The latest talking point of the the right is that Barack Obama couldn't be bothered visiting injured troops because ____________. Insert your own lie just as they're doing. Andrea Mitchell mentioned briefly that the Obama campaign feels that McCain's Pentagon contacts had something to do with preventing the visit and now she has incurred the wrath of the right. I thought she was one of them.

ANDREA MITCHELL: The background on the military flap is that they [Obama campaign] had clearly planned a trip to Ramstein [AFB]. They were planning to visit the injured troops. And then the Pentagon explained that they couldn't go as part of a political trip. The Obama campaign thought that they could go, leave the press corps on the tarmac, and then take off with military escort and make this one last visit. As he did in Iraq, by the way. He visited a casualty unit in the Green Zone, without photographers, as part of the congressional delegation. But the military said that the rules are that he could only go as part of a previously-arranged congressional delegation, to Ramstein.

Clearly, people in the campaign are really angry. They had wanted this to be the final stop on the trip here in Germany, and to do it without the press corps, just to do it on his own. But the objections of the military are that he is now being staffed by campaign aides, not by his Senate staff, who are the people of course with him when he went with Hagel and Jack Reed in Iraq. So, you know, the anger here in the campaign is pretty intense at the Pentagon. They feel that the military are drawing some lines--they're not saying this publicly of course--but drawing lines that they might have drawn for other people. He was planning to just go by himself, not with cameras, not with any entourage, as he had done in Walter Reed in the past in Washington, as he did in Iraq. Joe.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: It's curious, if that's the case, why the campaign didn't make that announcement yesterday, and allowed stories to go like this. I'm sure there's going to be a lot of he said/she said in the days to come about this.

MITCHELL: But they thought that they couldn't win. Yeah. They thought that they were, you know, you know, no-win situation, that the Pentagon, perhaps the military with cooperation from some Republican operatives and, that's the sort of scuttlebutt, that there have been some foreign policy advisers of John McCain with connections in the Pentagon who had something to do with this. But that is, perhaps, just the normal political paranoia of the season.

But there's hope. Joel Stein of the Los Angeles Times shows us how:

He's a nerd: Yes, he seems cool because he plays basketball and fist-bumps and knows about pop music. But that's because we're comparing him with other politicians, all of whom are older than our grandparents. Compare Obama with other 46-year-olds and he's Urkel. He's the kid at the Model United Nations conference who says, "Guys, guys, c'mon. Let's not make fun of Eastern Europe." And the brutal truth is, even if women faint at your rallies, you'll never feel cool inside when you have Alfred E. Neuman's ears.

Read more funny stuff here.

H/T Katy

Apparently this video was not shot on a sound stage in in California with a bunch of liberal actors. These are actual troops stationed in Kuwait and it was shot this week.

And just in case Republicans plan on "caging" the votes of the troops, again, it doesn't look like these were all McCain voters.

"was unable to attend because he was 'at church.'" It was a reference to the candidate's troubles with his controversial former minister.

Of course, the President has no such aversion to mentioning his desired candidate Senator McCain by name. Nor does Bush have an aversion to fundraising for the presumptive Republican nominee.

One would assume that the current resident of the White House wants McCain to become the next resident. But I question that assumption when the White House 'accidentally' sends a Reuters story of an interview Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki gave to Der Speigel, a German news outlet, stating Maliki supports the 16 month US withdrawal plan of He Who Must Not Be Named's to "an extensive distribution list."

As ABC's Jake Tapper reports:

The misfire comes at an odd time for Bush foreign policy, at a time when Obama's campaign alleges the president is moving closer toward Obama's recommendations about international relations -- sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, discussing a "general time horizon" for U.S. troop withdrawal and launching talks with Iran.

Whoopsy.

The Washington Post says:

The mixup came after the White House announced Friday that it had agreed with Maliki to set a "general time horizon" for U.S. troop withdrawal.

Time Horizon? Which, of course is nothing like a timeline, timeframe, or any such thing, because we all know that:

the horizon is the line where the sky meets the earth -- and thus can never be reached.

I am certain that this is the desired withdrawal date that the White House and Senator McCain have in mind; one which can never be reached (much like the elusive definition of Success in Iraq).

What does the McCain camp have to say about the Der Speigel article? Well, that it was mistranslated. Too bad that the Iraqi government again stated their support of the He Who Must Not Be Named timeline.

It appears that there has been the adoption of many of Obama's policies of late. Before we know it, the Republican's will be telling us that these were their policies all along.

And the most priceless quote of the day? This by Christopher Hayes over at The Nation (about the Iraqi government's take on Obama's timeline):

What's truly amazing about this turn of events is that it more and more looks like the Prime Minister of Iraq is going to help engineer regime change back in the US.

For that, can I get an Amen?!

: : : : : : : : : :

Truthout

The McCain campaign has an active fantasy life -- one that includes the fantasy of feminist women flocking to the polls to vote for him. As if!!

In The Nation, Katha Pollitt put it simply: "[T]o vote for McCain, a feminist would have to be insane."

There are a lot of Hillary Clinton supporters out there who are angry and disappointed, but they are not stupid or insane.

Much of the recent talk has focused on PUMAs (the acronym stands for "Party Unity My Ass"), a group supposedly so angry about the Democratic primary that they won't vote for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). But as blogger Amanda Marcotte reported, PUMA PAC was started by a McCain donor, according to the Federal Election Commission.

McCain counts on his constant pandering and flip-flopping to keep people confused about his actual record on ANYTHING, let alone women's issues.

In 1999, McCain said he backed Roe: "Certainly, in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."

