Standing O

To look at the faces of the soldiers -- all the soldiers -- and just see wall-to-wall grins... that is something.

They know they are looking at their next C-in-C.

What a difference it is between the reaction of the troops when they are at mandatory Bush drop-in and their reaction  in that video to Obama.

They're no dummies!

Obama's trip so far: all net!

Al Maliki's statements are very, very timely--and the O-man is making Bush and McCain shif positions.

Barack is 'owning' these neocons!  LOL

Al--did you see Al Gore?

Barak sure owns the barracks.

Nothing but net - Score

amk

Obama's wisdom and judment are obvious to me.  He has been spot on regarding Iraq, Afghanistan etc.  Will this trip focus the American public's attention to realize that judgement is key.  Some of our best President's did not serve in the military (Lincoln, FDR) yet brought the United States victory at the most crucial of times.  Will Americans see that being in the military does not = excellent Commander-in-Chief.  Will Obama go after McCain for being wrong on so many decisions in foreign policy and erase the persception that McCain has the edge in this area?

Of course, now the White House is saying that the Iraqi PM was "misquoted and mistranslated" (which is predictable), but now its out there.

That video is gold, I love that three pointer!

of the comments of al Maliki is that some MSM outlets are reporting a 'retraction' of sorts. But the NYT includes the helpful fact that the statement came from the US military central command press office.

Also interesting is that Josh Marshall called this earlier in the day:

I would not discount the possibility that the White House will muscle Maliki into a retraction of some sort. But I think it will be difficult for that to seem to be anything other than what it is. What he said pre-waterboarding will always appear more genuine than whatever statement came later.

is that I have had a big gigantic grin on my face all day!!  Wow!  I am still cracking up over the White House releasing the press release of Maliki.  LOL  What a day!!!

Today has been a great day. Thanks for the video Al. Nothing but net!

I wanted to clarify my earlier comment because I didn't want for it to be misinterpreted in a way that was in any way dismissive of or disrespectful to the efforts of brave African-American troops stationed in harm's away overseas.

In the video, African-Americans were well represented in the group of troops giving Obama a standing ovation, but Latinos and whites were not.  I hope a wildly-positive response to Obama from U.S. troops is typical and independent of race.  I also hope that this footage sways white voters who place a strong emphasis on patriotism, and that those voters are not less impressed by the footage than you and I reading this blog are.

African American. Why? Because, it is their way out of their poverty. That's another reason why our "war" in Iraq is unfair. Egads!! Don't get me started!! I try to stay a lurker for a reason. The AA community is over represented in our armed forces. That is not a fluke. It is reality as to who joins.

Okay, I am shutting up now. Goodnight all. I hope that Al is having a bunch of cigarettes with his Texas Tequila. No, not beer, but rather Tequila. It's Saturday night. He deserves a good drunk. Maybe not the hangover but the drunk. ;-)

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/john-rentoul/john-rentoul-obama-the-most-dominant-force-in-british-politics-872280.html

Money quote

When it comes to celebrity endorsements in politics, Obama is Bill Clinton and Nelson Mandela rolled into one. With a cherry on top.

The dampener

Opinion polls in the US have him only four percentage points ahead of John McCain. Over here, on the other hand, a poll last week among people who can't vote for either man found Obama trouncing McCain by a five-to-one margin.

amk

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/opinion/20rich.html?ref=opinion

Mr. McCain made a big show of banishing Mr. Gramm after his whining “gaffe,” but it’s surely at most a temporary suspension. When the candidate said back in January that there’s nobody he knows who is stronger on economic issues than his old Senate pal, he was telling the truth. Left to his own devices — or those of his new No. 1 economic surrogate, Carly Fiorina — Mr. McCain is clueless.

Does this mean the media's love affair the old guy is over ?

amk

amk--no, I don't think that the corporate media is turning on the old war-monger. Birds of a feather crap all over the democratic tendency together.

Julie, indeed, most folks here understand the dynamics of poverty and enlistment in the military. That said, it would have been a better photo op if the crowd had more white guys and gals.

The issue of race is enigmatic, and it is one of the biggest hurdles that O-man and the rest of us have to surmount in this campaign. Focusing on this issue needs to be done strategically, however--on the one hand it is not smart to keep pointing out Obama's racial difference; and on the other hand if racial difference is consistently played down, well, this would look inauthentic as well.

