then he angered people on both sides of the aisle by pushing for the surge/counterinsurgency strategy. Remember it was a Democrat that labeled the surge ‘the McCain Doctrine’ as Source Watch notes,

The "surge" has also been called the McCain doctrine, a label coined by John Edwards to describe a proposed surge in troop levels and escalation of the war in Iraq named after its "chief advocate", Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Senator McCain did not just sign on to the president’s war strategy; he was one of the leaders that pushed the president to adopt the counterinsurgency strategy. He made a stand that was considered political suicide; he pushed for an unpopular strategy having just seriously criticized the president’s Secretary of Defense.

On the campaign trail he and Senator Biden were the only candidates in either party giving details about Iraq. They voiced their opinion and took questions from frequently skeptical audiences. While their views were different; they both should be commended for directly addressing the most pressing issue of the day in a direct and honest manner.

While progress was slow it did come, and it came due to the counterinsurgency strategy. Some people hesitate to accept this success because they are angry that we even went to war, or are unwilling to accept progress due to their anger at the president and the myriad of mistakes made on his watch. However, this isn’t about the president, or the candidates for that matter. People’s lives hang in the balance; the decisions made by the next president will determine the fate of many people of whom most of us will never know. Like it or not, we are a country at war, and looking forward is incredibly important. Choosing a candidate who understands war, the military, tactics, and strategy is vital. Senator McCain may not be everybody’s first choice, but he fits the bill for commander-in-chief at this particular point in history.

Commander-in-Chief test McCain Wins in a Landslide

In the latest ABC poll when people were asked about which candidate would make a good Commander-in-Chief, Senator McCain won in a landslide. 72% believe he would be a good Commander-in-Chief, and only 48% believe Senator Obama would be a good Commander-in-Chief.



Senator Clinton agrees, and explains why...

Mr. Bilingual

Obama Immigration

To folow up on the article Obama Unjustly Takes Credit for Immigration Reform by Minimizing McCain Senator Mel Martinez in a report by Fox News has also pointed out that Obama is now championing legislation that he actually helped kill.

McCain, who worked on comprehensive reform efforts in the run-up to his presidential bid, is pushing back hard against Obama, who described himself this week as a “champion” of such immigration legislation.

“The crux of the issue is, when the chips were down, when we were desperate to round up votes, Obama was killing comprehensive immigration by offering up a poison pill (of controversial amendments),” said Florida Sen. Mel Martinez in a McCain conference call. “Now he takes credit for the immigration effort. … He was AWOL. … Nothing could be further from the truth.”

Obama Unjustly Takes Credit for Immigration Reform by Minimizing McCain

Senator Obama has been courting the Hispanic vote, and inflating his resume at the same time. Anyone who followed the Republican primary last year, knows that Senator McCain's campaign virtually imploded because of his work on the bi-partisan immigration bill. His campaign did have money problems, and faced difficulties with Senator McCain's full-throated support of the surge strategy in Iraq. However, the reaction of conservatives to the immigration bill was overwhelming and decidedly clear. They didn't want it, and they didn't want anyone associated with it. Senator Obama, while being of little help at the time is now taking credit for the bill, while trying minimize Senator McCain's role.

One difficulty with this approach is that the previous year's attempt at immigration reform was titled McCain/Kennedy. Can the Obama campaign name any legislation with his name in the title? Can the campaign name any bipartisan legislation worked on by Senator Obama besides ethics reform, which far from controversial? Can they name any association Senator Obama had with a Republican? McCain's association with Kennedy is routinely sited by Republicans as proof that he's 'not really one of us'; anything like that from Obama? Did Senator Obama receive death threats like Senator McCain did for his work on the immigration bill? Can the Obama campaign site just one politically risky move that Senator Obama has ever made? For Senator Obama to misrepresent himself and Senator McCain in this way is in incredible act of hubris and deception.

Obama Overstates His Role On Immigration - Chicago Sun Times

No matter if you are—or are not — voting for presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Az.), he deserves credit for trying to forge a bipartisan deal on immigration in 2005 and 2006 at great personal political risk, a situation unfamiliar to rival Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)

McCain put his comeback presidential bid in peril because of his leadership role with Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) to find a path for millions of illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S.