But on NBC's "Meet the Press" in May 2007, responding to a question about his statements in 1999, McCain said: "Well, it was in the context of conversation about having to change the culture of America as regards to this issue. I have stated time after time after time that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision."

McCain has also voted in support of "backdoor" and "parental rights" pro-life issues.

[I]n 2004, he supported the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which makes it a criminal offense to harm or kill a fetus while committing a violent crime - essentially deeming the fetus a person in the eyes of the law.

In July 2006, McCain voted for legislation that would fine and/or imprison physicians who perform abortions on out-of-state minors if there are parental notification requirements in their home state. In October 2007, he voted for legislation that would cut Health and Human Services grants to organizations that perform abortions.

Regarding sex education, contraception and healthcare for low income women and children, McCain is positively midevil.

He opposed legislation requiring that abstinence-only programs be medically accurate and based in science. He voted to abolish funding for birth control and gynecological care for low-income women, and against funding for public education on emergency contraception.

He also voted against a measure that would require insurance companies to cover prescription contraception, despite the fact that many currently fund male reproductive pharmaceuticals, such as Viagra.

This exchange between McCain and Adam Nagourney of the New York Times is chilling:

In March 2007, the New York Times' Adam Nagourney asked McCain whether grants for sex education in the United States include instructions about using contraceptives, or if they should abide by Bush's abstinence-only policy.

After a pause, McCain responded, "Ahhh. I think I support the president's policy."

Nagourney followed up: "So no contraception, no counseling on contraception? Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?"

After another pause, McCain replied, "You've stumped me."

He "thinks" he supports the president's policy? And he has no clue as to whether or not contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV.

This man is a parent! It's obvious McCain is completely out of the parenting loop, or he should be, since he has no clue.

Then there's this exchange during the 2000 primary, after McCain was asked what he would do if his then-15 year old daughter became pregnant:

"The final decision would be made by Meghan with our advice and counsel," McCain said, referring to himself and his wife, Cindy. When reporters suggested that this view made him, in fact, pro-choice, McCain became irritated. "I don't think it is the pro-choice position to say that my daughter and my wife and I will discuss something that is a family matter that we have to decide."

Um, that would be a pro-choice position, Mr McCain. Unless he's confused about the definition of "choice," which is very likely.

McCain had this to say about the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (for which he didn't vote either way):

"They need the education and training, particularly since more and more women are heads of their households, as much or more than anybody else. And it's hard for them to leave their families when they don't have somebody to take care of them."

Wow. I think I just felt a pat on my head... The Ledbetter case was about 20 years of pay discrimination, not education and training. Who needs someone to take care of them...?

Frankly, this is only the tip of the iceberg. McCain is running for president of pasty-white rice cake rich old guys -- not as president for ALL Americans. His ability to call his wife a trollop and a cunt in the presence of reporters, or at all, is an indication of his lack of respect for 50% of the population of this country.

Go here to read the whole article, it's well worth the read.

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.633687&w=425&h=350&fv=]

Based on his response to Barack Obama's foreign policy speech, it seems John McCain may not understand the distinction between strategy and tactics.

Obama made a major speech today outlining his strategy, or overall vision, regarding foreign policy. The emphasis on the speech was to put Iraq in the context of the larger issues facing the US and the world and to make clear the thinking process behind Obama's priorities going into his administration.

Obama also summarized his view that McCain, like Bush, does not have a strategic plan:

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

John McCain responded to the Obama speech by saying this:

"[Obama] is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to Gen. Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time," McCain said at a campaign event in New Mexico.

"In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: First, you assess the facts on the ground; then you present a new strategy."

With his commentary, McCain has made it clear that he does not comprehend the distinction between strategy (an overall vision) and tactics, despite his more advanced age, his longer resume, and his experience as a POW.

Dictionary discussion: "In military usage, a distinction is made between strategy and tactics. Strategy is the utilization, during both peace and war, of all of a nation's forces, through large-scale, long-range planning and development, to ensure security or victory. Tactics deals with the use and deployment of troops in actual combat."

Obama has presented a strategic vision and has said he will develop tactical plans that align with that overall vision based on the transient situation. Obama's strategy addresses not only the situation in Iraq, but also Afghanistan, the struggle against terrorism, the Middle East in general, international alliances and relationships in Europe, Asia, and Africa, and the role of an oil-dependent economy on US security, international relations, and conflict.

By contrast, McCain has presented no broad strategy or vision of any kind. He points to his support of "the Surge" (a tactical move in Iraq) and has dismissed Obama's strategic vision through the use of tactic-oriented rhetoric.

It's a sad commentary on the state of the mainstream media that they have been replaying McCain's sound bite all day long without picking up the fact that McCain does not understand the meaning of the word "strategy".

Here are a few news items (and opinions) of interest this Monday morning:

Bush is lifting the ban on off-shore drilling today. Of course, he can't do that alone. Congress also has to act as well..

The Fed and the Treasury step in and offer to help out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The McCain camp is now trying to say that Obama and the Dems WANT the US to lose in Iraq because it helps them politically.. (I would still like someone to describe what "winning in Iraq" would look like, and how would we KNOW when we achieved it...)

From ThinkProgress: Despite Aversion To Golfing During The War, Bush Will Attend A McCain Golf Fundraiser Hosted By His Parents

From The Independent (UK): Bush to hasten Iraq troop withdrawal in bid to help McCain win White House (I'll say it again - what.a.slime..)

The Existentialist Cowboy: Impeach, Remove, and Try George W. Bush for War Crimes and Mass Murder!

"The Ahnold" says he would be open to the idea of serving as energy czar in a Barack Obama administration.

Scott Ritter writes "Iran Shows Its Cards".

