Barack Obama's foreign tour loses him ground back home

Barack Obama denied yesterday that he was ignoring the concerns of ordinary Americans while he tours the world, amid signs that the adulation he is receiving abroad has alienated some US voters. After the Democratic presidential candidate holds meetings with Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron in London today, the last leg of his nine-day international tour, he returns home to a general election campaign with new polls showing him in a tightening race against John McCain, the Republican candidate.

Mr McCain and his surrogates have spent the week seeking to build the impression that Mr Obama’s trip – and particularly his speech to 200,000 in Berlin on Thursday – shows an arrogance and presumptuousness that is disconnected from voters back home, who are most concerned with the faltering US economy. “I’d love to give a speech in Germany. But I’d much prefer to do it as president of the United States, rather than as a candidate for the office of presidency,” Mr McCain said in the battleground state of Ohio. An aide to the Arizona senator called Mr Obama’s speech “a premature victory lap in the heart of Berlin”.

Mr McCain’s campaign has been beset by missteps and bad luck in the past month, and has been dwarfed in terms of media coverage by Mr Obama’s almost flawless audition on the world stage. Yet new surveys show Mr McCain pulling almost even with Mr Obama – a Gallup poll yesterday had Mr Obama leading 45 to 43 per cent – and the Democrat losing ground in several key battleground states. He has lost a small lead in Colorado, and his ten-point advantage over Mr McCain has dropped to just two in Minnesota.

Although Mr Obama is still favoured to win, other surveys show that many more voters identify with Mr McCain’s “values and background”, and feel they still don’t know Mr Obama. While Mr Obama met Israeli and Palestinian leaders on Wednesday, Mr McCain was holding a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. “For the past two days on talk radio here, pretty much every caller wanted to know why Barack Obama was in Europe and the Middle East rather than talking to people back home about the issues here,” said Andrew Seder, a reporter for the Times Leader in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, who covered the McCain event. Mr Obama defended the trip, saying that persuading foreign leaders to send more troops to Afghanistan could save the US billions of dollars.

At a Paris press conference with Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President, Mr Obama said: “Let me remind everyone. I’m not the president. I’m a US senator.” Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist, said that he believed the trip had been a success, because voters “saw someone acting presidential, and that is one of the biggest thresholds he has to cross.”

Source






End of the Affair?

Barack Obama and the press break up?

Around midnight on July 16, New York Times chief political correspondent Adam Nagourney received a terse e-mail from Barack Obama's press office. The campaign was irked by the Times' latest poll and Nagourney and Megan Thee's accompanying front-page piece titled "Poll Finds Obama Isn't Closing Divide on Race," which was running in the morning's paper. Nagourney answered the query, the substance of which he says was minor, and went to bed, thinking the matter resolved.

But, the next morning, Nagourney awoke to an e-mail from Talking Points Memo writer Greg Sargent asking him to comment on an eight-point rebuttal trashing his piece that the Obama campaign had released to reporters and bloggers like The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder and Politico's Ben Smith. Nagourney had not heard the complaints from the Obama camp and had no idea they were so steamed. "I'm looking at this thing, and I'm like, 'What the hell is this?' " Nagourney recently recalled. "I really flipped out."

Later that afternoon, Nagourney got permission from Times editors to e-mail Sargent a response to the Obama memo. But the episode still grates. "I've never had an experience like this, with this campaign or others," Nagourney tells me. "I thought they crossed the line. If you have a problem with a story I write, call me first. I'm a big boy. I can handle it. But they never called. They attacked me like I'm a political opponent."

So much for "Obama Love." That's the title of John McCain's new web ad, which strings together clips of cable news pundits gushing over Obama like besotted teens. This romance has been a prominent story line of Obama's entire campaign, and clearly elements of it are true: "I felt this thrill going up my leg," Chris Matthews crows in one clip flagged in the ad. But scratch the surface, and you'll find a lot of mixed feelings behind the Obama "love." Reporters are grumbling more and more that the campaign is acting like the Prom Queen. They gripe that it is "arrogant" and "control[ling]," and the campaign's own belief that Obama is poised to make history isn't endearing, either. The press certainly helped Obama get so far so fast; the question is, how far can he get if his campaign alienates them?

Last year, when Hillary Clinton campaigned as a front-runner, Obama provided access to the press corps and won over the media. One night, during a campaign stop in Iowa, he met reporters for off-the-record drinks. He cooperated for magazine profiles and appeared on the cover of GQ. And Clinton's relationship with the press wasn't half as easy. "The difference is the Clinton people were hostile for no reason," a reporter who has covered both Democrats tells me.

But, as Obama ascended from underdog to front-runner to presumptive nominee, the flame seems to have dwindled. Reporters who cover Obama these days grouse that Obama's flacks shroud the campaign in secrecy and provide little to no access. "They're more disciplined than the Bush people," a reporter on the Obama trail gripes. "There was this idea of being transparent, but they're not. They're total tightwads with information."

In June, there was something of a revolt after Obama ditched the press corps on his campaign plane for a secret meeting with Clinton at Senator Dianne Feinstein's house in Washington, leaving the reporters trapped on the flight to Chicago. The D.C. bureau chiefs of half a dozen news organizations, including the late Tim Russert, sent an angry letter to Obama aides Robert Gibbs and David Plouffe and threatened not to reimburse the campaign for the cost of the flight. "The decision to mislead reporters is a troubling one," they wrote. "We hope this does not presage a relationship with the Obama campaign that is not based on a mutual respect for the truth." After the incident, the press corps decided that one pool reporter would keep Obama in sight at all times. "It's a body watch," one reporter jokes.

Meanwhile, there have been widespread complaints over the shortage of spots to accompany Obama on his tour of the Middle East and Europe. A few days before the tour departed, Time magazine was told it couldn't send a photographer along, and, on July 22, NBC foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell complained on-air that the only images the press had received of Obama meeting with the troops was released by the U.S. military. (To be fair, congressional delegations to Iraq are kept secret for security purposes). And there's been widespread grumbling that the campaign revoked New Yorker writer Ryan Lizza's spot on the trip as retribution for the magazine's recent satirical cover. These may or may not be legitimate complaints--the evidence is mixed--but the press is hardly inclined to give the campaign the benefit of the doubt.

