[T]he streets were littered with anti-NATO and anti-Obama fliers. “Leave NATO — get rid of the gladiators,” one flier said, demanding that Turkey abandon the alliance. (WaPo)

“[The protestors] say his visit will bring more turmoil to the Middle East, and that he’s armed with demands that could divide Turkey,” writes Al Jazeera.

The reporter warns that Obama had better demonstrate that his talk will lead to something. We all know that that won’t happen and, insofar as Iraq and Afghanistan are concerned, he’s basically Bush II. He turned down the constructive nation-building ideas proposed by General David Petraeus, SecState Hillary Clinton and Envoy Richard Holbrooke in favor of a narrow, military-only strategy in Afghanistan with insufficient troop numbers, which — as John Batchelor’s panel (including Larry Johnson) pointed out tonight — will just add a few more soldiers in a largely wasted effort due to the incoherent and confusingly managed hodgepodge of multinational forces and teams. NOW for the video:

Anchor Q: That which we know that Barack Obama went to the NATO meeting to get, did he get that? What did he get if not that?

Patrick Buchanan: Well, he said he got the NATO allies behind the strategy. Fine, this is an American-designed strategy. But he got very, very, very thin gruel out of the allies.

We were down to talking about 3,000 troops. He doesn’t even know if these are combat troops or replacement troops for the allies who are already there.

When you consider that 3,000 meager contribution, even if it is net, compare that to the 30,000 to 40,000 more American troops going in, the President was defensive. He said this is not a pledging conference. I think the president has got to be dissatisfied with the fact that he did not get more out of this summit. His first summit where he’s extraordinarily popular, and where if he’s going to get anything, he’s going to get it now. [Personally transcribed from MSNBC News Live, 11 a.m. ET, April 4, 2009.]

NOTE: There’s MORE BUCHANAN BELOW.

Once again, Obama is down-ranking the United States’ world standing as he behaved deferentially, slavishly grateful for that thin gruel: “Obama Praises NATO for Afghanistan Support.” This man has too little experience at this kind of meeting — you’ll recall that, as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations’ subcommittee on Europe and NATO, he failed to hold a single hearing or to visit any member of NATO, let alone NATO headquarters. After all, his seat in the Senate was merely a resume builder (as Nocturnal Warrior so smartly noted on his Tuesday night show — LISTEN). He did not WORK at his jobs; he used them as launching pads.

President Obama needed advisers by his side who had a clue: SecState Hillary Clinton, SecDef Robert Gates, NSA James Jones, envoy Richard Holbrooke. One of them! If you are merely a prop, you need people around you to help you stand up.

See also: “Obama Wants NATO Troop Support,” A.P./AOL, April 4, 2009:

[B]oth Merkel and Sarkozy stressed the need for Afghanistan’s government and security forces to shoulder an increasing share of the burden. They gave no sign they were prepared to send more troops. Both countries believe civilian aid and training for police are what is needed to stabilize Afghanistan. …

Of note: I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that, later in the hour, Buchanan said that Obama’s symbolism was meaningful. Another analyst said that the “my way or the highway” approach [clearly referring to Bush] was gone, which is true.

But, I also want a president who is sensibly tough. The word “sensibly” is an important qualifier because, if we look to Obama’s action last week in firing GM’s Rick Wagoner, that was a nonsensical but highly symbolic gesture. I quote Larry Johnson in his must-read “Obama’s Economy of Torture“:

The firing of Rick Wagoner was not made for any rational economic reason. This is pure politics, designed in part to portray Barack as a tough guy who is taking charge on the eve of his international debut at the G20 summit. Not a single person on the Obama economic team has ever run a business or met a payroll. Barack and his team of bozos could not find a Secretary of Treasury who felt it important to pay taxes and wanted to appoint Tom Daschle to run Health and Human Services even though he was a lobbyist taking freebies on the side. And these are the people who want us to believe that they know how to run a car company?

BELOW: You can view the VIDEO of Obama’s press conference today, and more news articles:

More detritus, via the A.P., from the NATO meeting:

British officials traveling to the summit with Prime Minister Gordon Brown told reporters aboard his plane that Brown will offer to send more troops to Afghanistan but that depended upon other NATO members being prepared to send additional forces, Britain’s Press Association reported.

Spain said ahead of the summit that it would add a small contingent to help train Afghan army officers. Belgium said it will add some 65 soldiers to a force of 500 and send two more F-16 jet fighters, bringing the total number it has sent to six. [WOW! BE STILL MY HEART!]

A senior U.S. official traveling with Obama said Saturday that the administration expects that pledges and commitments from other NATO nations would come in over the next several weeks.

[...]

Looking to the future, the leaders are expected to issue a declaration Saturday that formally launches the creation of a new “strategic concept” or road map to define NATO’s roles, missions and way of functioning.
It would be the first such revision of the alliance’s purpose and function since 1999.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

UPDATE #1: Pat Buchanan goes on, later in the hour on MSNBC:

They’re going to come home [from NATO meetings], and his guys are going to say to him — Gates and these other guys — “Mr. President, we didn’t get a thing on Afghanistan in terms of troops.” They got as many people in Western Europe under NATO as we’ve got here in the United States. We carry the hod in Iraq.

We carry the hod in Afghanistan. We’re putting in 40,000 guys. They’re giving us nothing. At that point Barack Obama is going to have to say, “Look, are we maybe going to have to go to the whip here as the #1 power here and tell these guys, ‘Look we had a nice summit here and now starting ponying up’.”

So I think they’re giving him a [inaudible], they’re lathering over there, but he’s got to wait until he gets home to find out what he’s gotten.

As for that IMF money, Peter, I don’t think you’re going to get it out of the United States Congress. …

Update 2: The prescient former ambassador Joseph Wilson wrote numerous op-eds WARNING voters about Obama’s failure to do his job as a senator and his utter lack of experience. If only voters had THOUGHT instead of FEELING. From “Obama’s illusions on foreign policy” written April 8, 2008:

[...]

In fact, Obama’s understanding of foreign policy is extraordinarily limited. He has had one job in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: chairman of the Europe and NATO subcommittee. He has not held a single policy hearing in that capacity because, as he said in a debate, he has been too busy running for president. He has not even taken a fact-finding trip or provided any other oversight.

As to Obama’s self-promoted “judgment,” which judgment would that be? Would it be to follow the path of Bush 41: tough diplomacy backed by the threat of military action, as in the first gulf war? Would it be to ignore the rationale put forward by Colin Powell in the debate on the second gulf war? Would it be to vote exactly the same way Sen. Clinton did on war-related issues since he became a U.S. senator, which he has? Or is it simply to criticize from the sidelines with the benefit of never having had to face tough decisions with real consequences?

The next president will be presented with two difficult wars, U.S. moral authority at low ebb, and unprecedented complexity of our relations with the rest of the world. Obama has no record whatsoever, only his utter absence from his committee responsibility. His claim to be the one true heir to George H.W. Bush is a misguided illusion and no substitute for offering more about what foreign policies he would actually follow.

1)The computer systems of both the Obama and McCain campaigns were victims of a sophisticated cyberattack by an unknown “foreign entity,” prompting a federal investigation, NEWSWEEK reports today.

At the Obama headquarters in midsummer, technology experts detected what they initially thought was a computer virus—a case of “phishing,” a form of hacking often employed to steal passwords or credit-card numbers. But by the next day, both the FBI and the Secret Service came to the campaign with an ominous warning: “You have a problem way bigger than what you understand,” an agent told Obama’s team. “You have been compromised, and a serious amount of files have been loaded off your system.” The following day, Obama campaign chief David Plouffe heard from White House chief of staff Josh Bolten, to the same effect: “You have a real problem … and you have to deal with it.”
—————
Officials at the FBI and the White House told the Obama campaign that they believed a foreign entity or organization sought to gather information on the evolution of both camps’ policy positions—information that might be useful in negotiations with a future administration. The Feds assured the Obama team that it had not been hacked by its political opponents. (Obama technical experts later speculated that the hackers were Russian or Chinese.) A security firm retained by the Obama campaign took steps to secure its computer system and end the intrusion. White House and FBI officials had no comment earlier this week.

Read the rest ->

Nothing like being a victim to alert a person to the danger. I wonder if any technology-related policies will benefit from Obama’s victimization.

2)Meanwhile, in Russia, things are heating up. Foxnews has a piece about Russian President Medvedev “sending a signal” to the US.

Russia will deploy missiles near NATO member Poland in response to U.S. missile defense plans, President Dmitry Medvedev said Wednesday in his first state of the nation speech.

Medvedev also singled out the United States for criticism, casting Russia’s war with Georgia in August and the global financial turmoil as consequences of aggressive, selfish U.S. policies.

————————-

Speaking just hours after Obama was declared the victor in the U.S. presidential election, Medvedev said he hoped the incoming administration will take steps to improve badly damaged U.S. ties with Russia. He suggested it is up to the U.S. — not the Kremlin — to seek to improve relations.

“I stress that we have no problem with the American people, no inborn anti-Americanism. And we hope that our partners, the U.S. administration, will make a choice in favor of full-fledged relations with Russia,” Medvedev said.

Well, here we go. A Russian demand for a new American President to kiss some butt. Hmmmmm.

3)In the most thoughtful piece I’ve seen on the racial aspect of a President Obama, Shelby Steele talks a bit about what Obama implicitly promised and what he may not be able to deliver. From LAT.

[Obama's] talent was to project an idealized vision of a post-racial America — and then to have that vision define political decency. Thus, a failure to support Obama politically implied a failure of decency.

Obama’s special charisma — since his famous 2004 convention speech — always came much more from the racial idealism he embodied than from his political ideas. In fact, this was his only true political originality. On the level of public policy, he was quite unremarkable. His economics were the redistributive axioms of old-fashioned Keynesianism; his social thought was recycled Great Society. But all this policy boilerplate was freshened up — given an air of “change” — by the dreamy post-racial and post-ideological kitsch he dressed it in.