: : : : : : : : : :

Dear Senator Obama,

I just slogged through a lecture by The New York Times about how it is the "far left" that is most offended by your vote to ratify retroactive immunity for the US telecommunications companies that provided aid and comfort to George W. Bush's illegal program of domestic spying. Further, The Times implied, "mainstream Democrats" take a more mature and pragmatic view. The piece seemed to read like public relations material. But that's silly - it was news, of course.

In fairness, the political center moves around more than a set of goalposts on the White House lawn. So, the relevancy of the Times's argument has a limited shelf life regardless. The real issue is twofold.

Trust and the Law

Let's assume the time has come to limit the scope of your campaign signs to the word "Change." The tag line "... we can believe in" has outlived its credibility. You may indeed change some things, but there won't be much to believe in. It will pretty much be on a case-by-case basis from this point forward. The difference is trust. Before you had it, now you don't.

The problem is that what was at stake in the FISA legislation vote was more than a political ideal; it was the rule of law. You ratified an unconstitutional and egregious degradation of the Fourth Amendment. That won't go away easily. The United States's Constitution is not merely the security blanket for "civil liberties groups." It is the birthright of all Americans. It is our national treasure.

The thing that jumps out at me when I review the reader comments posted at the bottom of our article pages is the mounting outrage at what can only be described as lawlessness in our nation's capitol. There is a growing consensus that the consent of the governed is lacking. That may not sound like a big thing, but I assure you it is. The alternative to the rule of law is the law of rule.

The current commander in chief has established a function of monarchy in the oval office. Would you choose to undo that, or assume it? If the decision to ratify FISA was not your own inspiration, then at whose behest did you do so? And what next will they want? These are deep questions.

We are a nation today dying of convenience, political convenience, chiefly. In 2000, we were a nation rushing to put hanging chads behind us. Dealing with what really happened in Florida was inconvenient. Seven and a half years later, we are still paying the debt. We are in a bloody and endless quagmire in Iraq, the nation's economy is in ruins and the greatest threat to freedom and democracy comes from our own leaders.

The New York Times and much of the nation's commercial press make defining the "center" the focal point, the principal instrument of their brand of political activism. The "center" becomes the popular thing, what everyone is thinking, what we should be thinking. But that assumes that you don't have a loved one deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan, or that you are not facing foreclosure on your home, or trying to get medical treatment your health maintenance organization says you can't have. Then you won't be fooled. Take note, that group is growing everyday.

All things of political concern to individual citizens in this country taken into consideration, one has to wonder if the commercial press isn't really defining the center as the center point between powerful commercial interests and the interests of individuals.

A Landslide for Change

We already had one landslide for change in this country: the 2006 Congressional elections. In fairness, the US occupation of Iraq was the primary impetus for change there, but by no means the only. When you think about it, you really can't get a landslide out of the far left, even if you throw in civil liberties groups. The numbers just aren't there. You have to have the center. So, if the center voted to end the US occupation of Iraq, how would the center vote on retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies, who participated in spying on the center?

For a leader, principle is terra firma (solid earth). Pragmatism places one foot on a slippery slope. Opportunism is descent. And Machiavelli waits at the bottom.

Choose wisely, Mr. Obama.

Wild weekend for news.. Almost to the point of surreal.

From Raw Story: Bush backs Israel in plans to attack Iran:

President Bush is closer to approving an Israeli military strike on Iran, according to a source for the Sunday Times.

As the Times reported Sunday, Bush has given an "amber light" to an Israeli plan to attack Iranian nuclear sites with long-range bombing capabilities.

"Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you're ready," the Pentagon official said.

"It’s really all down to the Israelis," the official went on. "This administration will not attack Iran. This has already been decided. But the president is really preoccupied with the nuclear threat against Israel and I know he doesn’t believe that anything but force will deter Iran."

From the Times Online (UK): Nouri al-Maliki ready to oust US from Iraq green zone

Also from Raw Story:  'New Yorker' cover angers Obama supporters, campaign:

On the cover of the upcoming New Yorker: Satirical portrayal of Obama through the eyes of his opposition, or McCain recruitment poster?

Senator Obama shrugged and said he had "no response" when asked about the cover on Sunday by CBS News' Maria Gavrilovic. The Obama campaign, on introspection, was more decisive on the issue; it might have appreciated the humor, if not for the delivery.

The cover art, depicting Senator Obama in a turban, while wife Michelle, packing an assault rifle, shares a "fist bump" with him, is described by the New Yorker as artist's Barry Blitt's lampooning of "scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama's campaign."

"The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create," countered Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton. "But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

I agree as well.

From Truthout: Nine US soldiers were killed in Afghanistan, along with 15 others being injured on Sunday.

A multi-pronged militant assault on a small, remote U.S. base close to the Pakistan border killed nine American soldiers and wounded 15 Sunday in the deadliest attack on U.S. forces in Afghanistan in three years, officials said.

Hmmm, now this is interesting: Iraq handing out cash to people on the streets
How long do you think till they start doing that here..?

From The NY TImes: Rescue Sought for Fannie and Freddie:

Alarmed about the sharply eroding confidence in the nation’s two largest mortgage finance companies, the Bush administration will ask Congress to approve a rescue package that would give the government the authority to buy billions of dollars in stock in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and also lend to the companies to meet their short-term funding needs, people briefed about the plan said on Sunday.

Separately, the Federal Reserve voted on Sunday to also open a lending facility for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, if they need emergency capital. The two companies would be able to post their own securities as collateral.