Obama's press liaison, Robert Gibbs, has built a particularly large reservoir of ill will. David Mendell, who covered Obama's Senate campaign for the Chicago Tribune and authored the 2007 Obama book From Promise to Power, wrote about Gibbs as "the anti-Obama" and described him as "Obama's hired gun, skillfully trained to shoot at reporters whose coverage was deemed unfair. Mendell tells me, "if [Gibbs] feels you're necessary to achieve a campaign goal, he will give you access and allow you in. But, if he feels you're not going to be of help, he can just ignore you." Mendell has his own specific gripe: Apparently, the Obama team was less than pleased with his biography, on which they cooperated, and Gibbs has since refused to help with the second edition.

One reporter sniffs that Gibbs, a native Alabaman and veteran of John Kerry's 2004 campaign, is the "communications director who doesn't communicate." "If you're getting an interview, and they say ten minutes, it's ten minutes," adds Time's Karen Tumulty, who scored an interview with Obama in June. "Robert Gibbs will cut it off."

More here





Change Germans Can't Believe In

WITH gestures that ranged from a wink to a sneer, most anyone you met here this week volunteered the view that Barack Obama's visit to Europe caused unprecedented frenzy. But it's been hard for me to find a European, aside from two Harvard-educated friends in Paris, who confessed to excitement - not just about the visit, but the prospect of an Obama presidency.

It is true that Der Spiegel, the German newsweekly, featured Mr. Obama on its cover, topped by the words "Germany Meets the Superstar" - but the cover was satire, and nasty satire at that. The editors managed to find the ugliest photograph of Mr. Obama ever taken. It caught the senator at a moment that might be exhaustion but looks like conceited smirking. When Der Spiegel featured Mr. Obama on its cover in March, the cover line was "The Messiah Factor." Must one add that this, too, was not meant to be taken at face value?

Europeans will be as relieved as 72 percent of Americans to see the end of the Bush administration, but their attitudes toward the Democratic candidate are far from being the same as the ones he arouses at home. Mr. Obama makes Europeans uncomfortable.

In Germany, politicians in front of large, shouting crowds evoke images that nobody wants to see repeated. But genuine worries about demagoguery are not all that's at issue. The mocking undertone that accompanies most descriptions of Mr. Obama in the European news media signifies a trans-Atlantic divide. George W. Bush made matters far worse than they ever were, but the neoconservatives who advised him were right about one thing: Europe is gripped by a world-weariness that resists American dreams.

Not every European shows scorn for Mr. Obama. Karsten Voigt, the astute coordinator of the German Foreign Ministry's America policies, thinks the United States is attempting a "complete renewal of its own political culture." But then, Mr. Voigt told me last week, he considers himself a Kantian. Very few Germans do. Robert Kagan, the conservative foreign-policy expert, once claimed that Americans are hard-headed Hobbesian realists, while Europeans are Kantian idealists, but he got it backwards. European institutions may be closer to those imagined by Enlightenment thinkers, but the Enlightenment's spirit crossed the Atlantic long ago. The whole-hearted enthusiasm of audiences back home is an American thing. Europeans wouldn't understand.

Berlin, in particular, is in the middle of a very post-heroic moment. Its former bravado about its history now approaches indifference. Take the awkward turquoise building where visitors from the West used to part from loved ones at the Friedrichstrasse border. Dubbed the "Palace of Tears" by East Berliners, it later symbolized the local talent for black humor and raw energy when it was turned into a disco after reunification. Surrounded by cranes at work on yet another office building, the Palace of Tears no longer has any function, nor anyone to complain about it.

So when Mr. Obama reminded Berliners of their greater moments - the airlift, the destruction of the wall - he risked more scoffing. There was plenty of speculation about which German sentence he would memorize to one-up John F. Kennedy's famous speech.

In fact, what Mr. Obama did was far more interesting. He studied a speech given by Ernst Reuter, West Berlin's beleaguered mayor during the 1948 airlift. When Reuter said, "People of the world, look at Berlin!" he was calling for help. When Mr. Obama echoed him, he was using the city as a model - for all the other possibilities that Berliners, and the rest of us, are slow to acknowledge.

This was no feel-good speech about working together. Mr. Obama's riff on the Berlin airlift was a reminder that you need not drop a bomb to be a hero, and that American influence lasts when we don't. Nor was he merely flattering his hosts about their achievements or calling to mind happier days of trans-Atlantic partnerships. He was using the past to remind us all that we need not resign ourselves to the way things are now. What better place to remember than in the heart of Berlin?

"No one could live long in Berlin without being completely disabused of illusions," said Ronald Reagan in his speech calling on Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the wall in front of the Brandenburg Gate. I remember that day in 1987: the eyeballs rolled upward amid jaded sighs. Mr. Reagan's hosts heard his remarks with not quite concealed contempt, for most saw his speech as a tiresome bit of American naivete. They had made their peace with a structure they thought would last forever - like the barrier between rich and poor nations whose existence, Mr. Obama concluded Thursday, is the greatest challenge of this century.

In other speeches, Mr. Obama has emphasized "the extraordinary nature of America," where loyalty is less about particular places or tribes than particular ideas: above all the idea that we are not constrained by accidents of birth. We can make of our lives what we will.

Nothing quite like this is open to Europeans. The German philosopher Juergen Habermas proposed that Germans cultivate what he calls constitutional patriotism, but neither the estimable Mr. Habermas nor his countrymen have found the language to inspire it. Americans are lucky that our national thinkers could write words that continue to ring.

Mr. Obama's speech gave Europeans a chance to hear the difference between optimism and idealism. Optimists refuse to acknowledge reality. Idealists remind us that it isn't fixed.

Source






Barack Obama - the earth didn't move for me

Comment from Britain



Barack in Berlin was hyped and touted to such a level that I raced downstairs to watch the live broadcast of him wowing the Germans on Thursday. Glass in hand, phones off the hook, expectant. Oooh, lovely sunny day for it, eh? Plenty of long-shots, distant views of the Brandenburg Gate, American flags, high crowd volume - expert foreplay, all in all.

Live speeches, like live rock concerts, do transport people. Once there were shamans and high priests and magicians to whip us up into altered states, now it's rock gods. And the occasional politician.

When he came floating out along the sea-blue walkway (wearing a sea-blue tie: nice touch, Obama-handlers!), I was ready for my Obamagasm

Bill Clinton always sucked me in, when he was on his hind legs and orating. Such a sexy beast of a politician, he was. Such a powerful speaker: sleepy eyes, steely hair, the hoarse, urgent, folksy voice like whipped butter dripping through cornbread. Until he bombed the aspirin factory, I'd have followed him anywhere.