This worked politically for Obama because it tapped into a deep longing in American life — the longing on the part of whites to escape the stigma of racism. In running for the presidency — and presenting himself to a majority white nation — Obama knew intuitively that he was dealing with a stigmatized people. He knew whites were stigmatized as being prejudiced, and that they hated this situation and literally longed for ways to disprove the stigma.
——————–

Of course, it is true that white America has made great progress in curbing racism over the last 40 years.
——————–
It is exactly because America has made such dramatic racial progress that whites today chafe so under the racist stigma. So I don’t think whites really want change from Obama as much as they want documentation of change that has already occurred. They want him in the White House first of all as evidence, certification and recognition.

But there is an inherent contradiction in all this. When whites — especially today’s younger generation — proudly support Obama for his post-racialism, they unwittingly embrace race as their primary motivation. They think and act racially, not post-racially. The point is that a post-racial society is a bargainer’s ploy: It seduces whites with a vision of their racial innocence precisely to coerce them into acting out of a racial motivation. A real post-racialist could not be bargained with and would not care about displaying or documenting his racial innocence. Such a person would evaluate Obama politically rather than culturally.

On the nose. Particularly that last part. Although many people would not feel the same, I can say that this election has pretty much cured me of any need to seek “racial innocence.” While many blacks have often said they felt constrained not to make whites feel “threatened” by their presence, I think whites could respond that they often felt constrained to project “I’m not racist” at every opportunity.

However, I’m not doing it anymore. I’ll be polite to people, not wishing to give offense and just hoping to get along – same as ever. But I’m not going to worry if someone perceives me as a racist because I looked at them too long or noticed what was in their grocery cart or any of a thousand things you do when you interact others. I’m done with that.

But what about how Obama will transform our culture? What does Steele say?

There is nothing to suggest that Obama will lead America into true post-racialism. His campaign style revealed a tweaker of the status quo, not a revolutionary. Culturally and racially, he is likely to leave America pretty much where he found her.
——————
Presidents follow the culture; they don’t lead it. I hope for a competent president.

Yeah. I completely agree. All I ever wanted was competence.

4)The Orlando-Sentinel had an interesting and yet ridiculous piece today. Obama won because of black athletes. Seriously.

If you’re searching for tangible reasons why it became possible for Barack Obama to make his historic run at the presidency of the United States, then look no further than the golf course, basketball court or football field.

Obama may have emerged from the partisan political arena, but it was the nonpartisan athletic arena that opened white America’s eyes and minds to the amazing potential and personalities of black America.

OK, you can make a case for any barrier-breaker, no doubt about that. But to suggest that black athletes who excel in the ruthless meritocracy that is sports today somehow are the forerunners of a man elected despite a lack of experience is not a very good argument, IMO. Seeing Michael Jordan play basketball or Lynn Swan play football is to see a truly expert individual. Simply put, you don’t play if you don’t have the chops.

But to suggest a presidential campaign reflects meritocracy is absurd. It reflects many things, but not necessarily merit. These athletes will be out on their butts as soon as they can’t perform. Anyone honestly think THAT will happen to BO? Has it yet?

5)Who should get Obama’s Senate seat? An AA of course. I’m seriously doubting any white people need apply, but let’s look at the contenders. From Newser is a Time piece on who could fill that seat.

As confidence grew in recent weeks that Barack Obama would be the next President of the United States, a battle intensified among various Illinois politicos to fill his Senate seat. Although a number of local leaders have publicly expressed interest in the position, the decision on who will complete the roughly two years remaining in Obama’s Senate term ultimately rests with Illinois’ governor, Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat and former congressman. . .
—————

Identity politics may play a major part in Blagojevich’s decision. Observers believe the governor may feel compelled to appease two of his core constituencies — women, and blacks, particularly from his native Chicago area — that could prove crucial to his prospects should he seek reelection in 2010. He may feel extra pressure to replace the Senate’s only black member with another African-American. One of the names most frequently mentioned here is Jesse Jackson Jr., a veteran Congressman who represents parts of Chicago’s South Side, and a national co-chair of Obama’s presidential campaign.

In an interview Monday, Jackson told TIME: “I’d be honored and humbled to succeed Sen. Obama in the U.S. Senate. I’m confident the governor will make a decision in the best interest of the state, and country.” But Blagojevich could also opt for a sort of placeholder figure to complete Obama’s term and allow Democrats to find a long-term candidate for 2010. Among the prominent black politicians the governor would turn to in that scenario, are Illinois’ secretary of state, Jesse White, or Emil Jones Jr., the recently retired president of Illinois’ senate, and one of Blagojevich’s few General Assembly allies.

The author mentions some other contenders, but I think Jackson is the most likely choice and he’s clearly indicated he wants it. And as national co-chair of Obama’s campaign, I’m betting it’s his. As for the idea that a woman might get the seat? Only if Obama tells Jesse Jr. to pipe down.

A better question is this: what might Blagojevich need more than the goodwill of the President?

6)Newser also has a story from the AP about Iraq.

Iraqi officials said Wednesday they don’t expect Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops hastily from Iraq because he told them last summer that he wouldn’t make a decision without consulting them and U.S. commanders on the ground.

With violence down and the economy No. 1 on American voters’ minds, the Iraqis said they believe the new president will take his time before fulfilling his promise to end the war in Iraq, which costs U.S. taxpayers $12 billion a month at a time of financial crisis back home.
——————

“Obama has to deal with Iraq’s issues in a positive way and have a sense of responsibility to correct the situation in Iraq, as well the situation inside America,” said Salim Abdullah, spokesman of the largest Sunni bloc in parliament.

“We are not concerned that he will take a unilateral decision to remove troops quickly from Iraq since he needs to discuss this issue with the Iraqi government first,” Abdullah said.
——————–

This year, U.S. and Iraqi negotiators hammered out an agreement that would remove U.S. soldiers from Iraq’s cities by June 30, with the last American troops leaving the country by 2012. The accord still must be approved by parliament by year’s end when the U.N. mandate expires.

The draft agreement has drawn strong opposition inside Iraq, but government officials are hopeful that parliament can approve the pact in time for the deadline.

That would largely satisfy both Obama’s pledge _ and the Iraqi goal _ of an orderly end to the U.S. mission.

Don’t forget that part. Despite an agreement in place, Obama will take credit for any forward movement in Iraq. Having said that, I don’t think Bush deserves any credit at all. But perhaps some of his people might. They won’t get any.

7) Lastly, I looked in vain for MSM or even sorta MSM discussions of this election in terms of misogyny or in terms of women’s issues. Crickets. Except for a wonderful post here on NQ by Bud White, there is very little out there. We should push BO on this issue at every opportunity and carefully monitor his administration. While everyone talked about race being the “unspoken issue” of the campaign, it got thoroughly aired. What was never spoken of was hate against women.

So far, only bloggers are addressing the issue, but here’s another one:

Grail Guardian is pointed:

There will never be a female President of the United States. There. I said it. Ladies, go home and grab your burkas and start cooking dinner for your man and popping out babies. You will never have equal pay for equal work, you will never be considered competent or capable at anything you ever do, and you stand no chance of ever getting anywhere unless it’s to a soccer or hockey game to cheer your (male) children on. Of course the laws will be wide open to allow you to abort female children so you don’t have to sully the landscape with them at all anymore.

How do I know? Because before even half the nation’s votes were tallied tonight, not only were all the major networks calling the race for Barack Obama, but the pundits are already discussing how Sarah Palin was John McCain’s downfall. Pundits attempting to defend her popularity with statistics were shot down on Fox News. That’s it – it’s over. You will not see another female Presidential candidate taken seriously in this country in our lifetimes. We’ll be lucky if we continue to see women continue to hold seats in the Senate and House after tonight. Female Governors? Forget about it. Palin won’t be re-elected there, because in spite of the fact that Alaska loved her (90% approval rating) just 4 months ago, she has been trashed and is now persona non grata in her own state courtesy of the Chosen One.

Time to saddle up. We need to demand BO own this issue since he’s knowingly benefitted from misogyny. At the very least, he should be required to choose some women for his administration. But we already know what his people said to just that request before: “you can’t have that.”

Lynette Long talked with a BO staffer and heard just that.

Think the Congressional Black Caucus might be willing to push for women? BO MIGHT listen to them.

Dusted off, here’s my July 23rd story on Obama’s gaffe and related fall-out:

Yet Another Worrisome “Obamaism”: The Banking Committee Is “My Committee” [UPDATES], July 23, 2008:

At today’s press conference, Barack Obama said that the U.S. Senate’s banking committee is his committee, which will surely come as a surprise to the chairman of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs committee, Christopher Dodd, an Obama sycophant.

Not only is the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs not HIS committee, Barack Obama is not even a member of the committee:

Perhaps Senator Obama is having a “senior moment”? It’s reminiscent of his stating that there are 57 states in the U.S. Actually, I think that Obama probably doesn’t remember which committees he is on, given his dilatory, lackluster inattention to his duties on the committees on which he does serve. Shall we bring up his failure to hold a single hearing as Chair of the Subcommittee on European Affairs, which is part of the Senate’s Foreign Policy Committee? As Joseph Wilson wrote here:

As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on Europe, with jurisdiction over NATO, he has held not a single oversight meeting because, as he admitted, he was too busy running for president, even though NATO’s presence in the Afghanistan war is critical to success in that venture.

    – “Legitimate questions of judgment, experience” by Joseph Wilson, May 4, 2008

As the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee subcommittee on Europe, he has not chaired a single substantive oversight hearing, even though the breakdown in our relations with Europe and NATO is harming our operations in Afghanistan. Nor did he take a single official trip to Europe as chairman. This is the sum total of his actions in the most important responsibility he has had in the Senate. What are his actual experiences that reassure us that when the phone rings at 3 a.m. he will know what to do, which levers of power to pull, or which world leaders he can count on?