The plan calls on Congress to give the government the authority over the next two years to buy an unspecified amount of stock in the two companies. Over the same period of time, it would permit the companies to have greater access to the Treasury, by expanding the credit line that each company has from the Treasury. Each company now has a $2.25 billion credit line, set nearly 40 years ago by Congress. At the time, Fannie had only about $15 billion in outstanding debt. It now has total debt of about $800 billion, while Freddie has about $740 billion.

Today the two companies also hold or guarantee mortgages valued at more than $5 trillion.

More here: US spells out Fannie-Freddie backstop plan

You wonder how things could get any worse.. (Knock on wood..)

Cynthia McKinney is the Green Party's presidential nominee.

Hagel's going to Iraq with Obama.

From CommonDreams: White House Puts Warming Threats on Back Burner (Geez, what a surprise..)

The Bush administration Friday rejected its own experts’ conclusion that global warming poses a threat to the public welfare, launching a comment period that will delay action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at least until the next president takes office.

From Democracy Now: Stop-Loss: A Look at the US Military Policy that Creates a “Backdoor Draft” to Force Soldiers to Continue Service

From BradBlog: McCain Campaign Quickly Scrubs Website of References to Its Allegedly Outed Alabama Campaign Chair:

The John McCain campaign scrubbed its website today to remove all references to its Alabama campaign chairman, Attorney General Troy King.

King, who is known for extremist views on religion and who has frequently made homophobic statements, including calling gays the "downfall of society," is the subject of rumors that his wife recently discovered him having sex with another man. Read on..

Geez, Ya just can't make this stuff up..

And ending with this VERY interesting article from The Daily KOS: The Environmental Cost of the Cold War. Do take the time to read it..

I may do this all over again tomorrow..

: : : : : : : : : :

Photo by drcorneilus. Photo is a panorama of Hayward Field at the University of Oregon on the first day of the Olympic Trial. Used with permission.

: : : : : : : : : :

The Bush administration has decided not to take any new steps to regulate greenhouse gas emissions before the president leaves office, despite pressure from the Supreme Court and broad accord among senior federal officials that new regulation is appropriate now.

From Politico: Pelosi says House Judiciary may hold hearings on Kucinich impeachment resolution. We already posted this (following Dennis Kucinich introducing a single Article of Impeachment against George W. Bush yesterday on the House floor), but we need to keep talking about it, and we all need to contact the House Judiciary and our Representatives and press them to act on this. John Nichols of The Nation has more.

Dan Kennedy of The Guardian (IK) ponders the question "Should Bush Be Tried For War Crimes?".

Brent Budowsky writes "America's Security Gap":

The great issue in 2008 is the public sense that events are out of control, that we drift deeper into dangerous waters while our leaders lack the clarity or courage to act...

Today from The NY Times: U.S. Weighs Takeover of Two Mortgage Giants (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). More here on the importance of this. An update just in, from The Huffington Post, "Paulson: No Bailout For Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac".

With all the press over the last several days about the missile testing by Iran, it is unclear how many missiles were launched. Iran said they were long range missiles. The Pentagon said they were short range missiles.. The photo that was released showing 4 missiles taking off at once was doctored to make it look like there were multiple missiles being fired. I am just curious who did the doctoring? Who benefits from Iran setting off rockets? Could this have something to do with the US and their plans to deploy missile defenses in eastern Europe?
Will that be enough of an excuse for Israel to bomb Iran?

From TPM Muckraker, "New Book Reveals Existence of Secret Red Cross Torture Report":

In a secret report last year, the Red Cross found that the CIA's interrogation techniques were "categorically" torture..

Barack Obama is considering picking Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) as his vice president. Obama's campaign has asked Dodd to turn over information as part of its VP vetting process. Is this about all the flack Obama has been getting after casting his vote to give the telecoms immunity? Dodd was instrumental in opposing the law, an update to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This is so confusing..

Glenn Greenwald wrote a piece today on the ACLU and their attempt to sue the government over the new FISA Law: "Interview with ACLU re: constitutional challenge to new FISA law". In this article he makes the point that I tried to make yesterday:

The most overlooked fact in the entire FISA debate -- the aspect of it that renders incoherent the case in favor of the new FISA law or even those who dismiss its significance -- is that virtually nobody knows what the spying program they're immunizing entailed and towards what ends it was used -- i.e., whether it was abused for improper purposes...

...There has been no Congressional investigation into the NSA program -- meaning an effort to compel the Bush administration to turn over to Congress information about who was subjected to the illegal, warrantless spying and towards what purposes...

I'll ask the question again.. Could they have been spying on members of Congress, from the moment they took [the] office, gathering information that could be used against them in order to control them? Just as J. Edgar Hoover did with powerful politicians in the 1950's? Could that be the reason the Democratic Congress has continued to fold time after time instead of offering any resistance to this lawless administration as they stomp all over the Constitution? Will we ever know?

From Wikipedia:

COINTELPRO Years: "Hoover amassed significant power by collecting files containing large amounts of compromising and potentially embarrassing information on many powerful people, especially politicians."

Chris Hedges and Naomi Klein have joined the ACLU in their lawsuit against the government. Hedges says that the FISA update is 'giant step toward fascism'.

From ThinkProgress: In “a troubling sign of global warming,” European scientists say that a large plate of floating ice shelf attached to Antarctica appears to be breaking up. The European Space Agency said yesterday that satellite images show that Wilkins Ice Shelf is “hanging by its last thread,” which could “put the remainder of the ice shelf at risk.”

And for anyone who might have missed this yesterday, Karl Rove blew off his subpoena yesterday and didn't show up to testify before the House Judiciary. Instead, he skipped the country. Someone just whispered in my ear "I have no problem with him leaving the country, I just have a problem with him coming back..." I tend to agree.