---

In the meantime, Obama on the campaign trail inflates his leadership role — casting himself as someone who could figure out how to get something done. Obama “did not absolutely stand out in any way,’’ said Margaret Sands Orchowski, the author of “Immigration and the American Dream: Battling the Political Hype and Hysteria,” and a close follower of the legislation.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a McCain ally and a key player on immigration, said Obama was around for only a “handful” of meetings and helped destroy a 2007 compromise when he voted for making guest worker visa programs temporary. A permanent guest worker program was to be a trade for a legalization program to cover many illegal immigrants.

---

On Thursday in Fairfax, Va., Obama was asked about his qualifications to understand Latino needs. After noting his work as a community organizer and state senator — he spoke of McCain. “John McCain bucked much of his party and worked with Ted Kennedy, worked with me and others to help shape comprehensive immigration reform legislation in the Senate. And I thought that was courageous of him.” Obama, in a sly verbal stroke, made himself an equal on immigration leadership to Kennedy and demoted McCain to a helper.

Editor's Note: I typically save my most blatant pro-McCain rants for the blog McCain Independents

Obama Decides What is Important to Women, and Attacks McCain Hypocritically

While fair pay has already been addressed in Equal Pay for Women Promised by Obama Practiced by McCain and Obama's Unrealistic Promise of Equal Pay; it is an issue that needs to be revisited as Senator Obama's has decided to attack Senator McCain on not supporting equal pay for women. The main problem with this attack is that CNS News reported in the article Obama's for Equal Pay, Yet Pays Female Staffers Less Than Males, that not only does Obama pay his female staff less than his male staff, but Senator McCain pays his female staff MORE than his male staff.

The second problem is the Obama campaign's tack. In addressing Clinton's female supporters right after the primaries the NYT reports Senator Obama said, "If women take a moment to realize that on every issue important to women, John McCain is not in their corner, that would help them get over it." 'Every issue important to women' apparently is fair pay and abortion rights. It's hard not to see this as an incredibly condesending remark. Foreign policy, anti-torture legislation, campaign finance reform, immigration, national security, political courage and decency, apparently not of interest to women according to the Obama philosophy. Yet lets address these 'two issues' that Obama believes are important to women. First equal pay; Senator McCain is not taking a stand against fair pay, he's taking a stand for small government. Politically it would be easier to take the simplistic view that promoting lawsuits will actually result in fair pay for women. This is fair pay lip service, the actual number of women in any position to sue their employer is minimal to non-existant. This is just election year politicking. As for choice, this is the issue that the Obama campaign is clinging to in hopes of winning female voters. Senator McCain is pro-life, and the article Yes I'm Female, Pro-Choice and Pro-McCain gives a more detailed rationale for voting McCain.

Again the trouble is how the Obama campaign uses this issue. The Obama camp is quick to point out the politics of fear used by the Bush administration, but a similar strategy is being used to threaten women with the repeal of Roe v Wade if McCain is elected. Supreme court appointments matter, but they aren't guarantees that the court will side one way or another on any particular issue. Since 1975 the presidency has been held by Republicans for 21 years and Roe v. Wade still stands. A woman's vote shouldn't be taken for granted just because a candidate pays lip service to the 'two women's issues.'

The Media's Love Affair with Barack Obama

If there is one thing that hard core Clinton supporters and McCain supporters can agree on whole heartedly it is that the media is in the bag for Obama. A litany of double talk, and position flips has warranted virtualy no attention from the main stream media. Senator Obama has the craziest group of assosciates of any national level politician in recent history; yet the media is in love, and they will report no news that could tarnish their utopic image of him. Charles Krauthammer in his article The Ever-Malleable Mr. Obama details the presses behavior,

Normally, flip-flopping presidential candidates have to worry about the press. Not Obama. After all, this is a press corps that heard his grandiloquent Philadelphia speech -- designed to rationalize why "I can no more disown [Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown my white grandmother" -- then wiped away a tear and hailed him as the second coming of Abraham Lincoln. Three months later, with Wright disowned, grandma embraced and the great "race speech" now inoperative, not a word of reconsideration is heard from his media acolytes.