Blair almost sucked me in. Just twice, back in the last century. For half an hour, during the speech that made him (Labour Party conference, 1994, the one where he ditched Clause 4), I got quite carried away. His brilliance burned the platform at Blackpool and I was among a frenzy of red-jacketed women worshippers. As he railed at Tory sleaze, I felt all the ancient atavistic political instincts twitching, just as they did when I was sweet and 20. All the ancient grievances and envies of youth against age, have-nots against haves, powerless against powerful, poor against rich. Luckily, I saw Alastair Campbell smirking afterwards and knew I'd been gulled.

And then for another 10 seconds, when a new dawn had broken, had it not? After the sleepless night and the Portillo moment and the excitable Peter Snow looking awestruck under the history-making red landslide? Even I thought, blimey, maybe he's the real deal. I gave him a pass, right up until he hammed up Diana's funeral. That deliberate crack in his actor's voice, those gulps and stammers, reminded me not to forget again that curmudgeon is my middle name.

I'd never watched Obama deliver a proper speech, only bits of debates with Hillary and endless snips from his stumping. US telly is viciously sound-bitey and repetitive and anyway, it's hell staying up until 4am only to get, "Yes we can!" and "Change we can believe in!" over and over.

But I wanted to see if he's any good, because I have little doubt that he's going to be the next US president. He is good, oratorically. I mean the process is good, and the presentation is terrific. Once you start listening to a man who clearly believes he can talk to crowds and keep his virtue, who speaks in lyrical cadences, who braces his words with pace and rhythm and proper care for the use of English, you do find yourself willing to be seduced.

Tall, dark and handsome, occasionally self-deprecating, at times, nearly witty - what's not to love? But the earth didn't move.

It's so easy-cheesy to flatter a crowd of (mostly young) Berliners on a sunny day in a handsome park in what we must accept is the de facto capital of the glorious EU. You can flatter their fathers' history, which is not that easy to do in Germany. (Margaret Thatcher had a hard time loving the reunification of a Greater Deutschland.) You can whip them up with constant references to "our generation" (that's you, kids) and give them lots of hope, via half-promises about working for climate change (wild applause) and peace in our time, "When we give meaning to the words, never again in Darfur!" (Yells and chants of Obama! Obama!).

People who want to win like channelling winners, hence all Obama's deliberate flicks towards the supremely charismatic JFK and America's all-time favourite prez, Ronald Reagan, both of whom rocked Berlin. Obama didn't lard the JFK resonances over much, probably for fear of being told: "Senator, you're no John F Kennedy," by some oldster, for whom John F Kennedy was "a friend of mine". But he jived through ol' Ron's famous soundbite ("Mr Gorbachev, tear down that wall!") over and over.

History has led us to a new crossroads, he said. "Walls came tumbling down all over the world!" He went in for a lot of wall-tearing-down. Some of them were concrete walls, the type with cement in, and some were metaphorical walls of division. I couldn't keep up. I assumed it was a metaphorical wall "between Christian and Muslims and Jews" until he finished: "these are the walls we must tear down!" (Screams, chanting, applause.) I hope he's told Israel.

Back to concrete for: "Not only have walls come down in Berlin (cheers), but they have come down in Belfast (screams, applause) where Protestant and Catholic found a way to live together!" That's when I lost patience. Hmm, thinks I. Is it me, or didn't walls go up in Belfast after Blair's Good Friday agreement? I went to check on sluggerotoole.com, the brilliant Northern Ireland political website, and, lo: there was Slugger's Obama post. Headed: "Fine words about Belfast don't reflect reality" it was linked to a picture of a "peace line" (NI-speak for a massive great iron and concrete wall). Slugger O'Toole has gracious manners, and concluded his post ruefully: "Nice sentiments, Barack. But they don't reflect reality." He said at one point that he wanted a world that "favoured the many and not the few".

Oh, yeah: so did New Labour, and look where that got us. But was it a graceful little hat-tip to Blair? I wondered. Or wait! No. Maybe a little bon-bon for Gordon Brown when they meet tonight. I thought of Gordon watching Barack in Berlin, poor beast, chamfering under his loss in Glasgow East.

As he milked the applause (and he did milk it, quite shamelessly) I got seriously prickly armpits. My own curmudgeonly inner voice (That's enough! Just get off the bloody stage!) was amplified by memories of my late ma's endless Supergranny utterances, "Someone's getting overexcited" and "That baby wants putting down. Sharpish".

There'll be tears before bedtime, I reckon. It's a very unsexy thought, but that's what happens when you're ready for action and somebody flops

Source






Obama's $845 billion U.N. plan forwarded to U.S. Senate floor

'Global Poverty Act' to cost each citizen $2,500 or more

The U.S. Senate soon could debate whether you, your spouse and each of your children - as well as your in-laws, parents, grandparents, neighbors and everyone else in America - each will spend $2,500 or more to reduce poverty around the world. The plan sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, is estimated to cost the U.S. some $845 billion over the coming few years in an effort to raise the standard of living around the globe. S.2433 already has been approved in one form by the U.S. House of Representatives and now has been placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar for pending debate.

WND previously reported the proposal demands the president develop "and implement" a policy to "cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief" and other programs.

Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media has published a critique asserting that while the Global Poverty Act sounds nice, the adoption could "result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States" and would make levels of U.S. foreign aid spending "subservient to the dictates of the United Nations." He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years, he said, would amount to $845 billion "over and above what the U.S. already spends."

The plan passed the House in 2007 "because most members didn't realize what was in it," Kincaid reported. "Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require."

A recent statement from Obama's office noted the support offered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces," Obama said. "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world. "Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere," he continued.

Source





Obama camp plasters posters at Western Wall

Advertises Democrat candidate's website, official slogan at Judaism's holiest site

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign plastered the entrance to the Western Wall - the holiest site in Judaism - with official campaign posters, WND has learned. Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld confirmed to WND posters that adorned police barricades erected at the Western Wall plaza for Obama's visit were distributed by the presidential candidate's campaign. "These posters were his campaign and not the doing of the police," said Rosenfeld, whose police department coordinated security and provided protection for Obama's visit today to the holy site. Asked if it was traditional practice for politicians visiting the Western Wall to bring along posters or campaign materials, Rosenfeld replied, "No."

Obama campaign posters can be seen in media footage of the Illinois senator's early morning surprise visit to the Western Wall. His visit reportedly was not on the official campaign schedule. The posters display Obama's name in Hebrew. One poster erected on the main police barricade used by Obama to enter the holy site boasts the official red, white and blue campaign "O" symbol and advertises the candidate's campaign's website. A second poster also displays Obama's name in Hebrew and contains an image of Israeli and American flags.