Linda Sanchez, who is on the House Judiciary Committee, says Karl Rove "should go to jail".. ThinkProgress has video.

And now for the blues...

BB King, Billy Preston and Bruce Willis - Sinners Prayer

Nominee Called Traitor to Democrats' Losing Tradition

The liberal blogosphere was aflame today with new accusations that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) is trying to win the 2008 presidential election.

Suspicions about Sen. Obama's true motives have been building over the past few weeks, but not until today have the bloggers called him out for betraying the Democratic Party's losing tradition.

"Barack Obama seems to be making a very calculated attempt to win over 270 electoral votes," wrote liberal blogger Carol Foyler at LibDemWatch.com, a blog read by a half-dozen other liberal bloggers. "He must be stopped."

But those comments were not nearly as strident as those of Tracy Klugian, whose blog LoseOn.org has backed unsuccessful Democratic candidates since 2000.

"Increasingly, Barack Obama's message is becoming more accessible, appealing, and yes, potentially successful," he wrote. "Any Democrat who voted for Dukakis, Mondale or Kerry should regard this as a betrayal."

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean said that he was "sympathetic" to the concerns of bloggers who worry that their nominee seems stubbornly bent on winning the election, but he warned them that the DNC's "hands are tied."

"If Sen. Obama is really determined to win, I don't think any of us can talk him out of it," Mr. Dean said.

Liberal bloggers said that they would be watching Sen. Obama's vice-presidential selection process "very closely" for signs that he is plotting to win the election.

"Barack Obama still has a chance to pick someone disastrous as a sign that he wants to lose this thing," Ms. Foyler wrote. "If not, he should brace himself for some really mean blog posts."

This is SATIRE..

The news is slow in Europe today. Or, more likely, I am so used to the daily dish of killing and get killed, starving and get starved and double-crossing and getting duped, I am by now too weary to write about that. Today's round-up will  bring us to Venezuela, Iran, Iraq and Berlin.

Let's start with The Independent. Johann Hari points to one remark Ingrid Betancourt made, shortly after being freed. Among the people she thanked for her liberation was - Hugo Chavez.

As Ingrid Betancourt emerged after six-and-a-half years – sunken and shrivelled but radiant with courage – one of the first people she thanked was Hugo Chavez. What? If you follow the news coverage, you have been told that the Venezuelan President supports the Farc thugs who have been holding her hostage. He paid them $300m to keep killing and to buy uranium for a dirty bomb, in a rare break from dismantling democracy at home and dealing drugs. So how can this moment of dissonance be explained?

Yes: you have been lied to – about one of the most exciting and original experiments in economic redistribution and direct democracy anywhere on earth. And the reason is crude: crude oil. The ability of democracy and freedom to spread to poor countries may depend on whether we can unscramble these propaganda fictions. (read more)

You will find in this story, if you care to read on, that 59 percent of Venzuelans are quite happy with their democracy. Compare that to the US.

Look at The Guardian. Simon Tisdall reminds us, that the focused propaganda we hear about Iran and their nuclear program leaves out many political developments in a very complex country:

Yet as often in the past, unfavourable estimations of Iranian intent fail to take into account the fierce, contradictory political forces at work in one of the world's least reported, least understood major countries. As Iran's domestic problems including high unemployment, inflation and corruption intensify, and as next year's presidential election comes into contentious focus, battles for control and influence are raging on several fronts. (read more)

One thing is for certain, any military strike against Iran will strengthen President Ahmadinejad. People tend to rally behind their leadership in times of war. Why should the Iranians' reaction be different to the 2004 Presidential election in the US?

Even The Times deserves a closer look. There must be a timetable for US withdrawal from Iraq! Says who? Well, the Iraqi Prime Minister:

[...] the Shia prime minister who last week boasted he had crushed terrorism in Iraq, suggested it was time to start setting timelines.

“The current trend is to reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or a memorandum of understanding to put a timetable on their withdrawal," said Mr al-Maliki during a visit to the United Arab Emirates. He rejected efforts by Mr Bush to hurry through an agreement on vital issues such as the immunity of US troops in Iraq and use of the country’s airspace.

And, there's more. Not only the major oil companies won't have the free access to Iraqi oil, they have dreamed of, or were promised, there may not be immunity for US troops either:

Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurdish MP, said the issue of immunity for US forces had become a particularly sensitive subject for Iraqis.

“We have suffered so much from immunity. Immunity equals committing crimes, that’s what we have seen these five years. …In the name of immunity they have killed people, committed crimes, they have their own prisons, they captured Iraqis. We can’t continue like this,” he said. (read more)

I doubt this is what Bush, Cheney and their cronies had in mind when they brought democracy to Iraq. The Iraqis doing a Chavez and keeping the good stuff for themselves.

Barack Obama will be in Germany on July 24th, it seems. But will he speak at the Brandenburger Tor? Not likely, says Der Spiegel:

However, the source, who asked not to be named, was reserved about the prospects of Obama holding a speech before the Brandenburg Gate."

"The Brandenburg Gate is the most famous and history-rich site in Germany," the Chancellery source said. In the past, the location has only been used on very special occasions for political speeches by world leaders. And it has been reserved for use only by elected American presidents, not candidates. The decision on whether the Democrat can speak at the location ultimately lies with the Berlin state government. Chancellery officials are concerned that the Brandenburg Gate could be turned into an "arbitrary stage" that other campaigns could also seek to use in the future.(read more)

Germans are huge fans of Barack Obama, they would overwhelmingly vote for him if they could. Honestly, McCain is no match for him in our view. We feel as much as Americans do, the need for politicians who are able to solve the problems of our modern age. And we do feel Obama is the closest we can get there. You can count on our continued interest.

Have a good start into another week. Stay healthy and safe!

Whether it is internet predators, gun control, international conflict or any of the many issues facing our society and our way of life, the internet is a source of knowledge far superior to that of traditional news outlets (especially since major corporations now own almost all of the major outlets and are agenda driven). How can we elect someone who, not only lived in the age of no television is older than Superman and zip codes, but simply cannot understand American life as it is today?

So, John McCain hates bloggers. (Newsflash: most of us, on all sides of the political spectrum, don't especially like you either, Senator.) I assume that he hates bloggers because he cannot control the message. The internet isn't Fox. It isn't owned. Of course, you have to consider the message, no matter where that message comes from, and to do that takes the ability to think critically. I've addressed the lack of that particular skill here, so I won't rehash it now.

No matter where the message comes from, one has to be able to think about what is being said and determine the validity of that message. It's been shown over and over again that the corporate owned media fails us at every stage. That leaves those who seek valid news, more information about the issues that matter, or just the desire to attempt to discern the truth amongst all the untruth, to come to the internet. This is one of the reasons that Net Neutrality is so critically important to the future of America.

Did he really say The Cables?

I again ask: Should the President of the United States of America be computer literate? You tell me.

Click it if you liked it! : : : : : : : : : :

FireDogLake is LiveBlogging with the two authors now and the log of that will be interesting to read for a long time to come. They are discussing holding those we elect - or want to elect - accountable, amongst other things.

Do check out their LiveBlog. It's very interesting.

The Times' Gerard Baker fears for the Left's health:

Of course there's nothing much new in what the senator has done. In the lexicon of modern American politics, it's called a pivot. You campaign hard to the party's extreme in the primary election, where the base voters tend to be. Then, when the nomination is secure and there are no more idealists to be humoured, you pivot back to the centre. The only difference is that in Mr Obama's case the pivot is so hard and so fast that the entire Democratic Party is suffering from whiplash.(read more)

The Independent reports about Senator Obama's stance on troop withrawal from Iraq:

The Democratic presidential hopeful, in a stop in Republican stronghold North Dakota, at first appeared to suggest that he would reconsider his plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months if elected.

[but...]

Mr Obama, in the second news conference, said what he learns from military commanders on his upcoming trip will refine his policy, but "not the 16-month timetable" for withdrawing US troops from combat in Iraq.(read more)

The Telegraph explains the dangers of this development to Barack Obama:

The charge that he is changing his mind is toxic for three reasons.

It allows Mr McCain to argue that he, not Mr Obama, has a better understanding of what now needs to be done in Iraq.

Secondly, it gives Republicans evidence to use to depict Mr Obama as just another cynical politician prepared to change his position to win votes.

Finally, any shift on Iraq risks alienating the left-wing of his own party, who have grown uneasy at some more moderate positions he has struck in recent weeks. (read more)

The Guardian, too reports this and quotes Senator Obama:

"Let me be as clear as I can be: I tend to end this war," he said. "I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring out troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades per month," with all out within 16 months. "This is the same position that I had four months ago." (read more)

In the comments section of the Guardian Naomi Klein tells you why Big Oil's Iraq deals are the greatest stick-up in history:

One week after the no-bid service deals were announced, the world caught its first glimpse of the real prize. After years of backroom arm-twisting, Iraq is officially flinging open six of its major oilfields, accounting for half of its known reserves, to foreign investors. According to Iraq's oil minister, the long-term contracts will be signed within a year. While ostensibly under the control of the Iraq National Oil Company, foreign corporations will keep 75% of the value of the contracts, leaving just 25% for their Iraqi partners.

The Economist worries more about John McCain, because they feel 'Mr McCain’s Straight Talk Express has its charms.' But...

[...] not when the straight talker starts saying things it is very hard to imagine that he remotely believes in. It was a bad omen last year when this freewheeling western conservative in the Reagan mould went off to court the intolerant Christian right. And recently, the flip-flops have come rapidly. Once a vigorous opponent of Mr Bush’s tax cuts, he says he wants not only to continue but also to extend them. Once a champion of greenery, he has called not only for an expensive petrol-tax holiday (something Mr Obama cleverly resisted) but also for a resumption of drilling off America’s coast. Once a supporter of closing down Guantánamo Bay, he recently criticised the Supreme Court for daring to suggest that inmates deserve the right of habeas corpus. He has edged to the right on two other areas where he used to be hated by his party’s conservatives as a dangerous maverick: on torture (he won’t rule out water-boarding) and immigration reform (he says fix the border first, which will take an eternity).

And finally: In a story leaked to The Guardian the World Bank assessment about biofuels makes very disturbing claims:

Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian.

The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body.

The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe, which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil. (read more)

We should really be ashamed of ourselves.

: : : : : : : : : :

Can't watch clips online? Transcript below the fold.

: : : : : : : : : :

QUESTION: I wonder what you think about General Clark's comments both Sunday and today, and even further, I'm wondering if you can say if you really think those kinds of comments are much different from the swiftboat types of questions that Senator Kerry faced about his Vietnam experience.

OBAMA: I don't think that General Clark had the same intent as the swiftboat ads that we saw four years ago. I don't--I reject that analogy. But, what I've also said, repeatedly, is that Senator McCain deserves the most-the utmost-honor and respect for his service to our country. I've said that repeatedly, I've said it all the time. I noticed that, I think, in at least one publication it was reported that my comments yesterday about Senator McCain were in a response to General Clark. I think my staff will confirm that was in a draft of that speech that I had written two months ago. So, I have repeatedly insisted that Senator McCain's service is heroic and that he deserves our respect for that. Now, I have differences with him on policy. And I will vigorously debate a lot of the decisions he's made when it comes to national security that I think have weakened our capacity to meet the threats and challenges of the 21st century, but that certainly doesn't detract from his past service to America.