Worry about the press? His FISA flip-flop elicited a few grumbles from lefty bloggers, but hardly a murmur from the mainstream press. Remember his pledge to stick to public financing? Now flush with cash, he is the first general-election candidate since Watergate to opt out. Some goo-goo clean-government types chided him, but the mainstream editorialists who for years had been railing against private financing as hopelessly corrupt and corrupting evinced only the mildest of disappointment.

Indeed, the New York Times expressed a sympathetic understanding of Obama's about-face by buying his preposterous claim that it was a preemptive attack on McCain's 527 independent expenditure groups -- notwithstanding the fact that (a) as Politico's Jonathan Martin notes, "there are no serious anti-Obama 527s in existence nor are there any immediate plans to create such a group" and (b) the only independent ad of any consequence now running in the entire country is an AFSCME-MoveOn.org co-production savaging McCain.

Obama Ads Misleading and Dishonest

The National Review Online has called Senator Obama on padding his resume in recent television commercials. One misleading statement regards credit taken for wounded troop legislation that he never voted on.

"About 46 seconds into the ad, we are told that Obama “passed laws” that “extended healthcare for wounded troops who’d been neglected,”
---------
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."

The second misleading statement refers to welfare legislation that he was less than enthusiastic about supporting. The primary problem with his ad claim is that he takes full credit for a legislation that he didn't even want.

"Obama was one of the co-sponsors of the act, but in the debate surrounding it he actually said the state was basically forced into it by a federal law he would have opposed (“I probably would not have supported the federal legislation, because I think it has some problems. But I'm a strong believer in making lemonade out of lemons.”) But the ad makes it sound like it was Obama’s idea, and then says that he “slashed the rolls by 80 percent,” thus taking credit for the declining welfare rolls achieved by the federal law Obama would have opposed"

A Return to 'It's the Economy Stupid'

The McCain campaign released a statement of support from over 300 economists that include, "Nobel Prize winners, business economists with experience in the private sector, policy economists with experience in government and academic economists from major universities and state and community colleges."

"We enthusiastically support John McCain's economic plan. It is a comprehensive, pro-growth, reform agenda. The reform focuses on the real economic problems Americans face today and will face in the future. And it builds on the core economic principles that have made America great."

The McCain economic plan keeps government spending under control by vetoing pork barrel spending and pausing non-military discretionary spending. The plan opposes tax increases and would cut the corporate tax rate, taking away an incentive for companies and jobs to go overseas. There is also a focus on reforming entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. The plan supports free trade agreements, and institutes worker retraining programs to assist those whose jobs have gone abroad.

Conversely, the Obama plan features dramatic spending increases, and a roll back of the Bush tax cuts. While the Obama campaign has promised not to raise taxes on the middle class that does not match his record as,

"This year, Barack Obama returned to the United States Senate twice to vote in favor of a budget resolution which raises income tax rates by three percentage points for the 25, 28 and 33 percent tax brackets. This would mean a tax increase for those earning as little as $32,000."

Tax increases, particularly when the economy is struggling, is known to slow growth. The McCain plan of keeping taxes low and reducing the corporate tax rate is a pro-growth strategy, while the Obama strategy of increased taxes and spending is a model that has been proven unsuccessful. The Carter administration offered similar tax and spend proposals that were unsuccessful that lead to the famous line, 'It's the Economy Stupid.'

McCain Endorsed: The Awkward Dance of Religion and Politics

Senator McCain gained the backing of about 100 Christian leaders in Denver this week,

"Collectively we feel that he will support and advance those moral values that we hold much greater than Obama, who in our view will decimate moral values," said Mat Staver, the chairman of Liberty Counsel, a legal advocacy group, who previously supported Mike Huckabee's candidacy.

---

A second person who attended the event, but asked not to be named, said that the group was motivated principally by a desire to defeat Barack Obama. "None of these people want to meet their maker knowing that they didn't do everything they could to keep Barack Obama from being president," the participant said. "You've got these two people running for president. One of them is going to become president. That's the perspective. That that's the whole discussion."