    – “Obama’s Shallow Credentials on National Security Are Dangerous for the Country” by Joseph Wilson

:::::::

Thanks to PPM for sending me the link to the video.

I find this appalling on many levels.

First, it is wholly inappropriate to refer to any committee as “MY” committee. It is not only ungentlemanly, it is egotistical.

Second, it is a flat-out lie that shows his utter lack of attention to his Senate duties in the VERY short time he has been a U.S. Senator.

Third, here is the list of committees on which Senator Obama theoretically serves.

:::::::

UPDATES: Memeorandum.com is tracking the story; CNN’s Political Ticker and several blogs have reported Obama’s (to be polite) misstatement. The Chicago Tribune has picked up the story. I’m certain that MSNBC and Keith Olbermann will be all over this too, especially since Keith constantly criticizes other news networks for not being “fair and balanced.” LATEST UPDATE: “THE FINE LINE BETWEEN PANDERING AND LYING.”

(I used to say, “Imagine if Hillary had said this.” Now, I say, “Imagine if McCain had said this. It’d be reported at the top of every news show.”)

Furthermore, if you’ve ever been lucky enough to have turned on C-Span during one of the exceptionally well-organized forums that Steve sets up (which is what he does for a living), you have been in for a treat. One of our best regular readers — whose comments are always a must-read — is “Mr. Murder.” He sent me an e-mail on August 15th about Steve’s latest forum, “Scripting America’s Priorities: The Democratic Party Platform.” Go to Steve’s blog, and read all about this important forum. (And thanks to Mr. Murder for sending me his e-mail.)

Steve Clemons’ fealty to the “Golden Rule” is an amazing feat since he is very well-connected in Washington, D.C. and knows nearly all of the major players, and I can only imagine how difficult it is to stay true to himself in such a hardball city. It would be natural to become cynical and to indulge in the gossip common in that cut-throat environment. (A prime example is Sally Quinn, who with one hand proudly holds up her religious faith, and with the other cuts people like the Clintons to shreds because they don’t meet her rather snobbish criteria for inclusion in her inner sanctum. Her snobbery is a dishonor to her supposed faith.)

So, when I read this written by Steve Clemons at his fine blog, Washington Note, I know he has thoroughly checked this story, and that he knows whereof he speaks.

Furthermore, I sense, strongly, that Steve Clemons was very unhappy as he wrote this:

“Obama to General Wesley Clark: Your Services Not Needed”

General Wesley Clark is not attending the Democratic National Convention. I was told by General Clark’s personal office in Little Rock that he would not be attending.

Clark was informed by Barack Obama’s people that there was no reason to come.

General Clark has been given no role of any kind at the convention.

Rubbing salt in the wound even more, the “theme” of Wednesday’s Democratic convention agenda is “Securing America.”

Wesley Clark’s PAC also happens to be called SECURING AMERICA.

This speaks volumes about Barack Obama. As the person who sent this article to me added, Barack Obama “holds grudges and is petty.” That is true. Furthermore, it is just plain stupid. One of Barack Obama’s glaring electability issues is his complete lack of experience in the essential arena of NATIONAL SECURITY. Barack Obama needs Gen. Wesley Clark FAR MORE than Gen. Clark needs Barack Obama. This rebuff demonstrates not only pettiness, it proves that Barack Obama lacks common sense.

Here is more from Steve Clemons about the Obama’s campaign notice to Gen. Clark that he is not welcome at the convention in Denver:

This is a mistake in my view. There are a lot of perspectives and competing agendas about how to direct America’s next national security posture — and General Wesley Clark should be one of the top tier names and personalities at the table. …

Please read all of Steve Clemons’ article. And consider the heavy heart with which I sense he wrote this.

[NOTE: I hope that our cartoonist PatRacimora also writes about this. PatRacimora knows Gen. Clark and has long been involved in his campaign activities and his PAC. She will add an important personal touch to this disappointing story.]

During the primaries, Steve Clemons made every effort to be fair to all of the candidates, including both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. He was also critical of all of the candidates when he felt they deserved to be criticized.

He told it like it is. Always. There were a couple times when I wrote to him about columns he published that were critical of Hillary Clinton, and he always — always — wrote me a thoughtful reply.

He is an honorable person. To his core. And so is General Wesley Clark.

In other words, his blog operates as an even-minded resource in the blogosphere — a true rare instance of “objectivity” these days when, frankly, we hunt and choose which stories to write about based on our own feelings and prejudices. I’m as guilty of that as anyone, at times. But Steve never is.

And now, let’s consider how this makes General Clark feel. He was a devoted partner to Hillary Clinton throughout her primary contests. Then, as soon as she suspended her campaign, he went to bat for Barack Obama. Because of one statement he made about John McCain, he became persona non grata to the Obama campaign.

There are other FINE PATRIOTS who have been similarly treated by the Obama camp. Former ambassador Joseph Wilson, a true American hero who campaigned in several states for Hillary Clinton, immediately CALLED Barack Obama’s campaign and offered his services in any way he could. He has never received a call back.

When heroes such as these are cast aside by a presidential campaign, one must ponder what the campaign is really about.

When such EXPERTS in national security are ignored, one must ponder if Barack Obama has any common sense. He needs these patriots’ advice. Desperately.

Aside from winning, that is.

It is a bit understandable that, for a while, the Obama campaign might be wary of General Clark’s services after his sincerely unintended “faux pas” regarding John McCain, which he in NO way meant as an insult but simply as a statement of fact. (It was unfortunate, but what’s past is past. And General Clark has such a distinguished record that the WHOLE of his professional and personal history must be honored.)

And why ignore Joe Wilson? Why ignore Valerie Plame Wilson? Why not appreciate and promote these fine Americans who have given their careers — and in both instances have paid a high price for sticking to their true American values — to protecting this nation and trying, always, to do the right thing?

Excerpted from Hillary Rodham Clinton’s editorial in today’s WSJ:

In the past few years, the number of corporations flocking to places like the Cayman Islands to evade U.S. taxes has exploded. One of these companies, former Halliburton subsidiary KBR, has used offshore tax havens to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in federal taxes. To no one’s surprise, instead of cracking down on KBR, the Bush administration has rewarded the company in April of this year with a 10-year, $150 billion contract in Iraq.

There appears to be no crisis, tragedy or disaster immune from exploitation under the Bush administration. The examples of the waste, fraud and abuse are legion — from KBR performing shoddy electrical work in Iraq that has resulted in the electrocution of our military personnel according to Pentagon and Congressional investigators, to the firing of an Army official who dared to refuse a $1 billion payout for questionable charges to the same company. In another scam, the Pentagon awarded a $300 million contract to AEY, Inc., a company run by a 22-year-old who fulfilled an ammunition deal in Afghanistan by supplying rotting Chinese-made munitions to our allies.

But the fraud and waste are not limited to the war. In the weeks after Hurricane Katrina, for example, FEMA awarded a contract worth more than $500 million for trailers to serve as temporary housing. The contractor, Gulf Stream, collected all of its money even though they knew at the time that its trailers were contaminated with formaldehyde.

While touting fiscal responsibility, President Bush and his administration have lined the pockets of political cronies like Halliburton and Blackwater. While calling for earmark reform, the president has allowed no-bid and questionable contracting throughout the federal government to dwarf earmark spending by a 10-to-1 ratio.

If we’re going to get serious about putting our nation’s fiscal house in order, let’s talk about putting an end to billions in no-bid contract awards to unaccountable contractors. Let’s talk about the number of lucrative contracts and bonuses being paid for duties never performed, promises never fulfilled, and contracts falsely described as complete. And let’s talk about reforming the federal contracting system so that we can take on the real waste, fraud and abuse in our federal government.

I’ve proposed a comprehensive overhaul to root out corruption in no-bid contracts and other shady deals. Reforms must include the following:

- Instead of rewarding companies that exploit tax shelters and incorporate in tax havens, let’s ban the federal government from contracting with companies that hide profits offshore.

- We should put in place safeguards so that contracts are awarded to responsible companies that abide by the law and complete the work they’re hired to do.

- Let’s put a stop to the disgraceful practice of giving bonuses to contractors for work never performed, which has been allowed to happen in Iraq and throughout the federal government according to the GAO and inspectors general.

- We need to increase transparency and competition in the contracting system, and to stop the ideological privatization of critical governmental functions.

In 1941, as the U.S. mobilized and entered World War II, then Sen. Harry Truman proposed and chaired the Senate Special Committee to investigate the National Defense Program. … By some estimates, the “Truman Committee” saved the American people some $15 billion — more than $165 billion in today’s dollars.

Truman took on the war profiteers because he understood that when the lives of Americans hang in the balance, we cannot afford to misuse even a single dollar. In the Democratic Congress, we’ve proposed a new Truman Committee to address the waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan that has already taken place, a proposal stymied by the president and his allies. And my proposal would prevent waste, fraud and abuse in future contracting.

Of course, we need far more than a Truman Committee. We need the Truman spirit in the White House, where the buck finally stops.

***

Ladies and gentlemen, here is another example of a work horse vs. a show horse.

So glad Hillary is on the job. Her words have bite. Better yet, her actions have merit.

She understands that some things cannot be delegated.

Has Obama said anything about this? Has he done anything? Aah, there’s a real question. Actually, he wants to keep Blackwater going, for one thing. For another, he has yet to have a meeting on the subcommittee he chairs to oversee Afghanistan. For a man who wants to end the war…?

Just in the last few weeks, Hillary has been front and center fighting for women’s rights, stopping Bush from cutting Medicare payments for seniors, vets and those with disabilities and now is once again taking Bush to task.

This is how Hillary occupies herself in advance of doing campaign stops for Barack who, by the way, is readying himself for another vacation this week.

So glad Senator Clinton understands that true leadership means working and taking on a difficult task – not just giving speeches, or aiming to win a popularity contest.

It is interesting that Senator Clinton always champions Harry Truman, generally regarded as one of our ten best Presidents. Harry Truman also championed the need for universal health care in his time. Like Truman, Senator Clinton understands where the buck stops.

I miss her.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

NoQuarterUSA Action Of The Day: We ask that you take part in the I Own My Vote Virtual Platform Committee Meeting now! It takes five minutes. Click here to start. If you have not yet signed the pledge, click here to do so.

Brokaw, with taped bits relating to Obama’s opposition to the surge and his assertion that the surge would not work asked Obama if his thoughts had changed. In true form, Obama could not even answer intelligibly:

MR. BROKAW:  Let’s begin there in Iraq, and that judgment of yours that violence has lessened and that there is a possibility now that Prime Minister Maliki can take on more responsibility.  You engaged in some verbal kung fu with reporters and others as well this week about the surge.  You opposed the surge, the addition of other American troops in there.  Many analysts believe that the reason that violence has decreased is because the American troops were deployed in a more effective manner…

Read the rest ->

Brokaw plays McCain radio ad talking about Obama’s opposition to the surge. Brokaw then plays a tape of Obama’s assertions that 20,000 additional troops would “only make things worse.”

MR. BROKAW:  Do you believe that President Maliki would be in a position to more or less endorse your timetable of getting troops out within 16 months if it had not been for the surge?

SEN. OBAMA:  You know, we don’t know, because in my earlier statements–I mean, I know that there’s that little snippet that you ran, but there were also statements made during the course of this debate in which I said there’s no doubt that additional U.S. troops could temporarily quell the violence. But unless we saw an underlying change in the politics of the country, unless Sunni, Shia, Kurd made different decisions, then we were going to have a civil war and we could not stop a civil war simply with more troops.  Now, I, I…

MR. BROKAW:  But couldn’t they make that political decision because troops were there to help them make it.

SEN. OBAMA:  Well, the–well, the–look, there’s no doubt, and I’ve said this repeatedly, that our troops make a difference.  If–you know, they do extraordinary work.  The troops that I met, they were proud of their work, they had made enormous sacrifices, they had fought, they had helped to construct schools and, and rebuilt the countryside.  But, for example, in Anbar Province, where we went to visit, the Sunni awakening took place before the surge started, and tribal leaders made a decision that, instead of fighting the Americans, we’re going to work with the Americans against al-Qaeda.  That was a political decision that was made that has made a huge difference in this entire process.

So the, the point I want to make is this, Tom, I mean, you know, if we want to look at the question of judgment which is the one that John McCain raised, John McCain’s essential focus has been on the tactical issue of sending more troops, and he’s, he’s made his entire approach to foreign policy rest on that support of Bush’s decision to send more troops in.  But we can have a whole range of arguments about past decisions–the decision to go into Iraq in the first place, and whether that was a good strategic decision, where we’ve spent a trillion dollars at least by the time this thing is over, lost thousands of lives in pursuit of goals John McCain supported that turned out to be false. We can make decisions about does it make sense for us to set a time frame for withdrawal to encourage the kind of political reconciliation that needs to take place to stabilize Iraq.  We can talk about the distractions from hunting down al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, where there is no doubt that we would be further along had we not engaged in some of these actions, and…

MR. BROKAW:  But we have to talk about the reality of what’s going on in Iraq right now.

SEN. OBAMA:  Well, but, but, but, let me…

MR. BROKAW:  And the Anbar awakening, most people believe, was successful in large part because the American troops did come in and make it possible for them to have the kind of political reconciliation…

SEN. OBAMA:  Tom, look–Tom, I’m, I’m–the fact that–the…

MR. BROKAW:  Do you disagree with that?

SEN. OBAMA:  As I said before, our troops made an enormous contribution, but to try to single out one factor in a very messy situation is just not accurate, and it doesn’t, it doesn’t take into account the larger strategic issues that have been at stake throughout this process.  Look, we’ve got a finite amount of resources.  We’ve got a finite number of troops.  Our military is stretched extraordinarily because of trying to fight two wars at the same time.  And so my job as the next commander in chief is going to be to make a decision what is the right war to fight, and, and how do we fight it? And I think that we should have been focused on Afghanistan from the start. We should have finished that job.  We have not, but we now have the opportunity, moving forward, to begin a phased redeployment and to make sure that we’re finishing the job in Afghanistan.

And now we know why Obama went to Germany – to “get tough” – well, sorta.

MR. BROKAW:  Now, you’ve just been meeting this week with French President Sarkozy and the German Chancellor Merkel.  She is prepared to add another 1,000 German troops, but that’ll take their contingent up to only 4500.  And both independent military analysts and certainly the Pentagon believes that the Germans are not doing their fair share of the fighting.  They want to stay in the north; the hot zone is in the south.

SEN. OBAMA:  Right.

MR. BROKAW:  Did you bring that up with her?

SEN. OBAMA:  I did.  Look…

MR. BROKAW:  And what was her response?

SEN. OBAMA:  We’ve got NATO troops who are doing terrific.  Some of them are in the direct line of fire.  The British, they’re fighting.

MR. BROKAW:  And the Canadians.

SEN. OBAMA:  The French, they’re fighting.  The Canadians, they’re fighting. The Dutch are, are fighting and, and involved in very difficult work. Countries like Germany are doing important functions in Afghanistan, and it’s not as if there’s not work to do in the north.  But what is true is the rules of engagement that have been set up are ones that constrain them.  I think that Chancellor Merkel is very serious about Afghanistan.  I think she is doing as much as she can, given her politics in her country right now.  Part of the reason that I wanted to give a speech in Berlin is to–and speak directly to the German people is to remind them of the historic alliance that has been formed post World War II that served as the cornerstone of our mutual security.  And this is the first effort by NATO outside of the European theater.  We can’t afford for it to fail.  And, and my hope is, is that if the German people get a sense that this is–Afghanistan is very different than Iraq, that this is a war that we needed to fight.  These people attacked a NATO member, killed 3,000 civilians, that they are plotting to kill more of us, and…

And about that residual force to be left in the region after the great pullout:

MR. BROKAW:  And the troops that you take out of Iraq, those that don’t go to Afghanistan, will they stay in the region and protect Saudi oil fields and the idea that there could be another resurgence of the insurgency in Iraq?  And where will they be deployed?

SEN. OBAMA:  Well, these are issues, obviously, that you’d have to work through with the commanders.  I have committed to making sure that we’ve got a residual force that can do a couple of things.  We can provide logistical support, intelligence support.  Training for Iraqi troops is still going to be critical.  They are now at a point where they are taking the lead in actions, but they are not completely independent of us, and we’ve got to make sure that that oversight, overwatch role continues.  And we’ve got to have a counterterrorism, a counterinsurgency strike force in the region.  Where it’s most effectively deployed, I think, is a decision that would be made in consultation with the, with the generals.  How large that force might be, I think, is also something that we would want to consult with folks on the ground about, as well as the Iraqi government.  But…

What about that USAToday editorial asking about the surge?

MR. BROKAW: All right. Well, let me show you what the USA Today said in its editorial, and then we’ll move on to Afghanistan. This is what USA Today had to say about your position on the surge. “Why can’t Obama bring himself to acknowledge the surge worked better than he and other skeptics thought that it would?” That’s a conditioned response on their part. “What does that stubbornness say about the kind of president that he would be?”

SEN. OBAMA: Well, listen. I, I actually think that there’s no doubt that the violence has gone down more than any of us anticipated, including President Bush and John McCain. If you, if you would–if you had talked to them and, and said, “You know what? We’re going to bring down violence to the levels that we have,” I think–I, I, I suspect USA Today’s own editorial board wouldn’t have anticipated that. That’s not a, that’s not a hard thing to acknowledge, that the situations have improved more rapidly than we had anticipated. That doesn’t change the broader strategic questions that we’ve got to deal with.

So, if USAToday didn’t anticipate the reduction in violence, then Obama couldn’t anticipate it either.

But what did he say about his first trip to Afghanistan?

MR. BROKAW: Let’s talk about Afghanistan. That war, as you’ve emphasized a lot in the past week or so, that war’s been going on since shortly after 9/11. This was your first trip. You’re a member the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I know schoolteachers and NGO volunteers

SEN. OBAMA: Right.

MR. BROKAW: …who go there on a regular basis. How is it possible that, as a candidate for president of the United States and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is making his first trip to what you call the central front in the war on terror?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, look, the, the fact is, is that I’ve been busy also working on issues like Iraq, on nuclear proliferation. There are a whole range of issues that we’ve got to deal with. But my assessment of Afghanistan has not been incorrect, it’s been correct.

Brokaw also asks about the housing / finance meltdown, $4 gasoline and race relations. Obama walks a thin line on the last one, saying that inequities today are due less to current racism than are simply legacies of racism past. Clearly he doesn’t want to imply his white supporters are otherwise racists (although we do know that whites who don’t support Obama are always racists. . . ), but he implies that it will take lots of money to fix these race-based problems.

The transcript is worth the read since Obama is unfiltered and without a teleprompter. If you’d like to see the interview, Realclearpolitics has it here.

—————————————-

At rightwingnuthouse, Rick Moran has a humorous and yet fair list of the “Top Ten Things that Creep Me Out About Obama.” Although lightly written and with some humor, the list will be familiar to NQ readers. It’s stuff we’ve been saying for some time. Here are a couple to get started:

10. It creeps me out that whenever Obama makes an appearance, the rain stops falling and the sun comes out. As a rationalist I am loathe to ascribe a direct cause and effect to this phenomenon except that it happens quite frequently and the rainbow created by the sun breaking through the clouds spells out “Yes We Can!”

Probably just a coincidence…

9. It creeps me out that there are about twice as many women at Obama rallies as there are men. Now I am not of the Melvin Udall School of anti-feminist thought (when asked how he writes women so well, Udall responds “I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability”). But what is one to think when watching the reaction of females as Obama is speaking? I’m sorry, but it is hard to imagine a man covering their mouth, chest heaving, barely able to contain himself and then ooooohing and aaaaaahhing when the messiah says something particularly vapid and innocuous.

