First Door on the Left

Here is why Johnny McCain is suffering from a case of the sour grapes today (see previous post)…

Obama Speaks to Germany on European Ties

BERLIN — Senator Barack Obama stood before a sea of people here Thursday evening and issued a call for cooperation, imploring America and Europe to bridge differences and rekindle old alliances in an effort to restore global stability and better confront existing and unforeseen threats.

“If we’re honest with each other, we know that sometimes, on both sides of the Atlantic, we have drifted apart and forgotten our shared destiny,” Mr. Obama said. “In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common. In America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe’s role in our security and our future.”

Pausing for a moment, the Illinois Democrat added: “Both views miss the truth.”

Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, who is on a weeklong international tour, delivered his address at the base of the Victory Column in the Tiergarten, a sprawling park in the center of the city.

He looked out toward the Brandenburg Gate, where President Ronald Reagan implored the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down that wall” and end the Cold War, and spoke to crowd that the German News Agency DPA estimated at 200,000 people.

“I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before,” Mr. Obama said, confronting the delicate issue of campaigning abroad. “Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen — a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.”

The full text of his remarks, as prepared for delivery, may be read here. I will add video when it becomes available.

Video:

P.S. The absolutely blind hatred emanating from the rabid right is amazing (if not more than a little sickening).

I’m a visual kind of guy. Really. Take a few moments and look around here. Lots of images. To me, a picture really does say a thousand words, and more. (Which may explain my magazine collection dating back to my teen years… all kinds of magazines… and that’s a lot of years.)

The use of images to spread propaganda particularly intrigues me. Especially propaganda of the political kind. Which, I guess, is why I found these two images I happened upon while browsing the internets this afternoon quite fascinating. I cannot fathom in my mind why right wingers (and even some on the left) would not find both of them equally amusing. I know I do.

The first, by the way, is a cartoon (in case you cannot tell). It depicts how some on the right believe some on the left feel about Senator Obama. (I have met him in person. He did not seem to be quite that skinny… though he did definitely appear to be fit… and he has a very firm handshake.) The second is an actual poster distributed by the McCain campaign (and a true tribute to the art of airbrushing). Nothing really says “peace” more than a red sky full of fighter planes unless it is a red sky full of fighter planes being watched over by the huge visage of Johnny McCain. Again, I personally find them both equally amusing, if not downright silly. I do not understand how some people can chuckle while viewing the first and yet take the second quite seriously.

Clicking on either image will make it appear bigger.

P.S. For Melissa Couthier: Does Mr. McCain’s pose in the above pictured poster remind you of anything?

This is about artistic tone. The profile view. The serious expression. The shading. When I saw the Obama flier picture McCain poster, my mind immediately called up this Hitler image and I was struck by how similar they are in feel the color choice differences aside. Unnerving really.

Sheesh. Stupidity really does rule the right, doesn’t it?

John McCain

Last week The New York Times published an op-ed column written by Barack Obama in which he laid out his plan for Iraq. This week the paper has rejected a column written by Johnny McCain in response to Senator Obama’s column. (Read Mr. McCain’s column here.) The reason given is that the McCain column contains no new ideas nor does it any way articulate what Mr. McCain’s plans are for the ill-begotten war in Iraq. All it does is claim that Senator Obama’s ideas and plans are wrong. (The newspaper of record has never, to my knowledge, promised that any column written by any candidate, no matter how trivial and inconsequential, would be published.)

Of course, the right wingers are all up in arms, once again claiming they are the victims of the so-called “liberal” media. What they fail to mention is that The New York Times has offered to publish Johnny McCain’s article, but only if he will rewrite it so it contains some substance. The McCain people have, of course, refused this offer. Substance is not what the McCain campaign is about. All they care to do is crow on about how the old codger is a hero because he spent five years sitting in a prisoner of war camp four decades ago and complain about how everybody else is wrong about everything while claiming that Senior Citizen McCain is the only person in the entire world to ever get anything right.

Now they’ve even got an ad out blaming Barack Obama for high gasoline prices!

Typical. Rather than telling you how Johnny McCain plans to solve our energy crisis and bring gas prices down, they tell you that it is all Senator Obama’s fault we have a crisis and prices are high. The next thing you know they will be blaming him for hurricanes (there is one heading for the Texas coast right now), floods and wildfires.

Our Republicans are a laugh a minute, aren’t they?

Meanwhile…

Gen. David Petraeus flies with Sens. Barack Obama and Chuck Hagel from Baghdad International Airport to the International Zone. (Photo credit: SSG Lorie Jewell, US Army)

Sen. Barack Obama, left, shakes hands with the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Baghdad, Iraq, Monday, July 21, 2008. (Photo: AP Photo/Iraqi Government)

(That’s gotta burn!)

P.S. Remember a few months ago when Senator Obama talked about bitter people who cling to guns, religion and antipathy? Well… I found them. (That’s some really funny stuff right there that is.)

Update: “New York Times To McCain: Cut The Crap.”

Also see: “The Times and the McCain Op-Ed.”

Our next president met with Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai today. Johnny McCain and Rudy Giuliani went to a baseball game.

Obama Meets Afghan Leader and Discusses Terrorism

Karzai and Obama

KABUL, Afghanistan, July 20 — Senator Barack Obama met with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan for nearly two hours on Sunday and “conveyed that he is committed to supporting Afghanistan and to continuing the war against terrorism with vigor,” an Afghan presidential spokesman said.

The meeting, which continued over a traditional Afghan lunch of chicken, mutton and rice, was conducted in a “very friendly environment,” the spokesman, Homayun Hamidzada, said.

Mr. Obama and the two other senators traveling with him — Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska; and Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island — reaffirmed the United States’ bipartisan support for Afghanistan. And Mr. Karzai asked that the senators pass on the “immense gratitude” of the Afghan people to their constituents and the American public, Mr. Hamidzada said at a news briefing after the lunch.

In an interview with CBS News on Sunday, Mr. Obama said: “We have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan. And I believe this has to be our central focus, the central front on our battle against terrorism.”[..]

Mr. Obama’s visit to Afghanistan is part of a weeklong tour that will take him to Iraq, Israel and Western Europe in an effort to build impressions, and counter criticism, about his ability to serve as president in a time of war.

Mr. Obama arrived in eastern Afghanistan, near Pakistan, on Saturday to get a firsthand look at the region where American troops are feeling the brunt of increased attacks from militants infiltrating the border. In selecting Afghanistan as an early stop in his first overseas trip as the presumptive Democratic nominee, Mr. Obama was seeking to highlight what he says is the central front in the fight against terrorism.

“Losing is not an option when it comes to Al Qaeda, and it never has been,” Mr. Obama told CBS News. “And that’s why the fact that we engaged in a war of choice when we were not yet finished with that task was such a mistake.”

Kudos to His Honor the Mayor for getting Johnny McCain out of the house on a weekend. He usually spends the weekends at one of his wife’s houses recuperating.

To begin the weekend Johnny made a guest appearance on NBC’s Late Night with Conan O’Brien where he feigned having a heart attack and keeling over. (The official line is that he was faking falling asleep because, you know, he’s so damned old.) Notice how the audience cheered. Nobody appeared to be awfully concerned that perhaps the old codger was not pretending…

One would think that at least one member of his Secret Service detail would have come running to his aid.

(More here.)

Was it really a mistake, or is somebody in the Bush White House looking out for the future of the country? Perhaps we’ll never know…

White House Tips Press Off to Maliki Interview

WACO, Tex. — The White House is quick to distribute its point of view in e-mail messages with headings like “News You Can Use,” “In Case You Missed It,” and “Setting the Record Straight.” So it was a surprise on Saturday morning when the White House distributed an article by Reuters that offered an endorsement of Senator Barack Obama’s Iraq policy by the leader of Iraq.

“Iraq PM backs Obama troop exit plan,” the headline read over a story about an interview of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki in the German magazine Der Spiegel, in which he expressed support for the senator’s plan to withdraw American combat brigades from Iraq over the next 16 months.

“U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months,” Mr. Maliki told Der Spiegel, Reuters reported. “That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”

Turns out it was a mistake by the White House clipping service, which had intended to distribute it internally but instead sent it to thousands signed up to receive the administration’s press releases, transcripts, statements and other documents, drawing attention to an interview that might otherwise have received less.

The timing compounded the mistake. It came a day after the White House announced that President Bush, in a significant shift, had agreed to a “general time horizon” for withdrawing American forces, though not on the strict timetable Mr. Obama favors. Mr. Maliki’s remarks suggested a position not entirely in line with President Bush’s, despite Friday’s announcement.

Troops meet future Commander-in-Chief

Related: “Obama Opens a Foreign Tour in Afghanistan.”

We still need your money if we are going to take our country back…

Obama campaign raised $52 million in June

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrat Barack Obama raised $52 million last month for his presidential campaign, more than twice as much as Republican rival John McCain in a significant boost to his financial cache for the fall contest.

The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee ended June with a combined total of $92.3 million in the bank. The figure represents a notable fundraising jump, especially for the DNC.

Obama reported $72 million cash on hand and the DNC $20.3 million. But the Democrats still lag Republican John McCain’s presidential campaign and the Republican Party.

Last week, McCain reported raising more than $22 million in June, which was his best month of the year. Together, the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee began July with about $95 million in the bank.[..]

McCain, aided by a large cash on hand surplus at the RNC, is off to a head start and has been outspending Obama in advertising. McCain has concentrated his advertising in about 11 battleground states. Obama has been spending less but has broadened the field to about 18 states.

See: “McCain raises $62.5 million through public finance loophole.”

The Republican fat cats are going to continue pumping those checks for hundreds of thousands of dollars into Johnny’s campaign. We cannot afford to let them have our country for another four to eight years. Click on this button right now:

(This button will direct your donation directly to the Obama campaign. If you would rather contribute to the Democratic National Committee, use the button at the top of the left column. Please give what you can, even if it’s only five bucks. It all helps tremendously and is really appreciated!) (The average donation to the Obama campaign during the month of June was $68. The average donation to the McCain campaign during the month of June was over $5,000.)

Barack Obama delivered a major speech on Iraq and national security this morning. It was entitled “A New Strategy for a New World.” I’m not sure that it was his best oratorical effort. In fact, judging from the video, I’m not even sure the audience was awake. Having said that… there was a lot of meat to the speech and quite a bit of policy and information to digest. You can read the speech (as prepared for delivery) here.

Here is the video (all 36 minutes and 24 seconds):

Imagine, for a moment, what we could have done in those days, and months, and years after 9/11.

We could have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11, while supporting real security in Afghanistan.

We could have secured loose nuclear materials around the world, and updated a 20th century non-proliferation framework to meet the challenges of the 21st.

We could have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in alternative sources of energy to grow our economy, save our planet, and end the tyranny of oil.

We could have strengthened old alliances, formed new partnerships, and renewed international institutions to advance peace and prosperity.

We could have called on a new generation to step into the strong currents of history, and to serve their country as troops and teachers, Peace Corps volunteers and police officers.

We could have secured our homeland—investing in sophisticated new protection for our ports, our trains and our power plants.

We could have rebuilt our roads and bridges, laid down new rail and broadband and electricity systems, and made college affordable for every American to strengthen our ability to compete.

We could have done that.

Instead, we have lost thousands of American lives, spent nearly a trillion dollars, alienated allies and neglected emerging threats – all in the cause of fighting a war for well over five years in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Our men and women in uniform have accomplished every mission we have given them. What’s missing in our debate about Iraq – what has been missing since before the war began – is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq and its dominance of our foreign policy. This war distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize. This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century. By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe.

Meanwhile, Johnny McCain today claimed “I know how to win wars.” Really? What wars has Johnny McCain won? Why didn’t anybody in our so-called liberal media ask him? “Excuse me, Senator, what wars have you won?” It sure wasn’t Vietnam. He sat that one out in a POW camp. In what other wars has he participated? Where, and how, did he learn to win wars?

Inquisitive minds really would like to know. (Though, apparently, not our so-called liberal media.)

Thank you!

Senator Barack Obama in today’s New York Times:

My Plan for Iraq

The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.

In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.

But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

Click on the headline to read the entire column.

Senator McCain, your rebuttal please?

I don’t know… I found it rather amusing myself. But then I don’t live in Podunk, Kansas and I certainly don’t believe all the wild rumors the righties love to spread about.

Obama campaign calls New Yorker cover offensive

(CNN) — Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign has sharply criticized The New Yorker magazine over the publication’s latest cover illustration, which appears to portray the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee and his wife as terrorist enemies of the United States.

The cover, published Sunday, shows Obama in the Oval Office dressed in traditional Muslim attire. His wife, Michelle, wears an Afro hairstyle and has a machine gun slung over her back. An American flag can be seen burning in the fireplace, and a picture of Osama bin Laden hangs on the wall.

“The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. “But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.”

Sen. John McCain’s campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said he agreed with Burton’s sentiment.

Obama refused to comment on the illustration Sunday.

The cover is linked to a feature article about the senator from Illinois’ formative political years in Chicago.

But not everyone finds the illustration over the top.

Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page told CNN’s “Reliable Sources” on Sunday that the cover “is just lampooning all the crazy ignorance out there.”

“I remember a few years ago, when The New Yorker had a cover at a time of great black-Jewish tension in New York. You had a cartoon of an obvious Orthodox Jewish male kissing a black woman, and this created a lot of buzz,” Page said. “That’s what it is, buzz. It’s discussion. It’s talk. And that’s what covers are supposed to do.”

Liberal radio talk-show host Laura Flanders told CNN’s “American Morning” on Monday, “I think the Obama campaign made a misstep here. They should have come out strongly endorsing this cover.

She said, “This isn’t a jab at them, terrorist or any other kind. This is a jab at the media. … It should be cause for our conversation to focus on the kind of fear mongering that the media and people on the right have engaged in.”

I’m kind of in the camp that says this is no big deal. Most people are going to recognize the cover for what it is - a jab at the conservative media and the right wing pundits and talking heads who spread this kind of garbage. The people who take the cover at face value were never going to vote for Senator Obama, anyway.

Then again, it is still early in the campaign. Many people are just now beginning to pay attention. (Most will likely not start paying attention until after the conventions.) Something like this may just serve to propagate the story line being put forth by the conservative media and the right wing pundits and talking heads.

I have no doubt that a lot of wingers will be buying lots of extra copies of the magazine just so they can rip off the covers and pass them around. “See? Even a liberal rag like The New Yorker thinks that Obama and his wife are terrorists.”

What do you think about the cover?

UPDATE: Barry Blitt, the cartoonist who drew the cover, explains his work:

I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is.

UPDATE #2: The more I think about it and the more I look at this cover, the more I am convinced that it really is not all that funny. I understand its message, as will most everybody who is at all familiar with The New Yorker. The problem is that not everybody is familiar with the magazine. A lot of people are going to pass newsstands, see this cover and interpret it in just the way the rabid right wants them to interpret it. There is no text on the cover and there is no article in the magazine to explain its meaning. It is just left hanging. And it is not really all that funny.