Reuters posted images of the Obama campaign posters showing a handful of people waiting behind the police barricades. Reuters images had the following caption: "Supporters of U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) stand behind banners printed with his name in Hebrew as they wait for his arrival at the Western wall." The caption implied supporters brought along the pro-Obama material.

But an eyewitness speaking to WND tells a different story. "The kids waiting for Obama may not even be Obama supporters. No one knew Obama was coming in advance. We saw the police barricades erected. We saw Obama's face on the posters, and some police said Obama was on his way. So a few people gathered by the barricades and waited for Obama," said the witness.

Obama's media relations department in the U.S. did not reply to a WND phone call request for comment. Obama arrived at about 5 a.m. Jerusalem time. He wore a Jewish skullcap and placed a prayer in the wall he said he had written. He bowed his head while a rabbi read a psalm calling for peace in the holy city.

According to media accounts, one worshipper repeatedly heckled Obama, chanting: "Obama, Jerusalem is not for sale" and "Jerusalem is our land."

After his brief visit to the holy site, Obama headed for Berlin, where he met with German leaders, including Chancellor Angela Merkel and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. He also delivered a major policy speech in front of Tiergarten Park's Victory Column, a 19th century structure in Berlin capped by a gilded angel.

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)

200,000 cheer on Obama, but will it help him?

Germans still like the Fascist "unity" message: "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer", as they used to say in the 1930s

Barack Obama took his presidential road trip to Berlin today for a bold set-piece evoking the ghosts of past presidents - but again leaving himself open to accusations that he is all style and no substance. Senator Obama gave a speech in front of a staggering crowd of 200,000 people in front of Berlin's Victory Monument, near where the Berlin Wall once stood. Decades ago, president John F. Kennedy stood nearby and proclaimed "Ich Bin Ein Berliner" - but today was more a chance for Europeans to say "Ich Bin Ein Obama".



("I am not Bush")

In what is being billed as an "unprecedented" overseas campaign speech, Senator Obama also referenced Republican president Ronald Reagan in another attempt to show the bipartisan politics he says his campaign is all about. But Senator Obama's Republican rivals say his campaign is really all about putting on a spectacle at the expense of concrete ideas for the future - and reports on the speech suggest it will heavy on rhetoric and light on detail.

Senator Obama told the crowd that Americans and Europeans must tear down walls between estranged allies, races and faiths, in a soaring challenge to a new political generation. He warned that humanity must build "a world that stands as one". "The greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another,"he said. "The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand," he said, referring to festering divisions between Europe and the United States opened up by the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

"The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand," said Senator Obama, in an address beamed live on US and German television channels and to viewers around the world. "The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down," Senator Obama said, drawing cheers and applause. This echoed former president Reagan's call to then Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in Berlin in 1987 to "tear down this wall," before the fall of communism.

Senator Obama's strikingly audacious speech, in a fevered atmosphere in Berlin's famed Tiergarten, took the White House race abroad in a way never seen before, and confirmed Senator Obama as a global political phenomenon. But despite crowd chants of his slogan "Yes, we can" and its soaring cadences, the speech was short on specifics, and Senator Obama's foes will likely accuse him of empty rhetoric.

Its impact on American voters will also be closely watched, as huge crowds in Europe are no guarantee of success in US battleground states. Opinion polls since Senator Obama left home are yet to show him breaking out of a tight race with Senator McCain.

The crowd was put at more than 200,000 people by Michael Bengsch, media relations officer of Berlin Police. The Illinois senator's previous record crowd figure was 75,000, in Oregon during the primary campaign.

Senator Obama, who trails Republican candidate John McCain when voters are asked who would be the most credible commander in chief, used Berlin's triumph over division and totalitarianism as a metaphor for the world he hoped to forge. "People of the world - look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one," Senator Obama said.

In a speech that risked being seen as presumptuous, considering Senator Obama will not even face US voters for another three months, he warned of a world where partnership was not a choice but the only means of survival. "We cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone," he said. He promised America under his watch would be serious about tackling global warning, a huge concern in Europe and a cause of rifts between the continent and the United States during the Bush administration.

But Europe must live up to its side of the bargain, he said, asking for more help in the struggle against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Source





He ventured forth to bring light to the world

The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers

By Gerard Baker of the London "Times"

And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness. The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: "Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?"

In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites. And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.

He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world. And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.

From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it. And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.

And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.

From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered "Hosanna" and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet. In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace. As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.

And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over. The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.

And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again. Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.

And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times. Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.

But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him. And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.

Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not. On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One. And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: "Yes, We Can."

Source







Obama's Ego Trip: Will the candidate's European progress backfire?



Presidential candidates traditionally visit foreign parts in order to impress on voters back home that they have a sure grasp of international affairs. Barack Obama's European expedition, however, is more of a premature celebration: part royal progress, part rock and roll tour. It will give him a chance to thank Europeans in advance for their support if he becomes president, while reassuring them that he has taken their views on board.

There is little doubt that Europeans would overwhelmingly vote for Obama if given the chance. The Guardian reported last week that the British, who turned on Tony Blair after he tied himself to President Bush's mast and who generally disapprove of the Iraq War, prefer Obama over John McCain by 53 percent to 11. (The remaining 36 percent expressed no opinion.) In Germany, according to the Telegraph, the figures are even more stark, with Obama attracting 67 percent support to McCain's 6.

Part of Obama's popularity has to do with Europe's intense antipathy toward Bush. The president has made little effort to woo the Europeans over the last seven years, and he studiously ignored their leaders' efforts, through the United Nations, to postpone the invasion of Iraq. Unlike his father, he was unable to assemble a grand coalition of Western allies, and he has paid a price for his independence. As so often happens in politics, the unpopularity of an incumbent heightens regard for his likely successor. (When Kenneth Clarke, a minister in Margaret Thatcher's cabinet, was asked who would succeed the Iron Lady if a bus were inadvertently to run her over, he responded, "Why, the bus driver, of course.") Obama's popularity largely rests on his not being Bush.

But Obama is treading a dangerous path. It would be rash to take a November victory for granted; if he has learned nothing else from his slim victory over Hillary Clinton, he should have learned that nothing is inevitable. He would not be the first front-runner to fall victim to hubris. Rather than revel in the adulation of adoring crowds, he would do better to confirm to skeptical American voters that he will not value the well-being of foreigners ahead of the interests of Americans. Only by stressing that as president he would, like his predecessors, put America first-thereby disillusioning the Europeans-will he be able to convince voters at home that he has his priorities right.