(I used to say, “Imagine if Hillary had said this.” Now, I say, “Imagine if McCain had said this. It’d be reported at the top of every news show.”)
……………………………………………………

At today’s press conference, Barack Obama said that the U.S. Senate’s banking committee is his committee, which will surely come as a surprise to the chairman of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs committee, Christopher Dodd, an Obama sycophant.

Not only is the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs not HIS committee, Barack Obama is not even a member of the committee:

Perhaps Senator Obama is having a “senior moment”? It’s reminiscent of his stating that there are 57 states in the U.S. Actually, I think that Obama probably doesn’t remember which committees he is on, given his dilatory, lackluster inattention to his duties on the committees on which he does serve. Shall we bring up his failure to hold a single hearing as Chair of the Subcommittee on European Affairs, which is part of the Senate’s Foreign Policy Committee? As Joseph Wilson wrote here:

As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on Europe, with jurisdiction over NATO, he has held not a single oversight meeting because, as he admitted, he was too busy running for president, even though NATO’s presence in the Afghanistan war is critical to success in that venture.

    – “Legitimate questions of judgment, experience” by Joseph Wilson, May 4, 2008

As the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee subcommittee on Europe, he has not chaired a single substantive oversight hearing, even though the breakdown in our relations with Europe and NATO is harming our operations in Afghanistan. Nor did he take a single official trip to Europe as chairman. This is the sum total of his actions in the most important responsibility he has had in the Senate. What are his actual experiences that reassure us that when the phone rings at 3 a.m. he will know what to do, which levers of power to pull, or which world leaders he can count on?

    – “Obama’s Shallow Credentials on National Security Are Dangerous for the Country” by Joseph Wilson

:::::::

Thanks to PPM for sending me the link to the video.

I find this appalling on many levels.

First, it is wholly inappropriate to refer to any committee as “MY” committee. It is not only ungentlemanly, it is egotistical.

Second, it is a flat-out lie that shows his utter lack of attention to his Senate duties in the VERY short time he has been a U.S. Senator.

Third, here is the list of committees on which Senator Obama theoretically serves.

There is a reason that 30+ flag officers endorsed Hillary Clinton. See:

• “More Flag Officers Endorse …“
• “Gen. Shelton Endorses, Obama Thinks Rumsfeld OK“ (This includes the statement of Gen. Antonio Taguba who endorsed Hillary because of her strong stand against the use of torture. Gen. Taguba was assigned to investigate Abu Ghraib and had his career “shunted” by DefSec Donald Rumsfeld as a result.)

There still is time to nominate Hillary Clinton who has the experience and track record on the hard issues to match John McCain.

I have no doubt that, if it’s useful, the RNC will also make an ad about that one speech that Obama made in 2002, and the true story behind that ad:

See also, the true story about that 2002 Iraq speech, so little noted that it wasn’t videotaped or even covered in Chicago media, forcing the Obama campaign to “recreate” the speech, as reported by NPR: “The Staged Iraq War Speech & More “Creative” Embellishments.”

This means, of course, that we have to take creative marketing guru David Axelrod’s word for it that he really spoke those words in 2002. By the way, after that unreported speech — unremarkable because he uttered those words safely ensconced in a very liberal neighborhood of Chicago — Obama never lifted a finger or spoke out again on Iraq. That is, until it became politically useful for him to make a major production out of that single unreported, unrecorded speech.

Sadly, his followers haven’t reviewed the true history of that one speech, haven’t questioned the authenticity of its reproduction in a recording studio, and haven’t factored in that Obama didn’t make any further effort to aid the anti-Iraq-war movement, even when he joined the U.S. Senate — where his voting record is identical to Hillary Clinton’s, except that he voted FOR the ill-suited Gen. George Casey, while Hillary Clinton did not. … Joseph Wilson’s writings about his memories of those opposed to the Iraq War and Obama’s notable absence from any participation in lobbying against the war before and since joining the U.S. Senate [are a must-read].

We are certain that the Denver delegates, entrusted with a very serious task of nominating a qualified presidential candidate, will review writings such as these:

Former ambassador Joseph Wilson noted in an op-ed for the Philadelphia Inquirer, “Obama’s Illusions on Foreign Policy“:

[...]

[Obama's] entire foreign-policy claim that he would be a better president than Hillary Clinton rests on the slender reed that he possesses intuitively superior judgment, which would have led him to vote against the Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq had he been in the U.S. Senate in October 2002.

What would Obama have done differently in the first gulf war from what he claims he would have done in 2002 had he been in the Senate at that time? In 1990, Saddam was deemed a threat by the first Bush administration. Senior administration officials threatened military action while working toward a diplomatic solution. Congress was ultimately faced with a vote to support the president’s approach. Some Democrats, including then-Sen. Al Gore, voted with the administration, while a majority voted against.

Obama claims that an antiwar speech he made while running for state Senate in the most liberal district in Illinois is proof of his superior intuitive judgment. But if Obama had been in Washington at that time, participating in the national debate, he would have come face to face with Secretary of State Colin Powell, the same Colin Powell who, as Gen. Powell, was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the first Bush administration, the one Obama wishes to emulate.

Powell would have told him, as he told the other senators he briefed at that time, including Sen. Clinton, that the president wanted to use the Authorization for the Use of Military Force resolution not to go to war but, rather, as leverage to go to the United Nations to secure intrusive inspections. George W. Bush repeated this claim publicly.

Would Obama’s intuitive judgment have led him to defy Powell while still remaining faithful to his fantasy of the “wisdom” of the Bush 41 foreign policy? Perhaps Obama would have urged a summit with Saddam Hussein, with no preconditions, as he has since proposed as a means to “transcend” traditional foreign-policy methods with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. Secretary of State Jim Baker did meet with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz before the launch of Desert Storm, but this meeting was for the express purpose of conveying to the Iraqis the military consequences of not departing from Kuwait before the Jan. 15, 1991, deadline. There was never any question of demeaning the presidency by an unconditional summit for the simple reason that presidents don’t haggle. That’s why presidents have secretaries of state.

In fact, Obama’s understanding of foreign policy is extraordinarily limited. He has had one job in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: chairman of the Europe and NATO subcommittee. He has not held a single policy hearing in that capacity because, as he said in a debate, he has been too busy running for president. He has not even taken a fact-finding trip or provided any other oversight.

As to Obama’s self-promoted “judgment,” which judgment would that be? Would it be to follow the path of Bush 41: tough diplomacy backed by the threat of military action, as in the first gulf war? Would it be to ignore the rationale put forward by Colin Powell in the debate on the second gulf war? Would it be to vote exactly the same way Sen. Clinton did on war-related issues since he became a U.S. senator, which he has? Or is it simply to criticize from the sidelines with the benefit of never having had to face tough decisions with real consequences?

The next president will be presented with two difficult wars, U.S. moral authority at low ebb, and unprecedented complexity of our relations with the rest of the world. Obama has no record whatsoever, only his utter absence from his committee responsibility. His claim to be the one true heir to George H.W. Bush is a misguided illusion and no substitute for offering more about what foreign policies he would actually follow.

Read all eight of Joseph Wilson’s writings posted here at No Quarter with his express permission. Those writings include:

• “Legitimate questions of judgment, experience”
• “The Obama Campaign: Consent of, or Contempt for, the People”
• “Smears and Tears: How Obama’s National Security Week Turned Into the Mendacity of Hype”
• “Obama’s Shallow Credentials on National Security Are Dangerous for the Country“

At the immediate moment, our chief concern is ensuring that we Democrats nominate a candidate who the American people will find experienced and knowledgeable about foreign policy.

Evidently, Obama has hijacked the DNC and moved it lock, stock, and barrel to CHICAGO!!! WOWIE ZOWIE!! How do the OTHER 57 states feel that the DNC has now become the BONC? Holy freakin’ Toledo.

This is really hard to fathom. Obama is a JUNIOR Senator. Hell, he has barely been there for his first term, and certainly has done very little real work since he has been so busy stealing – um, I mean – campaigning – for votes.

As we all know by now, he could not even chair his own subcommittee on piddly matters like AFGHANISTAN and NATO because he was busy running around the country on his Unity Unicorn. And now, and NOW – he has essentially taken over the ENTIRE DNC.

How does this happen, I ask you? Is it that people have HANDED over that much power to him, and if so, WHY? Why would they give a junior senator who has essentially ZERO experience, the reins to the WHOLE enchilada??? If I were still a Democrat, I’d be mighty upset by this.

Even still, I have never, in my entire 50 years on this planet, EVER heard of a presidential candidate having THIS much power over the organization, never mind one who had so little experience. Oh, wait – there hasn’t BEEN a presidential candidate with so little experience before – maybe THAT’S the issue!!

If we only had people who had relationships with nefarious people, some flat-out criminal, and NO real Congressional experience, maybe THEY would have hijacked their entire political organization, too!!! Who knew?!

Well, good luck with all of that. As Texas Darlin’ has already pointed out at NoQuarter, Obama and the DNC are having a hard time raising money.

Wow – what a surprise, NOT!!! See, evidently, none of the muckety mucks at the DNC bothered to read all of our emails telling them we would not give them one more NICKEL if they kept shoving the least experienced, most poorly prepared, candidate down our throats. And, they must have hit the Spam button when we kept telling them we would NOT support their pick over the most QUALIFIED candidate, who was heads and shoulders above her competition. Maybe they thought we would all fall in line after all, being the good little women (and men who support a qualified woman) we were, and toe the line after all, hanging the specter of John McCain over our heads. Oooohhhh, scary!!! (Seriously – I am not voting for McCain, but he cannot be anywhere NEAR as bad as Bush, could he?)