Obama and his meteoric rise cannot be separated from the issue of race, nor can his sucess be reduced to race.

However, I see this trip, and the blogger convention that Al is attending, as positive portents.

Surely, Obama's speech in Denver will be one for the history books. This should be good, really good.

The United States is changing--ever so slowly, but it is changing for the better. However, as with any significant change, part of what we are has to die and receed into the past; and with the birth of something more healthy and new there is pain involved

sigh...

Here is Der Spiegel sticking to its reporting a la Maliki. To think that US msm used to have such high standards

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566914,00.html

amk

A very interesting read for any one interested: The authors (one "left", one "right" were on the Diane Rehm show for a not-to-miss hour http://wwww.wamu.org/programs/dr/06/06/06.php

Book Title: AWOL: The Unexcused Absence of America's Upper Classes from Military Service -- and How It Hurts Our Country by Kathy Roth-douquet and Frank Schaeffer

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_07/014129.php

So does the press decide that this means Obama has shown good judgment and good instincts in foreign affairs? That seems like it would be the most reasonable interpretation, but alternatively the press could decide that what this really means is that there are now very few differences between Obama and McCain on foreign policy — without implying any judgment about who was right and who was wrong. That's a stretch, but it would be nice and faux-neutral, something that appeals to reporters.

Or, who knows? Maybe something entirely different will bubble up from the press corps. This ought to be a pretty good foreign policy moment for Obama, but we won't know for sure until the media narrative takes shape. Stay tuned.

Obama having breakfast with troops in Afghanistan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smXwiGOCDXg&eurl=http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x159382

... from Face the Nation.

The McCain Campaign/RNC has to stop their countdown clock now that Sen. Obama has gone overseas. Their next card: he's inexperienced and doesn't know what the hell is going on has been blown out of the water with Malki's statement which basically STILL endorses (even in the walkback) the timeline view held by Sen. Obama.

This trip has gotten off to the BEST start for Sen. Obama and by the grace of a  kind God it'll just get better and better.

My favorite fact: the new meme developing. McCain/Bush FOLLOWING Obama's lead. LOL, not bad for the dog days of summer. And Nate Silver makes a good point today @538 that the uptick of about 1 -1.5% has been because of a shift on the timeline issue. Malaki's statment takes that off the table for McCain and puts him on defense in the ONLY Ace he has: his foreign policy chops.

Given the ground game the Obama team is running this is a good start. I've had my issues with some of the stuff the Obama camp has let slide and I'd prefer they throw more elbows more often. But I love that they have a consistent message and clear plan and they haven't let the events (like the bad week were the McCain camp managed to lie for a week about Obama's Iraq position) fluster them; or the polls and tracking polls.

They have a plan and they're executing it and I'll just keep chipping in my $25 a month and registering voters.

VikMurthy - When it comes to combat troops, you probably won't ever see a disproportionately "white" crowd of soldiers. That's just not the reality of the military today (see: "economic conscription").

Rikyrah - I met some of your Jack and Jill colleagues this weekend, and had a great time with Leutisha and Baratunde, with whom we took a photo for you.

Afghanistan - the good, but neglected, middle east war and a new 3rd front in Pakistan.  Now here is a war where we can really get our a**es kicked.

How do you post a video so it is embedded like how Al has it in his post rather than a link?

Since McInsane is so fond of Beach Boys tunes, he'll soon be singing another one of their classics:

"Help Me Romney...Help! Help! Me Romney"

Mittmo was the Chosen One of BigMoney, hence the early and strong support from Lush Limpdick, Pox Newz, etc.  The damn "We the people" of the Repube persuation got in their way and picked Panama John instead.

VP is how they're gonna slide Mittens in there.  McSame's been such a disaster as a candidate that we could see him drop out for health reasons or some such thing, and we'll be running against Mittmo after all.

If ya think the BigMedia fluffing of McSame is bad, wait 'til ya see it with Mittens.  Remember all the hype of his "religion" speech where it was lead story for days and was compared to a famous JFK speech about religion, even though those speeches were almost diametrically opposed?

Every day, each of us needs to get someone we know to check out places like the The Field.  It is essential to save our Republic.

The NYT has published its own translation of Maliki's remarks. And he clearly shows an affinity with Obama's timetable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/us/politics/21obama.html?_r=1&hp&oref=...

[I]n an audio recording of Mr. Maliki’s interview that Der Spiegel provided to The New York Times, Mr. Maliki seemed to state a clear affinity for Mr. Obama’s position, bringing it up on his own in an answer to a general question on troop presence.

The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Maliki’s comments by The Times: “Obama’s remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.”

He continued: “Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.”

Julie, don't you believe that trend is well on its way to reversal? Have you seen recent numbers?

Most media outlets have figured a serious drop in the percentage of black Americans in military service. In 2005, black recruits had fallen to 13% for the year. In 2006, it fell to its lowest number in many years. Granted, in 2007, there was a 40% increase. However, that "40% increase" was still less than 11% total recruitment, significantly less than the already low total in 2005.

All branches showed a similar bump in 2007, but after great falls in the immediate prior years and those bumps only came after a massive recruitment drive that largely failed to hit its target.

Considering black Americans make up about 13% of all Americans, these declines say to me that the gap is closing, at least for black Americans. Conversely, Latinos have become more represented in the military at a rate somewhat higher than their immigration figures.

Even more interesting, American blacks are only over-represented if one considers total population, when it comes to the impoverished, they're nearly spot on. However, the number of American blacks in poverty has decreased despite the Bush administration's complete lack of competence in the economic and minority realms.

What does this mean? Maybe nothing. However, I believe we are seeing compound signs. The coming decade, I think, will mark the greatest rise, economically speaking, of black Americans. I believe the misfortunes of Reagan will be undone and a refocused Democrat majority and Democrat President [who is incidentally half-black] will devote more serious resources and even-handedness to education, also offering more grants and scholarships for the less financially able, shrinking poverty across demographics. I believe Obama's Presidency in itself will be a wonderful shot in the arm to a communities so often divided from a dominant culture that misunderstands nearly every aspect of their own respective ones [this crosses political lines, IMO, just two different misunderstandings]. I also believe these communities have devoted more time, energy and money to repairing problems government has failed to do anything about, whether out of racism [on one hand], fear [usually the same hand] or incompetence [the other hand, sadly].

Obama's speeches, to me, show he has a firm understanding of this country's racial dynamics. Furthermore, I believe he is the first President ever to have that understanding. When [not if] he wins, I believe he will easily outshine any modern Commander for progress in the Civil Rights realm alone. Good times ahead for us ALL this time.

The Maliki comments are great news.  What's interesting is that Obama has not even met with him yet - it will be this evening.  Now in every interview on Iraq, and in every presidential debate, McCain will be forced to answer the question - so if the Iraqi people want us out be 16 months or so, why do you want us to stay?

Every blogger, commenter I've been reading over the weekend seems to view this as some sort of major turning point for the campaign.  I hope it is.

Oh and I read on Kos last night that the crowd expected for Thursday's Berlin speech may be up to one million.

KD

Lara Logan interview ?

amk

@Texan in Paris: Many thanks. I've been so turned off by MSM I can barely watch. Missed this one, but would watch any interview between the two of them.

More great video of Obama meeting with Maliki

Jed Report could do a little clip comparing Obama's jump shot to Bush's when Dubya visited Ireland recently - 43 barely drew iron on all three shots.

http://wonkette.com/400530/george-w-bush-plays-basketball-in-ireland

I don't see McCain picking Romney.

A) Romney became a figure of national ridicule for his series of mittflops and evasions. This would only reinforce the sense that McCain just doesn't do straight talk any more.

B) McCain has enough trouble getting evangelicals on board. Picking a Mormon would undo any success he has had in this direction.

C) Romney and McCain made it quite clear that there was no goodwill between them during the primary. Romney would not be a convincing surrogate, and there's no reason to think he wants to compromise his own chances for 2012 by joining the sinking McCain ship.

My bet remains Pawlenty, although I could still see Crist as a strong possibility. Either way, I think McCain is toast.