You're a Florida resident. You want to do your civic duty, and vote in the upcoming 2008 election. You fill out your voter registration form promptly and correctly, and turn it in. You're not a convicted felon, and you've lived at the same address in Florida for 20 years -- no residency problems.

But, the data entry clerk who entered your name into the voter registration roles made an error, and you were entered as Jon Smith, rather than John Smith. Oh heavens, mistakes are made sometimes, and they're easily fixed. Right?

Wrong. If this error is discovered when you arrive to vote on November 4 -- YOU WILL NOT BE VOTING.

At issue is Florida's so-called "no-match, no-vote" law, which allows county officials to reject new voter registration applications if the names on the forms do not match other state databases. Voter advocacy groups sued the state, claiming that database errors can cause applications to be rejected - through no fault of would-be voters.

This week, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida sided with the state, saying it has the right to reject voter applications if they didn't match an applicant's Florida driver's license or the last four digits of their social security number. The state had been sued by a coalition of voting rights groups after election officials rejected applications from 14,000 African-American Floridians dating back to 2006.

That's right, boys and girls. Shades of election year 2000. Who needs Katharine Harris, when you have the U.S. District Court in Florida?

Well, you think, I'll just take my ID to the polls with me -- just in case.

"The most senseless part is that the state creates these errors, and then makes it unnecessarily hard to fix the problem," said Elizabeth Westfall of Advancement Project, another attorney for the plaintiffs. "You can't show a passport. You can't show a military ID. And though you can show your driver's license itself, it doesn't count if you show it at the polls - the very place where voters have to show a photo ID anyway."

You cannot fix this at the polls, and you can't even fix it in the weeks leading up to the election. Florida has rules against that sort of thing. They do not have the staff to check all the voter records, and if they happen to find a mistake, you will not be notified. SOL, ladies and gentlemen.

Still, voter advocates hope local Florida election officials will use their discretion to help all voters this fall.

"At the very least, the counties can and should help avoid the chaos that this law creates by making it possible to fix the problem at the polls," said Brian Mellor, attorney for Project Vote, another plaintiff in the suit. "We hope that the (county) Supervisors of Elections use the discretionary power they have to allow corrections at the polls so that voters are inconvenienced as little as possible."

Maybe someone will write a sternly worded letter....

: : : : : : : : : :

Hello from Europe, we finally have the kind of weather I love best. It's warm with a slight breeze of fresh air, differently from the tropical weather of recent days. Germany will meet Spain on Sunday night for the European Football Championship finals in Vienna, and if Spain plays as they did against Russia (3:0) and Germany as they did against Turkey (3:2), the Germans should consider to save themselves the trouble of even traveling there. I am hoping for an exciting match, never mind the outcome.

Weather is an important clue to the press round-up. There are very bad news indeed for the North Pole, as reported by The Independent:

It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.

The disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, making it possible to reach the Pole sailing in a boat through open water, would be one of the most dramatic – and worrying – examples of the impact of global warming on the planet. Scientists say the ice at 90 degrees north may well have melted away by the summer.

And the next paragraph left me open-mouthed:

If it happens, it raises the prospect of the Arctic nations being able to exploit the valuable oil and mineral deposits below these a bed which have until now been impossible to extract because of the thick sea ice above. (full story here)

After having shamelessly exploited and recklessly burnt up the resources of oil we have already available to the detriment of the planet and future generations and thus caused the kind of crisis reported here, this thought is most cynical.

So much for the weather. There is an election upcoming in the US. Of course, this is again making stories, too.

The Times can't leave Clinton alone:

Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, wrote out a $4,600 cheque for his vanquished rival, Hillary Clinton, last night as he tried to persuade her major financial backers to switch their support to him. (full story)

They too consider this tidbit news and Cindy McCain saying in a Times interview Diana was her inspiration.

The Guardian's Michael Tomasky is trying to explain Barack Obama's shift to the center and concludes:

I've always objected to setting up principle as a value that's oppositional to winning. To me, winning is a principle. It's the highest principle there is. If you win the election, you can do at least some of the good things that will improve people's lives in the country and around the world. If you lose it, you can't do any of them.

People will naturally disagree on which compromises are necessary and which ones aren't. What people shouldn't disagree on is that some are. The man's not running for president of Hyde Park. (read full comment)

I tend to agree with Michael Tomasky. Moreover, Obama's obviously very political actions are a relief to me. I have voiced the opinion here before that the Obama primary campaign had many hallmarks of a political movement. As a German, aware of her country's history, I am deeply mistrusting when it comes to political movements. I'd rather have the calculated and thus calculable outcome of a political process. I can live with not getting my way. The kind of trouble mostly ideologically based policies get you into, can be fully viewed by replaying the last eight years of Bush policies.

The Telegraph has an entertaining article, if you care to take part in it. In the UK there is a thing called 11-plus exam. This is and was used to determine access to grammar schools in Britain.  So if you have the time or the boss is not watching, enjoy! The Zoo's next Friday Math Problem will be coming up today, too.

I hope you'll all have a good day, stay safe and healthy!

: : : : : : : : : :

John McCain's campaign is in dire straits, nevermind the serious campaigning has just started. He has lost numerous advisors, two pastors and a campaign strategist, who wouldn't take part in the upcoming campaign against Obama. Poll numbers show an Obama bump, not as dramatic as the latest Newsweek poll suggests, but a steady increase in approval for Barack Obama, as seen in the polls provided by RCP.