Surprise!!!! We were all telling the truth!! We WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA PERIOD!! We will NOT support their mind-boggling choice to be the DNC nominee. Nope – not when we have seen the one whom we COULD have had!!

Why in the HELL would we want someone who really DOES flip flop around on every single issue and answer, someone who makes OUTRAGEOUS claims like NO ONE has done more for the LGBT community, or for women, or for Israel, or just NAME a group, than Obama has.

After I picked myself up off the floor laughing myself silly on THOSE stupid comments, you have this guy saying he NEVER said he would pull the troops out of Iraq. WHAAA??? Is Obama REALLY so naive as to think we don’t have VIDEO TAPE?!?!?!? Really?? He said it over and over and OVER again in every single one of those debates.

Now, I thought HIS people were supposed to be all of the edumacated (!) ones, but thank HEAVENS I had a good Logic professor while pursuing my undergrad degree in Philosophy, and a good ethics professor for my Master’s of Divinity, concentrating in Ethics, ’cause I detect not only some logical fallacies here, but some downright LIES.

This man’s lack of an ethical base is but ONE of the MANY reasons I will never vote for him. I have seen the alternative, and having seen her, someone who really HAS done a lot for the LGBT community, for women, for the working poor, for veterans, and I could go on and on, cannot, absolutely WILL not, support this sham of a candidate who has hijacked the entire party. Like I said, Good luck to ‘em all!

I guess THIS will learn me to take a vacation during a presidential election cycle!! Sheesh.

::::::

From my blog, Rabble Rouser Ruminations.

SANTA FE, N.M. – In recent weeks Americans have been subjected to a litany of outrageous statements from Sen. Barack Obama’s pastor of 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. While Obama was finally compelled to distance himself from his radical preacher, the relationship raises legitimate questions about Obama’s judgment and naivete.

Obama, after all, wants to be president of the United States, and in that quest has proposed unconditional summit meetings with some of our country’s most determined enemies, including Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Obama’s campaign has been built upon his supposed transcendent qualities and intuitive judgment. His foreign policy experience is limited to having lived in Indonesia between the ages of 6 and 10, and having traveled overseas briefly as a college student.

He further claims that a speech he gave against the war in Iraq six years ago to extremely liberal supporters in a campaign for state senator in Illinois is sufficient proof of his superior judgment in national security matters and qualifies him to be president and commander-in-chief of U.S. Armed Forces at a time when we are fighting two extraordinarily difficult wars. As with his relationship with Wright, a closer examination is warranted.

In the U.S. Senate, to which he was elected in 2004, a year after the launching of Operation Iraqi Freedom, he has done little to act on his asserted anti-war position, and has said repeatedly that had he been in the Senate at the time of the vote on the authorization for the use of military force he doesn’t know how he would have voted.

As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on Europe, with jurisdiction over NATO, he has held not a single oversight meeting because, as he admitted, he was too busy running for president, even though NATO’s presence in the Afghanistan war is critical to success in that venture.

Obama repeats the incorrect and politically irresponsible mantra that Sen. Hillary Clinton voted for the war and that therefore he is more qualified to be president. Unlike Obama, as the last acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq during the first Gulf War, I was deeply involved in that debate from the beginning.

President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell made it clear publicly and in their representations to Congress that the authorization was not to go to war but rather to give the president the leverage he needed to go to the United Nations to reinvigorate international will to contain and disarm Saddam Hussein, consistent with the resolutions passed at the time of the first Gulf War.

With passage of the resolution, the president did in fact achieve a U.N. consensus, and inspectors returned to Iraq. Hans Blix, the chief U.N. inspector, has said repeatedly that without American leadership there would have been no new inspection regime.

l l l

SADDAM WAS A SERIAL VIOLATOR OF HUMAN RIGHTS, had started two wars in the region in the previous decade, continued to threaten his neighbors, including Israel, which he once said he would destroy with weapons of mass destruction. We may not have fully understood how little remained of his WMD arsenal, but were we really willing in the aftermath of 9/11 to give him a free pass, as Obama’s rewriting of history suggests he might have done?

The approach of tough diplomacy backed by the threat of military action was the correct one and it yielded exactly the desired results, a unanimously passed U.N. resolution and the capitulation of Saddam when he readmitted the inspectors.

The betrayal occurred not when the president was given the tools he needed to secure international support for inspections, but rather when Bush refused to allow the inspectors to complete their work and decided preemptively to invade, conquer and occupy Iraq.

That decision and power was his alone — not the Congress’ and certainly not Hillary Clinton’s. Obama is wrong to turn Bush’s war into Clinton’s responsibility. And Obama is dangerously na•ve in failing to understand the need in international crises to blend tough diplomacy with the other foreign policy tools at our disposal to achieve a strong national security posture.

Judgment and leadership in foreign policy are not intuitive. They are learned through experience. Obama’s long and close relationship with the anti-American hate-monger Wright, his inattention to his responsibilities in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and his careless approach to Iraq all suggest that he would benefit from more experience. We should ask whether we want those lessons to be learned in the White House.

____________

(Joseph C. Wilson IV is a former diplomat and U.S. ambassador. He was senior director for African Affairs in the Clinton administration. In 2003 he wrote a New York Times opinion piece, “What I didn’t find in Africa,” challenging the Bush administration’s use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq.)

Senator Obama’s ill-conceived remarks likening small town Americans to embittered guns-and-God bigots have triggered a justifiable furor. Not only are the remarks insulting, but also factually incorrect.

As it happens, at the same event in San Francisco, Senator Obama made other remarks, equally startling, insulting our Foreign Service, Intelligence Officers, members of Congress who provide oversight, and friendly governments. Like his comments about small town Americans, Obama demonstrated a cavalier disregard for Americans who every day get up determined to make this a better country, whether running the general store in a small town, or representing our national security interests in a foreign country.

This is what Obama said:

Experience in Washington in not knowledge of the world. This I know. When Senator Clinton brags, ‘I’ve met leaders from 80 countries,’ I know what those trips are like. I’ve been on them. You go from the airport to the embassy. There’s a group of children who do a native dance. You meet with the C.I.A. station chief and the embassy and they give you a briefing. You go take a tour of a plant that with the assistance of USAID has started something. And then you go.

Obama’s arrogance and contempt for career professionals in the national security community is palpable. His contempt reminds me of something Bill Kristol, the editor of the right wing war mongering Weekly Standard, said in a debate with me shortly after the launching of the Iraq War in 2003. We were in Midland, Texas, Laura Bush’s home town, and Kristol was asked if he had ever spent time in the Middle East region, to which he responded “I’ve always believed on the ground experience is highly overrated.”

That callous disregard for professional expertise and experience is, of course, one of the reasons we so badly miscalculated the consequences of our actions in Iraq. That arrogance is no less offensive coming from Senator Obama. And it is no less wrongheaded.

Foreign Service Officers, Intelligence operatives, and USAID development experts carry out the mandate of our government to represent the interests of the United States, to understand the dynamics in a foreign society so as to better advise our own government on policies to be pursued, and work to improve relations between the United States and the country in question. The world is a dangerous and precarious place, and there are serious issues that constantly need to be engaged with foreign governments. It requires hard work and diligence. We ignore or denigrate that work at our peril.

Senator Obama should know better. After all, in his professional capacity as Chairman of the Senate subcommittee responsible for Europe and NATO, he was in charge of ensuring Congressional oversight of the administration’s efforts to generate greater NATO support for operations in Afghanistan.

The fact that, by his own admission, he was too busy running for president to convene a single meeting of that subcommittee, should not absolve him of responsibility for acquiring at least some understanding of and respect for the work of career professionals who dedicate their lives to the service of their country.

I was one of those public servants for twenty-three years. My colleagues and I, whether in the Foreign Service, the Military or the Central Intelligence Agency, were and are motivated by a commitment to serve the values that have made this country free and secure, values that are enshrined in our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

In exercising our responsibilities, we were careful to ensure that members of Congress were kept abreast and made partners in our efforts to keep America safe. When they visited our posts, we went out of our way to provide substantive briefings, meetings with senior host government officials, trips to USAID projects so elected representatives could see for themselves what the United States was doing to assist citizens of the recipient country improve their lot in life. And yes, there were cultural events, to broaden the perspectives of the visitors and to show respect for the indigenous culture they were being introduced to. Our goal in this was to ensure that those who represent the American people in Congress better understood what we were doing because more knowledge leads to better decisions.

Judgment is not intuitive, as Senator Obama asserts; from my hard-won experience as a Foreign Service Officer, that judgment is learned.

Obama has made plain that he is not bothered in the slightest about belittling the work of Foreign Service and CIA Officers serving overseas, often in dangerous circumstances, any more than he is about denigrating Americans from small towns or blaming democrats in Congress, and especially Hillary Clinton, for George W. Bush’s war in Iraq. It was not ironic that he made both comments at the same fundraiser in San Francisco. The contempt is consistent.

Trashing Congress, small town Americans, and career national security professionals, while befriending Jeremiah Wright and Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers may be a winning electoral strategy. Who knows? Time will tell. But I suspect that many small town Americans are as offended as my professional colleagues and I by this display of contempt from one who seeks our consent to govern.

Joseph C. Wilson IV is a retired career diplomat, a former U.S. ambassador, presidential foreign-policy adviser, and author of “The Politics of Truth”

Sen. Barack Obama declared in Pennsylvania on March 27 that his foreign policy would “return” to that of George H.W. Bush and that Sens. John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton both had strayed from that model. Having served in the first Bush administration, as acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq in the run-up to the first Gulf War, and subsequently as ambassador to two African nations, I cannot fathom what Obama is asserting.

His entire foreign-policy claim that he would be a better president than Hillary Clinton rests on the slender reed that he possesses intuitively superior judgment, which would have led him to vote against the Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq had he been in the U.S. Senate in October 2002.

The first President Bush (Bush 41), of course, has publicly supported his son (Bush 43) throughout the second conflict in Iraq.