This comes in the same week that Senator Obama renewed his attempts to court the evangelical vote. This endorsement not only deflates those efforts, it points out the odd pairing of politics and religion in this presidential campaign. One of Obama's electiblity arguments during the primaries was that he could win over evangelicals, but then Reverend Wright came along. One of the most over-the-top public figures to hit the scene in years has been Obama's pastor and spiritiual advisor for twenty years. So this week Senator Obama announces that he will continue President Bush's faith based initiatives under a new name. This makes a lot of people on both sides of the isle uncomfortable. What sort of religion will Senator Obama be promoting as Chief Executive?

This leads to Senator McCain's awkward dance with Christian conservatives. While this week many concluded to back him fully, in many ways it is due to the serious issues they have with Obama. Senator McCain has shown a reluctance to talk about religion. He is quick to credit his survival as a P.O.W. to faith, but rarely addresses the issue unless asked directly. However, this may be a good thing, or even a very good thing. Certainly it has given him some political difficulties in the Republican party, but promoting a religious doctrine through an elected official can be problematic. The seperation of church and state is an incredibly important part of the consititution, and when a leader either promotes, or appears to promote, a certain brand of religion it gives all those not under that umbrella a very uneasy feeling. Certainly people of faith have every right to question their leaders in any way they see fit. However, there are excellent reasons for a political leader to not market their religion.

Oh Please Obama Surrogates Make This Race About Experience!

Senator Webb decided to chime in on Wesley Clark's comments about Senator McCain's military experience by saying that McCain should 'calm down' on using his military experience in the campaign. The trouble with that remark is that McCain wasn't the one to bring up his military service; Clark brought it up. McCain's platform isn't 'vote for me me I was a P.O.W.' he simply presents his military service as a part of his resume. However, Senator McCain did have a distinguished military career and retired from the Navy as a captain having been awarded the Silver Star, "Besides the Silver Star Medal, McCain also received the Legion of Merit with a combat “V” and one gold star, a Distinguished Flying Cross and a Bronze Art Medal with a combat “V” and two gold stars."*

There is no reason Senator McCain shouldn't be proud of his miltary service, but he has plenty of other qualifications too. He's served in the House and Senate for nearly twenty five years. He's a member of the Armed Services Committee, the Commerce Committee, and the Committee for Indian Affairs. He's played a key legislative role in the Senate. He has sponsored bills such as McCain-Fiengold campaign finance reform; was a member of the Gang of Fourteen, a bipartisan group that made a deal to keep the Senate rules in tact, and he was the only Republican to call for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation. He's repeatedly stood up for human rights pushing through anti-torture legislation, and was the only Republican presidential candidate to promise to close Guantanamo Bay when elected.

That's the condensed version of Senator McCain's resume. So please Obama campaign, please make this election about experience because three years in the Senate, and seven years in the state legislature versus twenty years in the Senate and a lifetime of service to this country is what the election should be about.

*McCain Commendations

Blocked Sites and A Recommendation for Google

First off a confession; I like Google. I've used many of their services over the years and have found that they offer a number of useful free services along with a number of affordable business services that help small businesses. That being said Google has some explaining to do. A series of pro-Hillary or anti-Obama were blocked recently. The authors locked out unable to post and being sent an email saying that spam-bots had determined these sites were spammers. Now, Google has returned service to most of these blogs, but has yet to adequately explain itself. There are two reasons Google should provide the users explanations. First, manners. You shut someone out then you return service with no explanation it's bad form not to provide a reason. Second, rumors. The internet is rumor prone even when there are no mitigating factors. When you combine actions that appear to be intended to silence a particular group of people, with reports that Google employees are among the top Obama donators, then rumors fly. If there was no wrong doing then explain what happened, if there was wrong doing fess-up and fix it. Google has a history of being a good company, don't tarnish that record through poor communication or poor business practices.
From NYT Bits Blog

Did Google use its network of online services to silence critics of Barack Obama? That was the question buzzing on a corner of the blogosphere over the last few days, after several anti-Obama bloggers were unable to update their sites, which are hosted on Google’s Blogger service.
The bloggers in question, most of them supporters of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, and all of them opposed to Senator Obama, received a notice from Google last week saying that their sites had been identified as potential “spam” blogs. “You will not be able to publish posts to your blog until we review your site and confirm that it is not a spam blog,” the Google e-mail read.