Admittedly short of knowledge when it comes to economics McCain turned to Phil Gramm the former Texas Senator. Gramm is the kind of economist Republicans profess to love most, budget balancing and anti government-spending and supply-side oriented. But Gramm is vice chairman of and a lobbyist for the Zurich based UBS (United Bank of Switzerland), too. The UBS is a major casualty of the subprime mortgage crisis and Gramm has lobbied on behalf of the bank to avoid stronger regulation and federal action in the mortgage crisis.

There is more. In Florida UBS banker Bradley Birkenfeld has been arrested on allegations of having helped UBS customers in the US committing tax fraud, by funnelling money into Liechtstein. Initially refusing to cooperate, Birkenfeld caved in last week and pleaded guilty. The US asks the UBS to release bank details of 20'000 US customers. This has led to a sense of panic not only within the bank and among America's rich, but in Switzerland, too, which sees its famed banking secrecy in jeopardy and sent a delegation of government officials to the US. To no avail. Now FBI agents will "assist" Swiss authorities in their research into the alleged tax fraud.

You can find this and some more, namely Gramm's connection to Enron, here.

A worthy advisor for a Republican candidate indeed.

The primaries thankfully over, Bush thankfully lame, the general election campaign thankfully not in full swing yet, there is not so very much reporting on US issues in Europe right now. Oh, and we're having the European Football Championship going. (No, I won't call it soccer, because it is football) For the record: A big surprise yesterday and the day before. Turkey threw out Croatia on Friday and Russia did the same to The Netherlands yesterday. Tonight Spain will try to reach the semifinals over Italy. If Italy wins, the second best teams from the prefinal round will have kicked out all the leading teams. And Germany might get her revenge in the finals against Italy :evil:

But, that's surely not what you are here for. Back to politics and a look at the coverage the US politics get in the English sunday press today:

The Times is speculating on a possible running mate for John McCain, Tim Pawlenty.

ONE name has risen to the top of John McCain’s shortlist for vice-presidential running mate. Tim Pawlenty, the governor of Minnesota, a trucker’s son and advocate of Republicanism for the masses, is the favourite to join his ticket, according to sources close to the McCain camp.

They believe that Pawlenty, 47, has the youth, working-class credentials and executive experience to attract independent voters and disaffected Democrats who find Barack Obama, 46, the Democratic party nominee, too exotic and untested and McCain, 71, too old and too focused on national security. (read more)

In another story The Times advises caution, when it comes to poll numbers, saying "June Polls Don't Hold Up"

The Daily Mail looks at Obama's running mate selection:

Former Senators John Edwards and Sam Nunn are on a list of potential running mates for Barack Obama, a congresswoman has revealed.

Carolyn Kilpatrick, a Michigan Democrat who leads the Congressional Black Caucus, said members of her caucus asked her to forward the names of Edwards and Nunn when she met with Obama's vice presidential search team. (read more)

It may well be, that I didn't pay attention enough during the last elections, but this time the emphasis on the running mate is striking. Given the fact that I always assumed Vice Presidents used to be the ones to attend funerals and such, the role change started by Al Gore and finally brought about by Dick Cheney's unprecendented influence may have had a lasting effect.

The Independent takes a look at First Ladies and Cookies, yummy recipes from Martha Washington's to Michelle Obama's and Cindy McCain's (or rather the Food Networks') included:

America's presidential cookie craze can be traced back to Chicago's Busy Bee Coffee Shop where in 1992 Hillary Clinton blurted out: "I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas." [...]

The cookie controversy has become part of the political landscape, celebrated every four years with a presidential bake-off organised by Family Circle magazine. In 1992, it was a chocolate chip head-to-head with Barbara Bush. Mrs Clinton's won, 55 per cent to 45. Consumer Reports magazine (which rates everything from cars to hot dogs) put her recipe to the test and concluded that if her political ambitions failed she would make a fine cookie entrepreneur. The verdict on her chocolate chip cookies was: "Delicate crispness, chewy; smooth, chocolatey chips." (read more)

The Guardian is covering the planned Mayflower Hotel meeting between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, where the two of them will try to figure out a way to turn Clinton's endorsement into votes for Obama. Moreover, Obama will want to get the support from major Clinton donors.

The Mayflower Hotel in Washington DC has hosted many landmark political meetings. FBI director J Edgar Hoover lunched there every day, President Harry Truman once lived in it and JFK kept a mistress there.

But few assignations will have been as important as the one taking place between Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton. It will be the first official joint appearance by the two titans of the Democratic party as they move towards healing the deep divisions in its ranks. (read more)

Obama may want to concentrate on the vote gathering aspect of the talks. Clinton's donors will expect something in exchange for their monies - and are used to getting it, too. Just sayin'.

The Guardian's sister newspaper The Observer is covering the John McCain we all should get to know better:

[...] there is another, very different side to John McCain. Away from the headlines and the stirring speeches, a less familiar figure lurks. It is a McCain who plans to fight on in Iraq for years to come and who might launch military action against Iran. This is the McCain whose campaign and career has been riddled with lobbyists and special interests. It is a McCain who has sided with religious and political extremists who believe Islam is evil and gays are immoral. It is a McCain who wants to appoint extreme conservatives to the Supreme Court and see abortion banned. This McCain has a notoriously volatile temper that has scared some senior members of his own party. If McCain becomes the most powerful man in the world it would be wise to know what lies behind his public mask, to look at the dark side of John McCain. (read more)

The Economist has a look at last week's battles between Obama and McCai