When Saddam Hussein’s troops invaded Kuwait in August 1990, I was in charge of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, responsible for the safe release of Americans held hostage, and I personally confronted Saddam to persuade him to depart Kuwait peacefully. It was axiomatic in our approach that the only way to influence Iraqi behavior would be to threaten military action in the event Saddam did not respond to diplomatic demands. If we were going to make those threats credible, we would have to be prepared to act on them, which we were, and which we did, with full international backing.

What would Obama have done differently in the first gulf war from what he claims he would have done in 2002 had he been in the Senate at that time? In 1990, Saddam was deemed a threat by the first Bush administration. Senior administration officials threatened military action while working toward a diplomatic solution. Congress was ultimately faced with a vote to support the president’s approach. Some Democrats, including then-Sen. Al Gore, voted with the administration, while a majority voted against.

Obama claims that an antiwar speech he made while running for state Senate in the most liberal district in Illinois is proof of his superior intuitive judgment. But if Obama had been in Washington at that time, participating in the national debate, he would have come face to face with Secretary of State Colin Powell, the same Colin Powell who, as Gen. Powell, was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the first Bush administration, the one Obama wishes to emulate.

Powell would have told him, as he told the other senators he briefed at that time, including Sen. Clinton, that the president wanted to use the Authorization for the Use of Military Force resolution not to go to war but, rather, as leverage to go to the United Nations to secure intrusive inspections. George W. Bush repeated this claim publicly.

Would Obama’s intuitive judgment have led him to defy Powell while still remaining faithful to his fantasy of the “wisdom” of the Bush 41 foreign policy? Perhaps Obama would have urged a summit with Saddam Hussein, with no preconditions, as he has since proposed as a means to “transcend” traditional foreign-policy methods with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. Secretary of State Jim Baker did meet with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz before the launch of Desert Storm, but this meeting was for the express purpose of conveying to the Iraqis the military consequences of not departing from Kuwait before the Jan. 15, 1991, deadline. There was never any question of demeaning the presidency by an unconditional summit for the simple reason that presidents don’t haggle. That’s why presidents have secretaries of state.

In fact, Obama’s understanding of foreign policy is extraordinarily limited. He has had one job in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: chairman of the Europe and NATO subcommittee. He has not held a single policy hearing in that capacity because, as he said in a debate, he has been too busy running for president. He has not even taken a fact-finding trip or provided any other oversight.

As to Obama’s self-promoted “judgment,” which judgment would that be? Would it be to follow the path of Bush 41: tough diplomacy backed by the threat of military action, as in the first gulf war? Would it be to ignore the rationale put forward by Colin Powell in the debate on the second gulf war? Would it be to vote exactly the same way Sen. Clinton did on war-related issues since he became a U.S. senator, which he has? Or is it simply to criticize from the sidelines with the benefit of never having had to face tough decisions with real consequences?

The next president will be presented with two difficult wars, U.S. moral authority at low ebb, and unprecedented complexity of our relations with the rest of the world. Obama has no record whatsoever, only his utter absence from his committee responsibility. His claim to be the one true heir to George H.W. Bush is a misguided illusion and no substitute for offering more about what foreign policies he would actually follow.

Regardless, the blunt statements of his earlier views, preserved on a questionnaire he filled out for an Illinois voter group that later endorsed him, would allow a Republican opponent to paint him as being way to the left of the nation’s electorate on questions that have historically been potent wedge issues.

It took a week for the Obama campaign to come up with its official response — Barack Obama did not fill out the questionnaire:

A week after Politico provided the questionnaire to the Obama campaign for comment, an aide called Monday night to say that Obama had said he did not fill out the form, and provided a contact for his campaign manager at the time, who said she filled it out.

The campaign went on to explain that Senator Obama had been very consistent in his views.  

Why does a four-month-old story matter now?  Because the campaign’s explanation in December 2007 may not be entirely accurate.  Politico received an amended copy of the questionnaire with notes on the front page written in Barack Obama’s handwriting.  The campaign’s response is rather difficult to believe:

Through an aide, Obama, who won the group’s endorsement as well as the statehouse seat, did not dispute that the handwriting was his. But he contended it doesn’t prove he completed, approved — or even read — the latter questionnaire.

“Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires — a staffer did — and there are several answers that didn’t reflect his views then or now,” Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama’s campaign, said in an e-mailed statement. “He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire at the meeting, but that doesn’t change the fact that some answers didn’t reflect his views. His 11 years in public office do.”

So he was handed a voter questionnaire and all he did was jot some notes on the first page about his endorsements?  He didn’t even flip through the questionnaire to see how his aide had characterized his views?  And if the questionnaire was filled out by an aide, why was it amended?

Consider the question of whether minors should be required to get parental consent — or at least notify their parents — before having abortion.

The first version of Obama’s questionnaire responds with a simple “No.”

The amended version, though, answers less stridently: “Depends on how young — possibly for extremely young teens, i.e., 12- or 13-year-olds.”

The group for which Barack Obama filled out the questionnaire in 1996 is also upset with his shifting positions.  After supporting him in every election since 1996, the Independent Voters of Illinois — Independent Precinct Organization, deadlocked on an endorsement vote after Politico’s story first appeared in December.  Upon learning that he would not stand by his statements in his original questionnaire, the only 40% of the board members voted to support him:

“One big issue was: Does he or does he not believe the stuff he told us in 1996?” said Aviva Patt, who has been involved with the IVI-IPO since 1990 and is now the group’s treasurer. She volunteered for Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign, but voted to endorse the since-aborted presidential campaign of Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) and professed disappointment over Obama’s retreat from ownership of the questionnaire.

“I always believed those to be his views,” she said, adding some members of the board argued that Obama’s 1996 answers were “what he really believes in, and he’s tailoring it now to make himself more palatable as a nationwide candidate.”

I don’t expect Barack Obama to remember every piece of paper he ever filled out, but I do expect him to stand by his actions.  There is nothing wrong the evolution of politician’s political views.  Nothing at all.  We need leaders who are able to respond to changing circumstances rather than standing by ideas that aren’t working in the name of ideology.  Imagine where we might be in Iraq if our leaders were taking that strategy?

I have two problems with this.  First, the hypocrisy.  He has hit Hillary again and again on NAFTA, saying she supported it in 1993, but opposes it now.  It’s hard to ascertain with certainty what her position was in 1993 because she couldn’t very well go out and hold a press conference attacking her husband, could she?  Second, I am getting sick and tired of Barack Obama blaming his aides for his mistakes.  The Republicans are certain to use this to beat him over the head in the fall:

It could also provide ammunition for a line of attack quietly peddled for some time by Republicans. They allege Obama has a penchant for blaming his staff for gaffes ranging from missing a union event in New Hampshire to circulating opposition research highlighting the Clintons’ ties to India and Indian-Americans to underestimating the amount of cash bundled for his campaigns by his former fundraiser, indicted businessman Antoin “Tony” Rezko.

When is Barack Obama going to stand by what his past actions?  He has a slick explanation for everything.  At the Democratic National Convention in 2004, he backed off his opposition to the resolution to authorize force in Iraq because he didn’t want to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards.  He didn’t really mean it.

This is part of a pattern of evasion from Senator Obama that he won’t be able to continue indefinitely.  He has a book that we can’t mention without being accused of playing the race card.   He has a voting record in Illinois that he runs away from.  He has done little since joining the Senate beyond take credit for the work of other Senators and brag about legislation that never passed.

He has hammered Hillary Clinton for her Iraq War vote in 2002 while dodging questions about his own inconsistent statements.  He has accused her of refusing to give straight answers to tough questions while dodging tough votes on Iran and the resolution condemning MoveOn.org.  Every time he is confronted with something, he comes up with an excuse.  Why didn’t he hold a single oversight hearing on NATO or Afghanistan?  He was too busy campaigning.  Why did he skip the vote on the Kyl-Leiberman amendment?  Because nobody told him about the vote.

Excuses.
Excuses.
Excuses.

That’s not leadership.  And that’s not the “straight answers to tough questions” that he promised voters and accused Hillary of not delivering.

Hope or hype?  I think the answer is obvious.

Also posted at MyDD.com.

So I went hunting, and was often surprised at what I found. It amounts to a pattern that I find dismaying. There are a lot of links here, documenting sources for my conclusions, and there is a lot to read.

Here is my list, in no particular order. See if you agree with me, and answer the questions for yourself… did he really not know, or is it just that he didn’t mind?

1. He joined and remained active in a church where racism and anti-American hate is routinely preached. He and his family attended, and heavily contributed for about 20 years. This has received worldwide attention, as show in the link below.
Ten Must-See Videos from The Times Online
Obama first claimed not to know about Wright’s inflammatory statements. He later admitted he did.
CBS News
Flip-Flip Video
CBS News
OOPS… didn’t notice. Or else he forgot.
Rev Wright, one of the ministers, even promoted Obama and denigrated Hillary Clinton from the pulpit spurring an IRS investigation as to the validity of their non-profit status. The Obama campaign is also reported to have campaigned on at least one occasion at church events, furthering the curiosity of the IRS.
WCBS TV

Obama Speech at General Synod of the United Church of Christ

But, OOPS… he didn’t know. Or didn’t mind.

2. Senator Obama bought stock in two companies whose investors included his 2004 campaign political donors. One, in fact, was developing medicine to treat avian flu — with the stock purchase coming right before Obama introduced legislation to increase funding to combat the virus.
The other company, SkyTerra, received government permission to build a national wireless network on the day Obama purchased his shares. Among the principal owners of this business were four people who had raised more than $150,000 for Obama. Attorney Obama claimed later that they were in a semi-blind trust, that just didn’t legally work out. When this became public, Obama sold the stock.

Chicago Sun-Times
New York Times
Oops… he didn’t know. Or didn’t he mind?

