Along those lines, Dr. Ali al-Dabbagh, who the Times calls a spokesman for the Iraqi government, has released a statement saying that Prime Minister Maliki's statement was "misunderstood and mistranslated" and "not conveyed accurately regarding the vision of Senator Barack Obama, U.S. presidential candidate, on the timeframe for U.S. forces withdrawal from Iraq." But as the Times notes al Dabbagh did not specify what had been mistranslated.
Another interesting detail, noted by the Times. al-Dabbagh's statement was released by CentCom. I do not know how often Iraqi government statements are released by CentCom.
So, the official Iraqi spokesman's statement was released by U.S. Central Command? Um, are they fucking kidding us? Couldn't they be a little more subtle about this?
It's becoming patently clear that the Associated Press has a chronic problem with employing reporters with a blatant anti-Democrat bias. Just a quick search at Media Matters' website shows the depth of the problem, but we know many of the best (worst) examples from Pickler and others.
Karl Rove exchanged e-mails about Pat Tillman with Associated Press reporter Ron Fournier, under the subject line "H-E-R-O." In response to Mr. Fournier's e-mail, Mr. Rove asked, "How does our country continue to produce men and women like this," to which Mr. Fournier replied, "The Lord creates men and women like this all over the world. But only the great and free countries allow them to flourish. Keep up the fight."
The McCain campaign, which has said it doesn't question Obama's patriotism, is now doing something awfully similar: Claiming that Barack Obama and the Democrats are dedicated to losing the war for their own political benefit.
The new accusation was unveiled on a McCain campaign conference call moments ago, with top McCain surrogates making this charge in tandem.
This is absolute shameful bullshit. If the MSM thought that their twisted version of Wes Clark's comments were bad, claiming that Obama and Democrats WANT the U.S. to lose in Iraq (or anywhere) is the height of slander. So does that mean that all Democratic war veterans want America to lose -- even those who fought in Iraq? Does the McCain campaign think that Obama and his supporters are rooting for casualties?
I'm fine with Obama's first salvo of national ads, but I'm also hoping for something different this year: I'd like to see an ad campaign that matches the 50-state strategy we've heard so much about. In other words, let's see some ads that focus on the unique concerns throughout the country.
For example, there could be an ad just for Nevada slamming McCain for his pro-Yucca Flats position. There could be an ad for Northern Virginia on Obama's plan for fixing the transportation crisis. There could be an ad on fair trade for Michigan and Ohio.
With all the recent distress over a couple of not-completely-progressive stances -- and the requisite not-more-more-dime comments, it's probably a good idea to step back for a moment for some perspective:
Barack Obama will be the most progressive president in the history of our great nations.
I'm not here to get into historical disputes about why, given the times, FDR or JFK or whoever may prove more progressive. My point is that, on issue after issue, Obama will be the most progressive than any President before him. By a long shot.
We know he's going to end the war in Iraq, restore habeas, reduce the influence of lobbyists, close Gitmo, engage in tough diplomacy with our enemies, appoint progressive judges, etc. But this just scratches the surface. Just a quick trip through some of Obama's issues pages reveals the breadth of progressive change that he wants to bring to American
Do you have a good idea for an ad? Or a point that the campaign should be making about John McCain? Or a certain group in a swing state that needs micro-targeting? A cool idea for a sticker or a shirt? Maybe there's a great blog idea or other Internet based innovation burning a whole in your brain?
I've seen a bunch of diaries with good ideas scroll away into off-the-screen oblivion, so maybe creating an open thread for us strategy junkies to brainstorm possible ideas for ads, messaging, technologies, etc. etc. could garner some interest? If enough of you participate (and perhaps if it gets rec'd up), we can create one place for our target audience (I'm looking at you, Mr. Intern at Obama HQ).
Anyway, let's see where this goes. I'll randomly pull some of the ideas up into the diary as we go along.
Right now, McCain has a huge advantage with the 65+ set and a slight advantage for with 50-64 set. How to tackle these numbers? Easy: At every single opportunity, Obama should bring up the fact that McCain supports privitizing Social Security.
The simple facts are these:
Older Americans have always been solidly opposed to the GOP's plans to gut Social Security.
To you Obama supporters that need to read this: For the good of the campaign that you've worked so hard for, get over yourselves. Obama is now the Democratic nominee for President, and continuing to piss and moan about the past slights against him or you or your pet poodle really doesn't do him any favors. Stop being a sore winner and have a bit of empathy. And if you can't muster up empathy, just realize that continuing to attack other Democrats is the opposite of supporting Obama now. Every moment spent parsing a comment about popular votes or now-suspended campaigns or whatever is a moment wasted on doing something to actually help Obama. It's time to reach out and attract potential Obama supporters the good of our country, children, troops, planet, courts, etc. ... not to stay bitter over past irrelevancies for the good of nobody but your own bitter self.
I mean, Obama has gotten over it. So should you all.
It's seems like we've got a narrative building folks. John McCain is trumpeting his experience, but it seems like all he's done in this campaign is highlight how many times he's shown a lapse in judgment and a failure to understand the facts. And about serious subjects like Iraq, the economy, ethics, and his own damn words.