But it seems the Europeans are in no mood to be distracted from their Obamamania. The continent is considerably to the left of America, and its people are generally more liberal on such matters as abortion, the death penalty, and gun control. On all three issues, Obama has shown himself prepared to shift to more conservative positions in order to be more electable. If the Europeans have noticed this pragmatic change of tack, they have put it out of their minds. Further, Obama's early and long-standing opposition to the Iraq War has made him a standard bearer for an anti-Americanism that is now rife throughout the European Union. Many Europeans see his unusual family background and his mixed ethnicity as confirmation of their belief that he is not quite wholly American-that he is even, perhaps, un-American.

Much has been made about the scale of the American press circus accompanying Obama, and it is generally thought that pictures of him acknowledging the crowds' good wishes will boost his popularity at home. But if the coverage even hints at the un-American spirit in which he is being greeted as a prophet and a hero, his triumphant tour of European capitals will surely backfire.

Source






Obama trip press frenzy backfires

Many observers considered the press frenzy over the Senator Obama trip as one more data point of evidence about media bias in favor of Obama. The shear number of references to the"historic" or "unprecedented" trip have been sickening considering that the "unprecedented" trip to Iraq was proceeded by multiple trips over the last several years by Senator McCain.

However, despite the media attempt to keep the presidential race coverage one-sided, an odd thing happened on Barak's trip to Baghdad. A lot of Americans realized we are winning the war on terror.

Many have made note that as the surge succeeded and the bad news blissfully began to ebb, media coverage of Iraq thinned to a trickle. We knew it, but we couldn't measure the effects of the media callousness towards our military until now. It now appears indisputable that for many Americans who don't follow the news regularly there was a serious gap in what they believed was happening in Iraq and the reality of it.

Coinciding with the "Obama goes to Iraq" coverage comes a poll update by Rasmussen and released on July 23rd. And it shows that a very interesting thing happened last Monday. The number of respondent in this reoccurring poll who answered that we are winning against terrorists jumped to levels not seen in four years, to 51% - now a majority. Conversely, the number who considered al Qaeda and their ilk the victors dropped to a threadbare 16% of respondents, a new low by a wide margin. And it just so happened that this poll was conducted the same day that Obama and his media entourage hit Baghdad.

Although it is not definitive, it is a strong indication that all the media hype and attention on this trip refocused the media lens on Iraq and that Americans saw a new picture there. Ironically for Obama that new picture helps McCain by decreasing the common feeling of urgency which created the mood for immediate withdrawal at any price that Obama rode to the nomination.

For many who were afraid to read news about Iraq in 2008 (if they could find it) after the desperation felt in 2007, this new coverage opened their eyes. And these newly opened eyes just might be attached to ears that heard McCain claiming success and Obama dismissing our efforts in Iraq. The media attention has shown to an entirely new - admittedly previously disengaged - audience that McCain made the right call.

Some portray the success of the surge in McCain's case in political terms of winning the battle but losing the war. They claim he will be a victim of his own success. They claim that his surge strategy and success in Iraq reduced the threat to our nation which negates his advantage on security issues. They might have a point.

But a counter balance to that is that many Americans genuinely did not know that we have essentially won in Iraq until now. They thought that Obama was delivering the straight truth to them on Iraq. But now they know he was being less than candid. The Independents and conservative Democrats now might see that he was not telling them the truth.

A picture says a thousand words and those pictures of Obama in Iraq with no body armor are telling a different story than what he has been selling to the American people. And it was a fawning media brazenly trying to tip the scales in his favor that made it happen.

Source





A Tale of Two Flip-Floppers

By KARL ROVE

John McCain and Barack Obama have both changed positions in this campaign. That's OK. Voters understand that politicians can and, sometimes, should change their views. After all, voters do. Witness the wide swings in their answers to opinion polls. But before accepting the changes, voters typically ask themselves three questions: Does the candidate admit he's shifting? What's the new information that altered his thinking? Does the change seem reasonable and not calculating?

Sen. McCain has changed his position on drilling for oil on the outer continental shelf. But because he explained this change by saying that $4-a-gallon gasoline caused him to re-evaluate his position, voters are likely to accept it. Of course, Mr. McCain doesn't explain why prices at the pump haven't also forced him to re-evaluate his opposition to drilling on 2000 acres in the 19.2-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But, then, what politician is always consistent?

Mr. McCain flip-flopped on the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. He'd voted against them at the time, saying in 2001 that he'd "like to see more of this tax cut shared by working Americans." Now he supports their continuation because, he says, letting them expire would increase taxes and he opposes tax hikes. Besides, he recognizes that the tax cuts have helped the economy.

At least Mr. McCain fesses up to and explains his changes. Sen. Obama has shifted recently on public financing, free trade, Nafta, welfare reform, the D.C. gun ban, whether the Iranian Quds Force is a terrorist group, immunity for telecom companies participating in the Terrorist Surveillance Program, the status of Jerusalem, flag lapel pins, and disavowing Rev. Jeremiah Wright. And not only does he refuse to explain these flip-flops, he acts as if they never occurred.

Then there is Iraq. Throughout 2006 and early 2007, Mr. Obama pledged to remove all U.S. troops, even voting to immediately cut off funds for the troops while they were in combat. Then, in July 2007, he started talking about leaving a residual U.S. force, in Kuwait and elsewhere in the region, able to go back into Iraq if needed. By October, he shifted again, pledging to station the residual U.S. troops inside Iraq with two "limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda." Last week, writing in the New York Times, Mr. Obama changed again. He increased the missions his residual force would perform to three: "going after any remnants of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces." That's not all that different from what U.S. troops are doing now.

And just how many U.S. troops would Mr. Obama leave in Iraq? Colin Kahl, an Obama adviser on Iraq, has said the senator wants to have "perhaps 60,000-80,000 forces" in Iraq by December 2010. So much for withdrawing all combat troops.

It's dizzying. Yet, Mr. Obama acts as if he is a paradigm of consistency. He told a Georgia rally this month that "the people who say [I've been changing] apparently haven't been listening to me." In a PBS interview last week he said, "this notion that somehow we've had wild shifts in my positions is simply inaccurate."

Compounding all this is Mr. Obama's stubborn refusal to admit the surge was right and that he was wrong to oppose it. On MSNBC in January 2007, he said more U.S. troops would not "solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." Later that month he said at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that the new strategy would "not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly." In fact, the surge has done far more than its advocates hoped in a much shorter period.

Yet Mr. Obama told ABC's Terry Moran this week that even in retrospect, he would oppose the surge. He also told CBS's Katie Couric that he had "no idea what would have happened" without the new strategy. And he still declares, in the New York Times last week, "The same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true." Given all that has happened, it's hard to understand how Mr. Obama can say, as he did Tuesday in a story on NBC Nightly News, that "I don't have doubts about my ability to apply sound judgment to the major national security problems that we face."

Americans have seen both candidates flip-flop. Mr. McCain at least has a record of being a gutsy leader willing to take unpopular stands who admits his shifts and explains the new information that caused them. Mr. Obama has detached himself from past positions at record speed. And in doing so he runs the risk of being seen as a cynical politician, not an inspiring leader. If this happens, voters in large numbers may ask -- despite his rhetorical acrobatics -- if he is the change they've been waiting for.

Source






Swooning over Princess Obama

Comment from Melanie Phillips in Britain



There's been nothing like it since Beatlemania. As the Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama arrives in Britain tomorrow on the last leg of his world tour, Obamania seems to be sweeping across the Atlantic and carrying all before it. In giant rallies across the U.S., Obama induces hysteria among his adoring multitude, with women fainting from the effects of his soaring oratory and rock-star charisma. On both sides of the Atlantic the media are swooning over him. Like Berlin and Paris, he is expected to receive a rapturous reception here. Labour MPs are urging Gordon Brown to emulate him, while a third of Tory MPs are said to support him rather than his Republican opponent, John McCain.

The U.S. election may not take place until November, but in Europe Obama has already won by a landslide. Nor does he do anything to disabuse people of the view that he is `the One'. He is going to win the war in Iraq. He's going to break the deadlock in the Middle East. In the U.S., he declared his presidency would be seen as `the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal'. Doubtless as the water recedes he will walk on it. His tour is supposed to be merely a fact-finding exercise for an election candidate - but it is being treated as a cross between a coronation and the Second Coming.

So at the risk of being a party pooper, may I pose the question: might not a junior senator with less than four years' experience on Capitol Hill be advised to show just a smidgen of humility? Significantly, on his first foreign foray he has achieved the feat of upsetting one of his country's key allies, the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel. She took a decidedly dim view of his intention to hold an electioneering rally today at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate - traditionally used as a backdrop only for non-partisan speeches of global significance. Faced with this rebuff, Obama chose the city's Victory Column as an alternative venue. How darkly ironic that the column was moved to its present position by Adolf Hitler as a symbol of Germany's superiority and its victories against Denmark, Austria and France. Oh, dear. Is this what Obama means by `change we can believe in'?

Of course, in many respects the enthusiasm for this charismatic man is understandable. Obama preaches a seductive message of change for an America which is terminally disaffected with President Bush - not just over the Iraq war, but over the handling of such catastrophes as Hurricane Katrina and, above all, the dive in the U.S. economy. All this spells failure, depression and cynicism. Obama by contrast embodies success, optimism and idealism. Sprinkled with glitter like a latter-day JFK, he is seen as the representative of a new kind of politics that repudiates the sordid failures of the past.

Americans are, after all, the most optimistic of people. They just don't do doom and gloom. So a politician who tells them `Yes we can', and says he stands for `the audacity of hope' gets them whooping and hollering for more.

But such Obamania should worry us all, for it is based on emotion and, where the Democrat candidate is concerned, the normal faculties of judgment appear to have been suspended. Important questions about Obama's judgment, consistency and honesty are not being asked, let alone answered. He has got away with the fact that for 20 years he belonged to a church which preaches black power racism against white people. He disavowed his long-time mentor, pastor Jeremiah Wright, only when his extreme views could no longer be ignored - despite the fact that Wright is a supporter of Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the black power Nation of Islam.

The media brush all this aside as `personal details' which are of no interest to voters. But if, say, John McCain's pastor and mentor had turned out to support the Ku Klux Klan and his church was found to be sympathetic to its philosophy, his candidacy would have been defenestrated and rightly so.

Equally troubling is the way Obama has flip-flopped on issue after issue. From his brief Senate voting record, he appears to be the most Left-wing presidential candidate America has ever had. Yet once he clinched the nomination, he repositioned himself as a Centrist to win the election. So while once he was for a ban on handguns, he is now against it. Once for safeguards on wiretaps, he is now against them. Once he was for a fixed timetable for withdrawal from Iraq - but now that the acclaimed U.S. commander General Petraeus has said this would be deeply unwise, Obama claims he proposes no `rigid' adherence to a timetable. This is just more of the same old politics of dissembling.

And yet this is the man - so similar to the early Blair - who is supposed to represent an end to opportunism, replaced by the politics of integrity. What is even more disturbing, however, is that these matters are being brushed aside or ignored -because so many people want desperately to believe in him. Such a suspension of disbelief calls to mind someone else closer to home: Princess Diana, who also inspired hysterical adoration because she, too, became an icon of idealism - challenging the established order.

A deeply attractive figure, she seemed to embody hope for a better universe by appealing to emotion rather than reason. Love, as embodied by `the queen of people's hearts', was held to be the key to a better, kinder, gentler world. There was even a sense that her mere touch was sufficient to heal the afflicted. It was, of course, all pure fantasy. People had fallen for a carefully spun image which bore little relation to the manipulative and unstable woman who was the real Diana, but which spoke to something deep inside them.

So it is with Obama. Americans' natural optimism makes them want to believe that, as a black man with a Muslim background (another thing he has cleverly obfuscated), he can heal all wounds, including the U.S.'s history of racism, and bring peace to the world just by being who he is. They see in his attractiveness a flattering reflection of themselves. He doesn't embarrass them; he makes them feel proud...

To be fair, there are signs that light may be beginning to dawn in America. Despite - or perhaps because of - the saturation media coverage of Obama's world tour, his poll numbers are showing no bounce. This may be because people are beginning to see the media manipulation, with Obama refusing to answer journalists' questions and participating only in `faked' interviews by the military in Iraq. While America may be wising up, however, Britain is about to have its Princess Obama moment. Get out the smelling salts and prepare to swoon.

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)

The Obama birthplace questions remain



David Weigel of Reason stews over the latest on the Baby Barack birth certificate mystery - apparently someone has dredged up a contemporaneous birth announcement in Hawaii, which certainly is consistent with the notion that he was born there, rather than borne there. Yet questions remain! And Mr. Weigel mocks those questions thusly:

The idea of Obama's family collaborating to create a false biography for him is, in itself, hilarious. How did those 1961 dinner table conversations go, do they think? "If we don't create a false story, and fast, our half-African son of an 18-year old mother will have no chance at becoming president!"