If so, that would be an embarrassment for Google. On its Web page explaining the “flag” feature, Google says that “it can’t be manipulated by angry mobs. Political dissent? Incendiary opinions? Just plain crazy? Bring it on.”

From David Brooks NYT

When you break it out by individual companies, you find that employees of Goldman Sachs gave more to Obama than workers of any other employer. The Goldman Sachs geniuses are followed by employees of the University of California, UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, National Amusements, Lehman Brothers, Harvard and Google. At many of these workplaces, Obama has a three- or four-to-one fund-raising advantage over McCain.

Obama Surrogate's Smear While Obama Cries Foul

Recent political debate has revolved around the question of whether General Clark's comments about Senator McCain were a greater part offense or greater part idiotic. In the Politico article Who's Smearing Whom they call Senator Obama on his surregates string of oddly similar attacks on McCain's military service. Also noting that the Obama campaign has routinely cried 'smear' or 'about to smear' with no evidence that either the McCain campaign or the Republican party has any intention of playing dirty. The question is; were Wesley Clark's criticism so rediculous and ham-handed that people will start recognizing this pattern of unseamly attacks as more than just a coincidence?

Contrast the absence of smears from the McCain camp with some of the outlandish remarks made by high-ranking Obama supporters. In April, West Virginia Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV said that because McCain “was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet,” and “was long gone when they hit,” the Arizona senator who spent five and a half years in a Vietcong tiger cage having his arms repeatedly broken didn’t really understand the carnage of war. “What happened when [the missiles] get to the ground?” Rockefeller asked a crowd at an Obama rally. “He doesn’t know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues.” That the great-grandson of John D. Rockefeller would impugn the wartime experience of John McCain is especially rich, given that the only “battle” Rockefeller has seen is when he hunts wild game at his 80-acre ranch in Jackson Hole, Wyo.

Rockefeller’s smear was the first salvo in a pattern of attacks meant to insinuate that McCain’s Vietnam experience not only shouldn’t count as meaningful “experience,” but rendered him psychologically unfit for presidential office. In May, Iowa Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin said of McCain, “Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous.” Over the weekend, retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark said that McCain is “untested and untried,” and elaborated that, “I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.” Clark, you may remember, ran for president in 2004 on his record as a career military officer, so his comment, which he has not retracted, was not just morally offensive but self-discrediting.

The smears didn’t stop there. On Monday, Obama foreign policy adviser Rand Beers unfavorably compared McCain’s POW experience with “the members of the Senate who were in the ground forces or who were ashore in Vietnam,” and who “have a very different view of Vietnam and the cost ... than John McCain does because he was in isolation essentially for many of those years and did not experience the turmoil here or the challenges that were involved for those of us who served in Vietnam during the Vietnam War.”

It’s curious how anyone could argue that a man with such visceral understanding of the capacity for what America’s enemies will do to our men and women in uniform doesn’t fully appreciate the cost of war. But even more troubling is the unmistakable pattern of these smears, all of them unsubtly alleging that McCain is an unhinged, mentally unstable warmonger who would deploy soldiers capriciously because he hasn’t truly experienced the horrors of ground battle. Indeed, the claims of these four men — and the short period of time in which they were all uttered — are so similar in tone that one would be foolish not to at least consider the possibility they were coordinated by the Obama campaign.

Muddled Foreign Policy or Clear Foreign Policy

This clip, which has been posted before as a part of the 'Susan Rice False Statements' story, shows Senator Obama agreeing to meet foreign dictators with no precondidtions; followed by Senator Clinton and Edwards disagreeing with that strategy. The reason why this comes up repeated is that this isn't just about a change in position, it is about knowing your stuff. There is a reality, that despite many people's unhappiness with the current administration's choices, we are a country at war. Picking a leader with experience and understanding of foreign policy matters, and it matters greatly.


This shows Senator McCain's reaction to an Obama change in policy regarding Israel...


Finally, here are parts Senator McCain's speach AIPAC...