Actually, I believe that I saw a news report not too many years ago that showed that recruiters specifically target the lower income black neighborhoods of cities.  I can't remember where I saw it.  But then again, I can also say that recruiters probably target S.E. Oklahoma where there tends to be a lot of poverty but mostly white people.  Anyway, I tend to agree with you and others on the fact that it is mostly socio-economic.  I know.  I grew up in extreme poverty and all of my 3 siblings joined the military to escape.  They felt it was their only hope.  I didn't but then again, I was sort of a rebel and chose a easier/harder/different path.

Hmm.. that makes me wonder. Hypothetical: If poverty was eliminated in this country, would we need some type of mandatory military service?  Who would want to join voluntarily?

 I just read that McCain will announce his VP on Wed. Does anyone know if this is true or have a link?

Btw, ALOHA!!! I love being in Hawaii.  @ Melissa-I would like to learn how do that too. Fieldhands, how bout a tech class for us computer dummies? Pam aka Waterprise2 taught me how to link. Thanks again to Pam. Al or David -maybe a quick instruction for us newbies???? Please!!!!

This opinion piece published in the Guardian is of interest:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/21/barackobama.uselections2008

BondiBeachViews

some light-hearted (or even heavy-hearted, if you get the irony) pictures of the really old guy. I rec' it for the snarky comments alone.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/21/155043/664/546/554730

amk

McCain is not going to pick his VP this week, it would be a horrible move. McCain is simply trying to change the narrative by crying wolf.

Seems like it's working.

Joining Christi, Melissa & other Wise Women (ok, men can join!) in requesting that Techy Training.  I have Pam's instructions re:links printed out right next to my computer.  Also alexa's great info - and Susan Kitchens tips too...

Alhoa, Christi - don't think McSame will announce until day after Denver.

Good Morning Everyone!  Looks like my sign-in is fixed (for now, at least!)...

Like everyone else, I'm LOVING the coverage of Our Candidate overseas and McSame making gaffe after gaffe.

Some questions:  does anyone else notice that the Repubs are framing the "qualifications" to be President/C-in-C that one must be "old/experienced" and a veteran?  If you haven't served in the military, you don't understand enough to be C-in-C?  That only being around for a long time is enough?

Does anyone know that the only qualifications in the Constitution are 35 years old and a natural born citizen?  I know that 35 was a lot "older" in the 1700s than now because of life expectancy, but if being "only" 35 was such a liability, wouldn't it have been changed by now?

Of the four Presidents on Mt. Rushmore, only two served in the military.  Lincoln didn't serve.

Most importantly, the candidate who says he's been to the Middle East so many times doesn't even know that Iraq and Pakistan don't even share a border or the difference between Shia and Sunni or that Czechoslovakia isn't a country anymore; yet the Candidate who has been there less knows more and has better judgment!

Our Candidate made sure to remind everyone before his trip that the USA only has one President at a time, but he looks like a President anyway.

Not to mention that the other candidate is using the same themes as HRC: ready on day one, experience over hope, Obama is naive and inexperienced...and we know how well those worked for HRC!

Looking forward to Al coming back online...I'm sure he's recovering from his trip!

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

Hi Pam,

This frustrates me too (listening to Obama's recent speech on Iraq and Afghanistan I can't understand how anyone could doubt his foreign policy cred - also check out Fareed Zakaria's article in this weeks' Newsweek).  However, it probably doesn't matter this much.  There was an item  on the BBC news talking about Obama's trip and commenting that the US doesn't necessarily elect whoever has the foreign policy bona fides - they showed a funny clip of George Bush the First campaigning against Clinton/Gore in 1992 and he actually said this: "My dog Millie has more foreign policy experience than either of those two Bozos" :) And we know how that turned out.

And then you had George the Second with his infamous moment of not being able to name leaders of various countries and we managed to elect him twice.

KD

More cool video. Obama is so on top of his game for this overseas trip.

Excellent observations, Karen but I feel compelled to point out we didn't elect G.W. Bush twice. A partisan Supreme Court installed him in 2000 and there are serious legitimacy and voter fraud questions on the 2004 election.

@ Karen:  I was just going to say re: "we" elected GWB twice--who's "we"?  tee-hee!

@ Nancy:  I totally agree; I don't even see his "presidency" as legitimate!  The only thing I'm glad about is that the same Constitution that GWB and Cheney try to shred is the one that at least keeps us usually from riots in the streets and political coups even when we have the worst president in history.  (Although I wouldn't mind a coups right about several years ago...)