Wrong judgment, wrong facts.
The following is a list compiled just with a few minutes of web searching. If you know of others, add them in the comments.
This one is a big one. Apparently, while McCain was pretending that the subprime crisis didn't exist, he had a lobbyist and Vice-Chair of a bank facing major subprime exposure "whispering in his ear." Who is the lobbyist? Former Senator Phil Gramm -- the epitome of Washington, D.C.'s revolving door culture of influence peddling.
Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain’s national campaign general co-chair was being paid by a Swiss bank to lobby Congress about the U.S. mortgage crisis at the same time he was advising McCain about his economic policy, federal records show.
I don't see any diaries about John Edwards. Or Joe Biden. Or Chris Dodd. Or, well, you get the picture. It's time to stop spending so much time on every silly bit of spin or desperate piece of nonsense coming from HRC or her surrogates.
I know, I know the difference between all of those other candidates who have lost and this candidate who has lost. The fame, the "inevitability," the ability to destroy the Democrat party, etc. etc. Regardless, she is still a candidate who has lost. Yesterday's news. An also ran. Every diary about her might as well be another diary about Dennis Kucinich.
Surprised I don't see any video up yet. So, here's one great American introducing another.
Part I:
Part II:
I was this close to predicting an Edwards endorsement right after West Virginia -- I just expect big news from the Obama campaign after a rough voting day. Like Teddy after New Hampshire. But now, it's also floodgates time. So, who's going to be the next big endorsement? Webb? Gore? Clinton?
In 2004, John Kerry was urged and finally agreed to add second place finisher John Edwards to the ticket. For whatever you might say about that decision, it was made possible because Edwards had been gracious to the presumptive frontrunner throughout the campaign.
Which leads us to an important rule in picking a vice presidential running mate: Don't pick someone that has repeatedly trashed you recently.
I don't know how much more forcefully I can say it, but I really really really hope that Obama doesn't pick Hillary Clinton as her running mate. I could think of many reasons why he shouldn't.
She'd bring all those negatives that we were trying to avoid in the general, firing up the GOP base the same as if she won the nomination.
She'd be rewarded for her Rovian-style intra-party hatchet-job.
She'd submarine the perfect contrast Obama brings to the inside-the-beltway, same-ol'-same'-ol', right-wing candidacy of John McBush.
She'd remove Obama reality-based advantage, given her recent reality-challenged comments and proposals.
She'd make the whole thing about herself and her family, making her a clear and present risk to Obama being the leader of the party
A D.C. Council member and unpledged Democratic delegate has withdrawn his prominent public support for Sen. Hillary Clinton, preferring instead to be listed as undecided in the race for the nomination.
Ward 5 D.C. Councilman Harry Thomas Jr. was elected last week by the D.C. Democratic State Committee as a delegate to the national convention. Thomas, who had previously endorsed Clinton, was listed as a Clinton backer on a delegate spreadsheet circulated Monday by the committee.
But by the end of the day, the party had retracted that announcement, and Thomas was switched to simply "unpledged."
"He wants to confer with the party," said Vicky Leonard-Chambers, Thomas’ spokeswoman.
I bet he does. In fact, I bet there are a lot of Clinton superdelegates who need to start conferring and backtracking and then, well, you know the rest.
Obama's post-partisan politics is that desire to bring the country together based on common ground to solve problems. However, this political philosophy has often been denigrated by other Democrats (normally his opponents) as being too conciliatory. Such criticism misses the point: working on common ground does not equate to capitulation. I've highlighted how Obama is a fighter in the past. Obama has shown that, while seeking common ground, he can also stand his ground as well. Being able to do both is what will make him such an effective president.
In fact, given their records, I'd argue that it's Obama that understands how to stand his ground when needed. Clinton, on a host of issues, has shown to be quite adept at conciliating where she sees a political need, and acting tough later when she sees a political need: the war, NAFTA, etc.
Former U.S. Sen. John Melcher says he is going to cast his key Democratic Party superdelegate vote for Barack Obama.
Melcher is one of eight Montana superdelegates who can vote for whoever they please at the party's national convention this summer.
Melcher says he chose Obama because he believes the Illinois senator has been against the Iraq war since the start.
That's two in one day. Based on this NBC post after Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal's endorsement, Obama has now picked up 12 superdelegates to Clinton's one since March 4.
Yeah, yeah, you've heard it before. The insurmountable pledged delegate deficit, the dried up finances, the Bosnia flap, etc. etc. But, aside from all of that, Hillary Clinton had a mathematical chance at winning the nomination if the superdelegates were willing to give her the nomination (i.e., thwart the popular will and trigger intra-party civil war).
By appearing as magnanimous as possible toward Clinton, Obama is seeking to reassure these superdelegates that everything is going to be all right in the end. Meanwhile, his campaign in exerting ramped up pressure behind the scenes for superdelegates who are with Obama privately to be with him publicly.
That's right folks. It's just a matter of convincing private Obama fans to come out publicly. In fact, that's exactly what's happening now:
