First Door on the Left

The Republicans (and some Democrats) are attacking Barack Obama for, they say, changing his position on the war in Iraq. But did he?

Here is what is on his campaign website:

Bringing Our Troops Home

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

Here is the New York Times report on what he said today…

Obama Might ‘Refine’ Iraq Timeline

FARGO, N.D. – Senator Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot sustain a long-term military presence in Iraq, but added that he would be open to “refine my policies” about a timeline for withdrawing troops after meeting with American military commanders during a trip to Iraq later this month.

Mr. Obama, whose popularity in the Democratic primary was built upon a sharp opposition to the war and an often-touted 16-month gradual timetable for removing combat troops, dismissed suggestions that he was changing positions in the wake of reductions in violence in Iraq and a general election fight with Senator John McCain.

“I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed,” he said. “And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”

As he arrived for a campaign stop in North Dakota, Mr. Obama told reporters on Thursday that he intended to conduct “a thorough assessment” of his Iraq policy during a forthcoming trip to the country. He stressed that he has long called for a careful and responsible withdrawal of American forces, but he declined to offer a fresh endorsement of his plan to remove one to two combat brigades a month.

“My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything that I’ve said, was always premised on making sure that our troops were safe,” he said. “I said that based on the information that we had received from our commanders that one to two brigades a month could be pulled out safely, from a logistical perspective. My guiding approach continues to be that we’ve got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable.”

He added, “I’m going to continue to gather information to find out whether those conditions still hold.”

I don’t see a whole lot of difference between what he said today and what is posted on his website. He just fleshed it out a bit today.

But, you know what? Even if there is a difference, I am not really all that upset about it. It is, in my opinion, better to have a Commander-in-Chief who is willing to evaluate conditions and adjust his policies accordingly than one who stubbornly insists on “staying the course” no matter how things may change.

I have opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning. So has Barack Obama. I’m still voting for him. He remains light years ahead of the alternative.

I will confess to be just a little confused when somebody came up to me today and said that Barack Obama supports George W. Bush’s faith-based initiatives. In fact, I was told, he wants to make them bigger.

It always helps, I find, to read the fine print…

Now, I know there are some who bristle at the notion that faith has a place in the public square. But the fact is, leaders in both parties have recognized the value of a partnership between the White House and faith-based groups. President Clinton signed legislation that opened the door for faith-based groups to play a role in a number of areas, including helping people move from welfare to work. Al Gore proposed a partnership between Washington and faith-based groups to provide more support for the least of these. And President Bush came into office with a promise to “rally the armies of compassion,” establishing a new Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

But what we saw instead was that the Office never fulfilled its promise. Support for social services to the poor and the needy have been consistently underfunded. Rather than promoting the cause of all faith-based organizations, former officials in the Office have described how it was used to promote partisan interests. As a result, the smaller congregations and community groups that were supposed to be empowered ended up getting short-changed.

Well, I still believe it’s a good idea to have a partnership between the White House and grassroots groups, both faith-based and secular. But it has to be a real partnership – not a photo-op. That’s what it will be when I’m President. I’ll establish a new Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The new name will reflect a new commitment. This Council will not just be another name on the White House organization chart – it will be a critical part of my administration.

Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don’t believe this partnership will endanger that idea – so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them – or against the people you hire – on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we’ll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.

With these principles as a guide, my Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will strengthen faith-based groups by making sure they know the opportunities open to them to build on their good works. Too often, faith-based groups – especially smaller congregations and those that aren’t well connected – don’t know how to apply for federal dollars, or how to navigate a government website to see what grants are available, or how to comply with federal laws and regulations. We rely too much on conferences in Washington, instead of getting technical assistance to the people who need it on the ground. What this means is that what’s stopping many faith-based groups from helping struggling families is simply a lack of knowledge about how the system works.

Well, that will change when I’m President. I will empower the nonprofit religious and community groups that do understand how this process works to train the thousands of groups that don’t. We’ll “train the trainers” by giving larger faith-based partners like Catholic Charities and Lutheran Services and secular nonprofits like Public/Private Ventures the support they need to help other groups build and run effective programs. Every house of worship that wants to run an effective program and that’s willing to abide by our constitution – from the largest mega-churches and synagogues to the smallest store-front churches and mosques – can and will have access to the information and support they need to run that program.

You can’t always take what the media tells you at face value. Sometimes you need to go directly to the source.

If the Democrats expect to win this year’s presidential election, they really need to stop wimping out all the time. I’m not kidding around here, folks. My party needs to grow a pair.

