Curious to see what Barack Obama was like before he got into politics?
This rare TV interview from 1995 will give you some insight. One thing is clear -- the guy is consistent. He's been talking about post-racial, non-polarized politics for over a decade now.
These clips are from the television show "Connie Martinson Talks Books", and in them Obama discusses his newly published "Dreams From My Father". Obama must have been only 33 or 34 years old at the time, but he was already a thoughtful and eloquent conversationalist. His manner of speaking hasn't changed much over the past thirteen years. Having read Obama's book and heard many of those same stories become fodder in this election, I thought it was great to take a time machine back to 1995 and hear Obama expand upon them before he became a nationally-recognized figure.
OK, I'm just throwing this idea out there for free use by the Obama campaign. Consider this public domain.
On MSNBC today, I heard Tony Blankley speak some rare words of wisdom. He said that in hardball politics, "if you are explaining you are losing". So I don't think the Obama campaign should use explanations to respond to McCain's offensive new ad:
Instead, they should turn the tables using mockery. Force McCain to explain himself.
Via Americablog, it seems that in his town hall today John McCain has gone seriously overboard - essentially accusing Obama of treason:
Today, in what has to be one of the more desperate, unfounded and outrageous claims coming from McCain, he just said on national television that "it seems to me that Senator Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign."
Marc Ambinder was at the event and noticed the same quote (emphasis his):
McCain: "Now he [Obama] wants to reverse the gains he has made and set a date for withdrawal..."
Predicts a "stable and pro-American government in Iraq." "They have a long way to go and its very tough and long and hard, but we have seen the process of success and the enormous reduction in violence and sectarian violence..."
McCain: "I had the courage and judgment to say that i would rather win the war than [win] a political campaign. It seems to me that Sen. Obama would rather lose the war [in order to] win a political campaign."
Full disclosure -- so far, this is just a theory. So please have your tinfoil hat in place and secure.
But I have the strong suspicion that Barack Obama was originally slated to visit Iraq first, followed by Afghanistan. The plans were changed when John McCain foolishly disclosed Obama's itinerary on Friday.
Here is the circumstantial evidence.
First, from Marc Ambinder, we learn that the press was told that Obama would be traveling to Iraq first:
So reporters were to led to think that Obama would first travel to Iraq and then to Afghanistan.... not the other way 'round.
Second, doesn't it seem strange that Obama would fly to Kuwait, which is right next door to Iraq, only to skip Iraq and fly straight to Afghanistan?
Mr. Obama touched down in Kabul just before noon on Saturday, his aides said, after stopping to visit — and play basketball with — American troops in Kuwait on his trip from Washington.
Most of you have, I'm sure, already seen the ludicrous New Yorker cover that is getting so much attention right now.
While I share the outrage over the "ironic" cartoon, I don't think outrage alone is enough to diffuse this mini-controversy. I think you fight fire with fire.
Therefore, I think we need some talented artists to come up with response covers. You know, what if National Review did a similar "ironic" cartoon of George W. Bush or John McCain?
If I had more artistic talent, I would do it myself. But if you have good caricature skills and can photoshop your image into a mock National Review or American Conservative cover, we could really use your help.
Expect to see Marc Gonsalves, Thomas Howes, and Keith Stansell running for president in future years. After all, according to the McCain campaign, anyone in the military who gets into a plane crash in a foreign country and spends five years as a hostage/prisoner is unquestionably qualified to be president.
The men — Marc Gonsalves, Thomas Howes, and Keith Stansell — were taking part in a counter-narcotics mission for the Pentagon in 2003 when their plane went down in the eastern jungles of Colombia, a dangerous region largely controlled by FARC guerrillas.
Did you know that McCain has a two month losing streak in head-to-head polls against Barack Obama?
Maybe you've been distracted by beltway politics. That's understandable. Myself, I can't get excited over all this Wes Clark/FISA/campaign finance/faith-based b.s. This is the end of June, and none of this stuff's gonna matter come August, much less election day. Wes Clark committed a minor gaffe, the media pounced, and it's already starting to backfire on McCain. FISA is bad, but it hasn't passed yet so let's wait and see. Obama's decision to decline public financing and raise money from small donors was a great decision. Al Gore supported faith-based charities in 2000, so I don't see how it is controversial that Obama supports it now.
It would do us all some good to step back and admire the landscape, folks. I've got some good news for you, courtesy of Real Clear Politics: McCain has not led in a national non-tracking poll since May 3rd.
Watching TV yesterday and today, I saw the gasbag pundits talking about how many former Hillary voters are considering voting for McCain because of the sexism in the campaign. I even saw some of these so-called Democrats who think McCain should get their vote, spouting their nonsense with assists from troublemaking Republicans.
It's both laughable and shocking. As Hillary herself said, let's get real, folks. McCain is perhaps the most misogynist candidate since...hell...probably the 19th century. You worried about sexism? Let's look at McCain's record.
Since yesterday I've been in a funk about this FISA mess. The Democratic leadership, all of them, have basically capitulated to Bush's demands for telecom immunity and warrantless wiretapping capabilities. The biggest blow was when Senator Barack Obama actually supported the measure, albeit with reservations.
But instead of groveling and whining, let's look at the upside. Today, Republicans have invested the executive branch with near-dictatorial powers, free of oversight or impediment. 4th Amendment? Forget about it! And in just seven months time (fingers crossed) those powers will be bestowed upon President Obama.
So let's look at the upside folks, and start asking: Who should President Obama wiretap?
And don't worry, the Republicans won't complain about it. After all, they forced this horrible bill upon us! They begged for it, they stamped their feet, they put up counters telling us how long it's been since warrantless wiretapping was legal, they wrote op-eds and blog posts galore calling for this bill. So when Obama wields these powers, they will have no one to blame but themselves.
The NY times has published McCain's National War College essay, written in April 1974. Although the point of the thesis is to offer possible changes in the POW code taught to U.S. soldiers, it is a fascinating look at McCain's thinking vis-a-vis Vietnam War (was for it, unquestionably), the antiwar movements (he despised them), and -- most interesting -- his description of the North Vietnamese torture methods.
Guess what -- most of these North Vietnamese tactics are being used today in Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan. And while McCain has talked a good game about opposing these tactics, during the last eight years he has badly compromised these values in the hopes of winning over the pro-torture right wing Republican base.
Let's look at the contrasts between McCain in 1974 and the McCain/Bush policies of the last eight years.
He warned that the general election campaign could get ugly. “They’re going to try to scare people. They’re going to try to say that ‘that Obama is a scary guy,’” he said...
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said.
On May 30th I noted that McCain was underestimating Obama in this election. A few days later, Mark Halperin at Time noted the same thing.
I think this will be a major undercurrent in this election, one that's worth taking note of as we move into general election mode. It is the reason behind the green screen fiasco, McCain's flip-flopping and confusion, and the signs of despair amongst Republican insiders.
Nikki and I have decided that now is a good time to get this overwith. Barring a DREAM TICKET scenario or a scenario in which HILLARY WINS THE NOMINATION, which we see as unlikely at this time, we endorse John McCain for President.
This was a VERY tough decision, those of you that know me know I am extremely passionate about our party. I feel that it has moved away from me. We will not campaign for John McCain, but we will vote for him, and urge others to do the same.
It takes a certain amount of cognitive dissonance, grudge-holding, and, well, total stupidity for a hard core Hillary Clinton supporter to suddenly endorse John McCain for president.
Cody Eliff's reasoning, from what I can discern from this letter, evolved out of the tear-Obama-down "kitchen sink" strategy devised by Mark Penn and the Clinton campaign. I think most Clinton supporters are smarter than this, and will follow Hillary's classy lead in supporting Obama.
But let's have fun here, and smash apart the arguments put forth by this McCain-supporting Hillary fan. Maybe this will be instructive to others being tempted to the dark side.
Just heard Suzanne Malveaux on CNN as they were talking about Hillary as VP. Despite the fact that Hillary and her supporters are hoping for a VP slot, the Obama folks aren't nearly as keen to the idea.
Suzanne stated a few interesting things. First, Obama is not the type to be pressured into making hasty promises. He is planning to take his time and look at many potential candidates.
Second, she stated that Obama's team would first have to vet the Clinton's finances. This means looking into the Clinton Presidential Library, Bill's financial ties to Ron Burkle and other shady figures, and perhaps even a closer look at Clinton's years in the White House. Even though Obama didn't bring up any of this stuff during the primary, they know these could be MAJOR liabilities against the Republicans in the fall.
Rep. James Clyburn just came on CNN and said the same thing. Even though he is open to the "Nightmare Ticket", he thinks the Clintons would have to be vetted first.
So I would take a step back and calm down on this VP talk. There is no way the Clintons pass the vetting test.
You know it's silly season when Republican wingnuts start questioning the service of veterans, and start arguing that some Nazi concentration camps weren't all that bad (since the deaths were merely in the tens of thousands).
And now it's become even funnier. This idiot right winger Steve Gilbert, hot on the trail of the "truth" regarding Obama's great uncle's service liberating Buchenwald, wrote to WWII vet Raymond Kitchell and his son Mark Kitchell, who together run a site dedicated to the 89th Infantry.
What has ensued is a total pwning and smack-down the likes of which only a WWII vet can deliver.
As you know, John McCain and the RNC are pressuring Obama to go to Iraq and see all the progress we've made. The RNC has even posted a clock on their website telling us how many days it's been since Obama went to Iraq. Currently, the number is 871.
John McCain's proposal is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don't need any more 'Mission Accomplished' banners or walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge.
But they should go further. First, Obama should say that this isn't about how many Washington politicians go to Iraq. This is about how many American soldiers come home from Iraq.
Next, he should post two clocks on his website.
Days Until Obama Brings the Last Soldier Home:717 days
Days Until McCain Brings the Last Soldier Home:36,525 days
Hat tip to John Aravosis at Americablog for catching this.
According to today's AP report about McCain's medical records (titled "McCain Appears Cancer-Free, Healthy"), we learn this:
McCain's most recent exams show a range of health issues common in aging: He frequently has precancerous skin lesions removed, and in February had an early stage squamous cell carcinoma, an easily cured skin cancer, removed. He had benign colon growths called polyps taken out during a routine colonoscopy in March.
So why didn't the McCain campaign report this in February? Surely the Republican party would want to know that their 71-year-old candidate was having even more cancer surgery? And what else is the McCain campaign hiding?
Look at what John McCain, Mr. Foreign Policy Experience, said today while agreeing with Bush's repulsive remarks in Israel:
“Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain,'’ Mr. McCain told reporters on his campaign bus after a speech in Columbus, Ohio. “I believe that it’s not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn’t sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.'’
The Obama campaign and we in the liberal blogosphere need to jump on these comments. Once again, McCain has demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge about foreign policy and American history. First he got confused over Sunnis and Shiites, now this.
McCain seems to be forgetting something kind of important that happened during the Reagan administration.
In this video, Rev. Hagee clearly states that in his view, Jesus was not the messiah. He says Jesus didn't come to Earth as the messiah, nor did he claim to be the messiah. Apparently this is Hagee's convoluted way of defending the Jewish people against yet another smear that Hagee has himself promoted, that Jews killed Jesus, but I imagine this would enrage quite a large swathe of Christian believers. If you aren't Christian I'm sure you agree with Hagee, and that's fine. But Hagee is supposed to be a Christian minister -- and he's basically committing flat-out apostasy here.
Maybe McCain should be asked to explain this to the Republican base. What do you think?