Har de har. But seriously, folks - I can think of three reasons in five seconds, all of which would have been perfectly likely to have occurred to Obama's proud mama back in 1961:

1. Simple patriotism/nationalism - Obama's mom wanted her son to be an American like her.

2. Common sense - US citizenship was highly likely to be more valuable than Kenyan citizenship.

3. Legal protection in the possibly-foreseeable event of a custody dispute. Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, may have contemplated the following rather ghastly scenario: Suppose Mr. Obama took his black son, a native of Kenya, back to Kenya to be raised by his family. Suppose it became clear in court that the child's parents were not in fact married. How much success might Ms. Dunham anticipate in battling in the Kenyan courts for the right to take a Kenyan citizen back to America to be raised by white folks? Isn't it dimly possible that Ms. Dunham wanted to secure her custody of the child by assuring his US citizenship? Or is that just ha-ha ridiculous? Mr. Obama did in fact leave for Harvard a couple of years later, so it is not impossible that Ms. Dunham sensed she was not in a solid long-term relationship.

I am not advocating for any of the outre birth certificate scenarios. But I am advocating for better rebuttals. HMMM: OK, here is Captain Ed:

Unless someone wants to argue that the Advertiser decided to participate in a conspiracy at Obama's birth in 1961 to provide false citizenship on the off-chance that an infant from a union of a Kenyan father and a teenage mother would run for President, then I'd say the "mystery" is over.

See above - the teenage mom may have had plenty of timely reasons to promote the notion of her child's eligibility for US citizenship having nothing to do with her son's Presidential prospects. That said, the idea that a bum birth certificate is going to swing this election is, well, interesting in an "out there" way.

Source






Tired Old Lying Obama - Claims to be member of Senate Banking Committee when he's not



Yet another gaffe (I've lost count). This time the Light Being claims to be places in the Senate he has never been! CNN calls it an "incorrect statement". Come on! If I tell someone I'm George Clooney I'm either a nut or a liar. Take your pick!

"Responding to an Israeli reporter's question Wednesday on his commitment to protect the Jewish state, Barack Obama pointed to a bill "we passed" in the U.S. Senate Banking Committee that tightens sanctions and authorizes divestment from Iran. "My committee," he called it.

Except that he isn't a member of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.

"Just this past week, we passed out of the out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee - which is my committee - a bill to call for divestment from Iran as way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don't obtain a nuclear weapon," Obama said at a press conference in Sderot, Israel."

Source






OBAMA KEEPS ARABS BEHIND VEIL

There is something that Barack Obama's campaign doesn't want you to see: The candidate among the Arabs. In his whirlwind tour, the candidate sped through this city where he is held in joyous high regard both for his Muslim roots and the perception, rightly or wrongly, that he might pursue a more "even-handed" Middle East policy (read: more pro-Arab, less pro-Israel).

If Obama had chosen to linger in Jordan more than just eight hours yesterday, he could have headlined a rally here that would have drawn enough jubilant Muslim supporters to fill the Dead Sea.

But the last thing Obama's campaign - which brilliantly choreographs every event - wants are pictures of him before a multitude of ecstatic Arabs. Such images would terrify American voters already wary of the guy with the funny-sounding name, and only serve to reinforce the widespread myth that Obama is a Muslim. Instead, the campaign will let you see a mass rally in Berlin, with thousands of supporters - possibly 100,000 or more - cheering and fainting and crying.

The campaign also will let you see Obama in Jerusalem thronged by Jews, possibly even visiting the Western Wall, and mingling in solidarity with Israelis in the embattled town of Sderot, the favored target for Palestinian rocket attacks.

But no Arabs. They've been pushed out of the picture just like those two veiled Muslim-American girls who attended an Obama rally in Detroit not long ago. Instead of holding a public event here - say, a visit to a Jordanian school, a small business or a health-care center - Obama chose only to answer questions from reporters at a press conference and dine privately with King Abdullah.

"People on the street don't even know that he is here," explained one veteran Jordanian journalist here. "Everyone would like to come out and cheer him, but I know that would probably hurt him in America."

Source




Barack Obama vows to strengthen Israel ties

COMMITTING the US to even closer ties to Israel, Barack Obama yesterday wrapped up a campaign-style sweep through the Jewish state and the West Bank in one of the most politically high-risk stops of his run for the White House. The Democratic nominee followed a path well worn by high-profile visitors - including his Republican rival John McCain - going first to the Holocaust museum, Yad Vashem, then the battered Israeli border town of Sderot.

The Illinois senator also met almost a full house of Israeli politicians, many of whom were sceptical about his positions on sensitive issues, such as the future of Jerusalem and his attitude to the Palestinian Authority.

Senator Obama started his tour at his Jerusalem hotel, only 200m from the scene of a bulldozer rampage on Tuesday, meeting first Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak, then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni.

He later visited Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, something Senator McCain did not do during his visit in March. His courtesy call at the presidential compound in the West Bank city of Ramallah went some way to offsetting Palestinian resentment at a comment Senator Obama made during his Democratic campaign, in which he said Jerusalem should remain undivided.



[Note background. Sure to impress Israel supporters]

The Holy City is split into Arab and Jewish sectors and Palestinians saw the remarks as a prejudgment on final-status talks in which Arab East Jerusalem is enshrined as the capital of a future Palestinian state.

Israeli politicians also turned up the heat on their most sensitive foreign policy issue, Iran, forcing Senator Obama to again declare his hand on his stance towards the hardline state if he won the presidency. "I want input and insight from Israeli leaders about how they see the current situation," he said. "I will share some of my ideas. The most important thing for me to share is the historic and special relationship between the United States and Israel, one that cannot be broken. One that I have affirmed throughout my career and one that I will intend to not only continue but strengthen in an Obama administration."

As Senator Obama took to the streets, Senator McCain hit the airwaves, trying to deny his rival political mileage, while attempting to assert himself as a stronger candidate on national security and foreign policy.

Jordan's King Abdullah told Senator Obama that ending the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and achieving a just settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict "tops the priorities of the people of the Middle East" and would bolster US credibility.

In an interview with a US television network, Senator Obama supported a pre-emptive Israeli airstrike on an alleged Syrian nuclear reactor last September, claiming Israel was often forced to make difficult judgments. "The Israelis live in a very tough neighbourhood where a lot of folks publicly proclaim Israel as an enemy and then act on those proclamations," he said. "I think that there was sufficient evidence that they were developing a site using a nuclear ... or using a blueprint that was similar to the North Korean model."