Yesterday, during an appearance on CBS’ Face the Nation, General Wesley Clark, in response to a question from moderator Bob Schieffer, said:

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

That is a true statement and I have said it before right here on this weblog. However, the rabid right wingers saw it as an attack on the frail old man they have chosen begrudgingly accepted as their 2008 presidential nominee. They objected and the Obama campaign immediately capitulated…

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said, “As he’s said many times before, Sen. Obama honors and respects Senator McCain’s service, and of course he rejects yesterday’s statement by Gen. Clark.”

Sen. Obama rejects yesterday’s statement by Gen. Clark.

Wrong answer!

The correct answer would have been:

General Wesley K. Clark

“General Wesley Clark is a retired General of the United States Army. He graduated as valedictorian of his class at West Point, was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship to the University of Oxford where he obtained a degree in PPE (Philosophy, Politics & Economics), and later graduated from the Command and General Staff College with a master’s degree in military science. He spent 34 years in the Army and the Department of Defense, receiving many military decorations, several honorary knighthoods, and a Presidential Medal of Freedom. His latest assignment was as Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO from 1997 to 2000. [source]

We honor the service of General Wesley Clark, value his opinions and are grateful to have his support and his advice in this all-important campaign for the Presidency of the United States of America.

We will put the service of General Wesley Clark up against that of John Sidney McCain III any day of the week. That is a debate we will be glad to have.”

That is what they should have said. Instead, they sent the candidate out to make a speech about how nobody’s patriotism should ever be challenged (Sen. McCain’s patriotism was not challenged; his qualifications for the presidency were) and then they issue a statement in which they “reject yesterday’s statement by Gen. Wesley Clark.”

Wimpy, wimpy, wimpy.

I have a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach telling me that Barack Obama may have blown it today. He seems to believe that if he plays nice, so will the Republicans. They won’t.

UDPATE: Watch the video…

(Could Schieffer possibly be more biased? One could almost believe he works for Fox News rather than CBS.)

Write your own captions…

Video.

I’m not so sure that I’m quite as ready to forgive and forget as Senator Obama appears to be…

Obama shares fundraisers with Clinton

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is sharing one his most valuable assets - his top fundraisers - with former rival Hillary Rodham Clinton to help her pay off her debt, the latest effort to heal the wounds of a bruising primary campaign.

Obama on Tuesday asked his finance team to help Clinton pay back at least $10 million from her failed presidential campaign, setting the stage for joint appearances by the two former rivals later in the week. In a teleconference with his top fundraisers, Obama asked them to do what they could to help Clinton.

“What I said was to my large donors who are in a position to write large checks, to help Senator Clinton retire her debt, or at least a portion of it. And I think they’re going to be those who are willing to do so,” Obama told reporters at a news conference in Chicago.

A large chunk of Obama’s cash has come from small donors, but he said he was not making the same appeal to them.

“I’m not going to be individually contacting $15 donors, because frankly, it probably wouldn’t be that effective in terms of making a big dent in Senator Clinton’s debt,” Obama said.

Obama’s green light to his money bundlers came before he and Clinton were scheduled to meet in Washington on Thursday with some of her top fundraisers in a show of unity after their bruising contest for the Democratic presidential nomination. On Friday, the two planned to campaign together in New Hampshire.

Obama clinched the nomination earlier this month; Clinton suspended her campaign and endorsed him.

All the talk has been about how we need to treat the Clintonistas with kid gloves so they will come back to the fold. I don’t quite see it that way. They need to do some serious apologizing and ask nicely to be allowed back into the fold. They and their candidate and her family said some pretty nasty things and made lots of not-so-nice accusations during the primaries. I’m not so sure that the Obama folks should be paying off Hillary Clinton’s debts. As John Cole says…

The debt, if you think about it, is from the last few months of the campaign when Clinton went with the kitchen sink strategy. Obama is now subsidizing the “White People Won’t Vote For Him” Appalachian tour, the 3 am ad, and the rest of the bile they chucked his way over the last two months when it was clear Clinton could not win.

I’m not so sure I’m ready to make nice. Yet. Maybe after a few “We’re sorrys,” which I haven’t heard or read. Yet.

A lot of people acted like Republicans (some still are), and for that they need to apologize. I’m still waiting.

Those on the right who are feigning such outrage over the new logo of the Barack Obama presidential campaign should perhaps look in their own back yard. Here are three logos currently in use by the National Republican Senatorial Committee:

In the event that you are in need of a refresher, here is the new Obama logo:

Of the bunch, the Obama logo is definitely the most imaginative and the better looking. As I stated in my earlier post on this topic, it will serve until we take the real presidential seal away from the impostor now using it.