I've always said I could never be a news reader...I could NEVER say "President" and George W. Bush in the same sentence...I still put the remote on mute when he starts talking...

I remember when GHWB said "Bozos" when he knew he was losing on the night before the election...I remember thinking "how unpresidential"!

Geez, someone who didn't even know what a grocery scanner was; his wife ("Babs") saying out loud that she thought that Katrina victims were better off in the Astrodome than in their own homes...and they call Barack elitist?!?!?

OK...completely OT...built-up rants...sorry, Al!

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

Since I can't get past my anger of McSame continuing to insist that a President/C-in-C MUST have military experience...does anyone know if any or all of the potential McShameful Veep picks have military backgrounds?  Did Mitt serve?  If he didn't, I really hope that McAwful picks him...between Romney's flipflops, his fabrications just for political points, and his religion (totally unfair, but it's there), and the fact that his Dad's being Gov in Michigan 40 years ago won't hold as much water as he thinks it will...

If the VEEP is to be as qualified as the President and ready to step up in a heartbeat, why would McFoot-in-Mouth pick someone with no military experience?

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

Are you planning on posting about Obama's tour ? The blogs are hyped up about it and me too. We need some cold turkey analysis from you.

amk

Willard Mitt Romney missed out on Vietnam because of his Mormon missionary work in France and also drew a high number in the draft lottery.  Not only does Mittens have no military service, but none of his five sons have ever enlisted in the military.  Famously, when asked about this during the primaries, he indicated that they were serving their country by working on his Presidential campaign.

Mittens also has won only one election in his life, the governorship of Massachusetts, even though he did not appear to meet Mass.'s residency requirements when he ran.

Barney Frank once said, "The real Romney is clearly an extraordinarily ambitious man with no perceivable political principle whatsoever. He is the most intellectually dishonest human being in the history of politics."

In other words, the perfect VP for McCain, who is certainly a close second.

 I disagree with Domenico Montanaro/ First Read who writes:I'm with Noam on the logic / timing but not on his take that Montanaro/First Read is well-informed. I have no basis on which to agree or disagree about that. Thoughts?

Turning back home, all indications are pointing to Obama's veep pick getting announced in the 10-day window after he gets back from Europe and before the Olympics. (Maybe, given the calendar, we're stating the obvious at this point, but everything is about timetables in the Obama campaign, right?)

Noam Scheiber at TNR says

These guys are better-sourced than I am, and generally more familiar with how campaigns think this stuff through, so I suspect they're right. But I guess I don't see the unassailable logic of announcing the pick before the Olympics. Any PR bump will get stepped on by the games (unless they announce very soon after Obama gets back). Worse, the Olympic dark period will give enterprising reporters 2-3 uninterrupted weeks to look for skeletons in the veep nominee's closet, with which they'll pummel him/her at the convention.

Why not just save the announcement for, say, the first night in Denver? (The Olympics end the day before.) It'll get everyone to tune in, provide a big momentum boost at the outset, and maybe drown out the lurid interest in the Obama-Clinton soap opera.

Then again, maybe the Clintons would interpret that as a huge diss, which you'd prefer to avoid.

--Noam Scheiber

It doesn't seem to me that Obama needs to distract from his own news - this trip. 

I just don't detect a sense of urgency about the VP choice. Obama will annouce it in his own time. Now, McCain might try this approach, not that it will help. It will just be overshadowed by the olympics.

Do y'all remember talking about just such a trip back before the Pennsylvania primary? Al, do you have the archives of all the comments from that time. I'd like to know how our suggestions for an itenerary stack up to the actual itenerary!

Steven G Calabresi ? (serves on McCain's Justice Advisory Committee) had an odd editorial in today's Chicago Tribune.

He argues that 46 is dangerously young to be president via:

1) the constitution was written when life spans were shorter, therefore...we need a re-write of that provision. His main argument.

2) the mistakes of Bill Clinton, JFK and Teddy Roosevelt were age related - the perils of youth.

3) youthfulness = not keeping your promises = flip-flopping

etc.

It certainly caught my attention.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0722youthjul22,0,6673380.story