3. Senator Obama came into politics through the famously corrupt Chicago political machine, with the help of some of the slimiest characters imaginable. (Several major players who helped him are have been indicted for graft, fraud, etc. Obama now keeps a rep at Rezko’s trial every day to monitor testimony.) Obama has had to donate to charity much of the money they gave him to get his start, though the admitted dollar amount keeps increasing as time goes on. It’s now up over $250,000. Tony Rezko, currently at trial on federal charges of attempted extortion, money laundering, and fraud, was also involved in the purchase of Obama’s home at well below market value.

Huffington Post
Chicago Sun-Times
New York Times
Not so well publicized is the fact that Obama wrote letters to the Illinois Dept of Housing, recommending Rezco’s company, North Kenwood, LLC, for the housing projects that soon became slums, causing inhumane hardship for their residents.

Obama Letters
These slums, later repossessed, were in Obama’s district while he was an Illinois senator. In fact, some are about a mile from his home, and several are still boarded up. Obama professed to be unaware of any problems. During the Democratic debate on January 21, 2008, Obama, in fact, gave the impression that he had merely done about 5 hours of legal work for “this individual.”
The Rezko Foreclosed Properties
telegraph.co.uk
No Quarter
Rezko Watch
Chicago Tribune: Almost Believable
OOPS… he didn’t know. Or did he care?

4. According to the Sun-Times, Barack Obama, “allegedly decent guy and agent of change” in Washington, requested an earmark in 2006 for $1 million taxpayer dollars for the University of Chicago Hospitals, where is wife, Michelle Obama, was a vice president. Said hospital, by the way, gave Michelle Obama a huge raise (nearly $200,000, more than doubling her salary) in 2005 after Barack was elected to the United States Senate.
Michelle Obama
Chicago Sun-Times
According to The Chicago Tribune, “Obama had a special connection to Maytag: Lester Crown, one of the company’s directors and biggest investors whose family, records show, has raised tens of thousands of dollars for Obama’s campaigns since 2003.” Maytag closed its refrigerator plant in Galesburg, Ill during Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign, but Crown says Obama never raised the fate of the Galesburg plant with him. Obama’s campaign responded “that the senator did not know Crown sat on Maytag’s board until the Tribune noted it last September in a story about the closing of the Maytag headquarters in Newton, Iowa.”

Chicago Tribune
Obama Truth
Oops… he didn’t know? Or didn’t he care?

5. Obama took donations from federal lobbyists and political action committees for his House and Senate races and his own Hopefund political action committee. He only stopped taking this political money — and began speaking out against it — when he launched his presidential campaign in February 2007. However, he still takes hundreds of thousands of dollars from their high level employees.
Politifact
The Hill
Politifact
Oops… he didn’t know? Or doesn’t mind?

6. Opponents have asked Senator Obama to release the records from his term of state office in Illinois. Since he has little other experience in politics (he did, after all, declare his presidential candidacy barely 2 years after election to the US Senate), this doesn’t seem an unreasonable request. The records might also shed light on his relationship with Rezko and some of the other corrupt individuals he rubbed shoulders with during his climb up through Chicago politics. But lo and behold, the records all seem to have mysteriously disappeared.
Politico
The Pantagraph, a central Illinois newspaper

Questions have also been raised about Obama-sponsored legislation during the last year he was in office there. It is alleged that, in the interest of making Obama appear more prolific, then Illinois Senate Majority Leader Emil Jones appointed Obama as sponsor of many pieces of legislation, even though other senior senators had spent many years working on the bills.

“I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty Republican committee chairmen,” State Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained to me at the time. “Barack didn’t have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit.”
“I don’t consider it bill jacking,” Hendon told me. “But no one wants to carry the ball 99 yards all the way to the one-yard line, and then give it to the halfback who gets all the credit and the stats in the record book.”

As a result, Todd Spivak of the Houston Press noted, “During his seventh and final year in the state Senate, Obama’s stats soared. He sponsored a whopping 26 bills passed into law — including many he now cites in his presidential campaign when attacked as inexperienced.”
Houston Press

Oops… he didn’t know? Or did he mind?

7. Obama’s website sported a page for the New Black Panthers organization until it was discovered and reported by the media. It was quickly removed. Obama denounced their support, but the New Black Panthers’ Winter 2008 newsletter still carries a full page ad for his campaign on page 36. Though the origin of the ad is not stated, it contains logos, graphics and quotes from the Obama website, which Obama could have ordered removed as a copyright violation.
The NBP page, before its deletion.
NBP Winter 2008 Newsletter
OOPs… he didn’t know.

8. In addition to the controversy concerning his numerous “present” votes while in the Illinois legislature, Obama also maintains that he just pushed the wrong button on 5 or 6 other votes. (Let’s not even go there!)

According to the New York Times, however, an examination of Illinois records shows at least 36 times when Mr. Obama was either the only state senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way, causing many to question whether he was really just trying to avoid taking a stand.
LA Times on Obama votes

Real Clear Politics
New Your Times
Obama also has an exceptionally high no-show ration for votes since coming to the Senate.
Media Matters
OOPS… he didn’t know? Or didn’t he care?

9. On Wednesday, Feb 27, 2008, CTV reported that a senior member of Obama’s campaign, Austan Goolsbee, spoke directly with the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago to assure them that if Obama publicly spoke about opting out of NAFTA, they should not take it seriously. It would just be political posturing… campaign rhetoric. Obama flatly denied the report, attacking both Senator Clinton and Senator McCain for their comments on the issue.
On March 4, the New York Times, among other sources, revealed that the conversation had indeed taken place, and published the memo. The Canadian government announced that an investigation would begin to find out who was responsible for leaking the memorandum concerning the conversation.
CTV News
New York Times
New York Times published the memo
OOPS… he didn’t know.

10. Obama’s position on the war in Iraq, in spite of the October 2002 speech, has not been as unwavering as he would have us believe.

Commentary Magazine
Obama Gets the Facts Wrong
Clinton Takes on Obama
MSNBC
The Boston Globe
OOPS… did he forget?

11. Senator Obama is chair of of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on Europe, having been appointed in early 2007. According to Congressional Records, the subcommittee’s jurisdiction includes “all matters, policies and problems concerning the continent of Europe, including the European member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.” That means it has jurisdiction over NATO.
As Senator Clinton asserted in a recent debate, “NATO is critical to our mission in Afghanistan. He’s held not one substantive hearing to do oversight, to figure out what we can do to actually have a stronger presence with NATO in Afghanistan.”
Politifact
OOPS… he didn’t know… or did he forget?

12. Senator Obama told Tim Russert in January of 2006 that “I will serve out my full six-year term.”

From the official transcript of Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT: But there seems to be an evolution in your thinking. This is what you told the Chicago Tribune last month: “Have you ruled out running for another office before your term is up?” Obama answered, “It’s not something I anticipate doing.” But when we talked back in November of `04 after your election I said, “There’s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your six-year term as United States senator from Illinois?” Obama, “Absolutely.”

SEN. OBAMA: I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you’re going to get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But my thinking has not changed.

MR. RUSSERT: So you will not run for president or vice-president in 2008?

SEN. OBAMA: I will not.

Obama formed an exploratory committee in January of 2007 and declared his candidacy two months later.
Meet The Press Transcript January 22, 2006
“Obama Takes the Russert Test” from The Swamp
Obama Learns the Washington Ways
OOPS… he forgot.

13. Senator Obama promised to use public financing for the general election if his Republican opponent would do the same. Now, apparently after he realized how much more money he could have at his disposal, he has reversed himself.
League of Women Voters
Mr Obama’s Waffle
OOPS… he forgot.

14. Obama bragged in the Iowa debate about the “nuclear legislation I’ve passed.” When he encountered resistance from the nuclear industry… including Illinois-based Excelon, the country’s largest nuclear plant operator and one of Mr. Obama’s largest sources of campaign money, he edited his bill several times, making it weaker each time. The bill, however, never passed. It died. But Mr Obama gained a chief political strategist… David Axelrod. In October 2007, Obama resubmitted the bill in its watered-down version.
Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate
OOPS… he forgot.

15. Senator Obama purports to be in favor of “universal” health care, utilizing private insurance, on the campaign trail. In fact, he adamantly denied advocating single payor. But there was a time when he was in favor of the single payor system.

Video
The Swamp
OOPS… he forgot.

16. While campaigning, Obama told several hundred people in Iowa, “No lobbyists need apply to my White House.”
However, in contrast to his pledge to fight against the influence of special interests, his record on employing lobbyists isn’t quite so pristine. Several high level members of his campaign are registered lobbyists, including his New Hampshire campaign manager. Lately, he has softened his campaign line to, “They are not going to run my White House.”
The Boston Globe
The Wall Street Journal
Politico
The Washington Post
The Hill
Obama actually seems very comfortable working with lobbyists on legislation. To site just one example…

According to ABC, Obama “has quietly worked with corporate lobbyists to help pass breaks worth $12 million,” that gave two overseas companies tariff suspensions. Both companies also have facilities in Illinois.
One of these companies, Nufarm, told its shareholders it was making “more money than ever before in North America because it had increased its prices on its U.S. and Canadian customers, predominantly farmers.” This had the effect of profiting business interests in his state, while punishing its farmers.
According to ABC News, “With a dozen tariff suspension bills to his name, Obama stands out as the most prolific of any Democratic presidential hopeful on the topic.”
Despite Rhetoric, Obama Pushed Lobbyists’ Interests
OOPS… he forgot. Or didn’t he mind?

How many other things are we going to find that Senator Obama conveniently forgot? It is my hope that the political powers-that-be will lay off the talk about ending the primaries early, and that the media and the internet diggers will help us truly vet Senator Obama. Use a little old-fashioned, objective journalism… remember that?
If he has nothing more to hide, it can only help him.
But if we don’t know the whole story yet, it might just help us be certain that we can indeed put a Democrat in the White House in November.
That is, after all, what Democrats want, isn’t it?

Cross-posted at MyDD.com.