Besides, I still have not seen or read anything official from the campaign stating that the new logo has been adopted, nor have I seen it used other than when Senator Obama was speaking to the governors’ group last Friday. It still does not appear on the official campaign website. Perhaps the campaign was just taking it out for a test run? (If it were up to me, I’d have the dang thing woven into the new rug for the Oval Office.)

As far as I am able to determine, the official logo of the campaign continues to be this:

(h/t Mark Nickolas)

UPDATE: “Obama’s presidential seal gone after one use.” Looks like y’all can put the outrage away for use on another day.

The former president still is not “over it…”

Clinton praises Obama’s greenhouse policy, sort of

Bill Clinton

MIAMI (Reuters) - Former President Bill Clinton offered faint praise for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s energy policy on Sunday, saying he preferred it to that of Republican rival John McCain.

“I think we’ll get better national policy next year,” Clinton told the U.S. Conference of Mayors in a speech centered on improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gases.

It was the former president’s first public appearance since his wife, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, ended her presidential campaign on June 7, after Obama emerged as the Democratic candidate in the November election.

The former first lady endorsed Obama, urged her supporters to rally behind him and is scheduled to campaign with him later this week.

But her husband has not publicly endorsed the presumptive Democratic nominee to succeed President George W. Bush. Asked by journalists when he might do so, Clinton smiled and shook hands with spectators without acknowledging he heard the question.

In his speech, Clinton predicted Congress would pass a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions.

“Because I believe so strongly in this, I favor Senator Obama’s position, which is to go to 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gasses over Senator McCain’s position, which is to go to 70 percent,” he said. “But that’s light years ahead of where Republican’s have been.”

[Friday night cartoons are in the post prior to this.]

The Barack Obama campaign unveiled a new logo this morning. Here it is alongside the presidential seal:

(You can click on the picture to make it bigger.)

A bit cheeky perhaps, but I like it. Senator Obama will be able to use the real one as soon as we take it away from the impostor in January.

By the way, “vero possumus” is Latin for “yes we can.” (Actually a bit closer to “in truth we can,” but it’ll serve.)

(Source: CNN)

P.S. You have to admit that it’s just a little more imaginative than the McCain campaign logo:

UPDATE: As of 7:00 p.m. CDT on Saturday, June 21, this new logo has yet to make an appearance on the official Obama campaign website.

Barack Obama’s first general election ad will begin airing in 18 states tomorrow. These states are: Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia. (Note that 14 of the 18 were won by George W. Bush in 2004.)

In the event that you do not live in one of those 18 states and will not be able to see the ad on your television tomorrow, or you just want to get a head start, here’s the ad:

The ad is designed to introduce Senator Obama to people who perhaps haven’t yet had the opportunity to meet him. I think it does a pretty good job. (It’s certainly a lot better than “Vote for me because I was a prisoner of war for four and half years.”)

This button, by the way, takes you to a page where you can contribute to the Obama campaign (and the future well-being of the United States of America):

He made the announcement last evening via video to his supporters…

Here’s how The New York Times reports the decision…

Obama Opts Out of Public Financing for Campaign

WASHINGTON — Senator Barack Obama announced on Thursday that he would not participate in the public financing system for presidential campaigns. He argued that the system had collapsed, and would put him at a disadvantage running against Senator John McCain, his likely Republican opponent.

With his decision, Mr. Obama became the first candidate of a major party to decline public financing — and the spending limits that go with it — since the system was created in 1976, after the Watergate scandals.

Mr. Obama made his announcement in a video message sent to supporters and posted on the Internet. While it was not a surprise — his aides have been hinting that he would take this step for two months — it represented a turnabout from his strong earlier suggestion that he would join the system. Mr. McCain has been a champion of public financing of campaign throughout his career.

“The public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system,” he said. “John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.”

I have been anticipating this decision for some time and it comes as no disappointment to me whatsoever. Quite the contrary, I think that any other decision by the Obama campaign would have been foolish. Though Johnny McCain will scream and holler about the unfairness of it all, the truth is that the right wing machine is going to ensure that Johnny has plenty of money for this campaign.

Had Senator Obama opted to limit himself to the public general election funds, he would have put himself at a decided disadvantage. In an election as important as this one, where the future of our country is literally at stake, we simply cannot afford that.

Good on you, Senator Obama, and congratulations on a decision well made!