Eight hours before he landed in his presidential campaign jet, a Palestinian resident of East Jerusalem commandeered a bulldozer, which he used to attack cars and buses in a 200m rampage. Up to 16 people were wounded, but no one was killed in the second such attack in three weeks. Senator Obama said the attack was "a reminder of what Israelis have had to courageously live with on a daily basis for far too long".

He pledged to use his administration - if elected - to reinvigorate the moribund peace process. However, he took a cautionary tone, saying: "I think it's unrealistic to expect that a US president alone can suddenly snap his fingers and bring about peace in this region."

Source







Obama supports Indentured Servitude

On several occasions I have have lamented the declining standard of activism:

Activist: A person who believes so strongly that a problem needs to be remedied that she dedicates substantial time to ... getting other people to fix the problem. It used to be that activists sought voluntary help for their pet problem, and thus retained some semblance of honor. However, our self-styled elite became frustrated at some point in the past that despite their Ivy League masters degrees in sociology, other people did not seem to respect their ideas nor were they particularly interested in the activist's pet issues. So activists sought out the double shortcut of spending their time not solving the problem themselves, and not convincing other people to help, but convincing the government it should compel others to fix the supposed problem. This fascism of good intentions usually consists of government taking money from the populace to throw at the activist's issue, but can also take the form of government-compelled labor and/or government limitations on choice.

It seems that there is a surprisingly large coalition ready to take this to its logical extreme: A group called Service Nation is set to spend a ton of money lobbying the government to create a program to force every young person into servitude by 2020.

Not satisfied with taking 20-40% of our income to spend as they see fit, the government hopes also to be able to order around the labor of millions of young adults. I feel like I am reading some bizarre historical re-enactment of the Soviet or Chinese youth programs. This whole program, which I am tentatively going to label "happy face fascism," makes me so sick I can't even address it further tonight. More later.

PS: This is, not coincidentally, exactly the idea Obama has been pushing (here and here). I say not coincidentally, because this is how one skirts stupid campaign finance laws - you get your supporters to take your top campaign planks and run with them as "independent" efforts that are not subject to campaign finance restrictions.

PPS: Just to head off an argument that came up last time in the comments, I have been a consistent opponent of the military draft as well.

Update: I know the allusion is over-used, but we are in 1984-land when people keep using the term "voluntary universal national service" as do the leaders of this effort. By universal, they mean that everyone has to do it. So they are calling for "national service that everyone is required by law to perform but is voluntary." I do not think that word means what you think it means.

The solution is to develop a system of voluntary universal national service for our country and for the world. To call upon all young adults to take at least one year to learn the hard and rugged skills of practicing idealism.

Yes, lets teach them the "hard and rugged skills" of being forced to do labor that no one is willing to pay for voluntarily, so must be performed by slaves instead.

Source





A conservative and pro-U.S. Arab explains why President Obama will be a great disappointment

If you ask any Obama supporter, they will tell you that they are supporting the man because he gives them hope. Now, Oscar Wilde once said that the basis of all hope is fear, and I intend to agree with Wilde on that one. So what exactly are the Obama supporters afraid of? Well, it's really simple, after 8 years of Bush, and of having the government repeatedly inform them that they are living in a threatening world that doesn't like them (which, by the way, is true, and it disliked them during Clinton's presidency too I may add) and that they are going to have to hunker down, get though and prepare to fight this for the long haul, they are afraid that this is really the way the world is. Enter Obama, who tells them in all kinds of inspiring fashion that this isn't necessarily true, that the world isn't really dangerous and that all we need to do is to talk to one another, and then all will be well in the world and we will all sing Kumbaya together. So, desperate and clinging to anything, they believe him, because the alternative is so scary, so stressful and depressing, that they may have to up their Zoloft dosage , and anti-depressants are really expensive nowadays.

Not to mention, Americans really want the world to like them, which is a silly desire shared by no other nation on earth. You don't see the Russians worrying about the world liking them, or the Chinese. Ok, you want a democracy? How about the French? Do you see the French worrying about whether or not the world likes them? Do you know of any other nation in the world who actually has this stupid girl-with-low-self-esteem-in- junior-high fixation? Hell, even the Israelis, arguably the current most hated country in the world (and who would like a nation of militaristic Jews who refuse to be wiped out? Those Damn Jooz!), are not as fixated on getting the world to like them the way the Americans do, because most of them have resigned themselves that the world really never will like them. So yeah, the Americans stand alone when it comes to that silly desire, and they have constructed a notion why the world dislikes them: It's because the world thinks that they are a racist nation that is also prejudiced against Islam. So, in order to remedy that, they vote and nominate a Black man with an arab middle-name who comes from a Muslim Background, as if saying, "Here! This is how far we all willing to go. Do you like us now?" And the world will answer: Ehh, no, not really!

There are those who will argue with this, citing great support for Obama all over Europe and the world. True, but that's because he is the Anti-Bush, an articulate black man who says he doesn't want war. The world would love fuckin Gary Coleman if he was the person who said this after 8 years of Bush. Plus, the world is excited for the Obama presidency because they view it as some sort of novelty, the black man who became President after all of the country's history of slavery. Americans forget that thanks to their endless stream of movies and TV shows that have addressed the history and extent of racism in the US, we all know the backstory and the struggles and Rosa Parks and Malcom X and MLK and all of this fun stuff. So, really, it's like watching a 250 year old movie where one character keeps getting screwed over and finally, through a lot of fighting, becomes President. Oh Happy Ending. We love Happy endings. What we didn't wrap our head around yet is that this isn't a movie. There is no Fade to Black after Obama takes office. He actually becomes the President and executer of policies. He will become a symbol of the country people love to hate, and this won't exactly end because he is a smooth talking good looking black guy. It's a ncie fantasy, but let's get real here. There are too many people who have vested interest in hating the US and always will hate it, no matter who the f*ck runs it. Now let's examine this notion a little.

Unarguably , Obama's number one foreign policy objective is to get things right with the arab and muslim world. And that's when you are going to watch the best circus in the world, because no a single leader, in the arab or the muslim world, really wants to get right with the US. Hell, our rulers have justified their entire existence in power by positioning themselves as opposed to America . They continue , in their state-sponsored media, to point fingers at the US and go " See, those bloodthirsty Americans. They will kill you all, rape all of your women and drink the blood of your babies, if we are not here to protect you. So eat shit and shut up!", and If you think I am exaggerating please check Egypt, Syria, Iran, Yemen, etc.. etc.. Those people have built their entire rule on that whole notion, you think they are going to give that up because the silly Americans voted for a 40-something inexperienced Black dude? Get real! And in terms of the arab and muslim street, let's not forget that their number one issue has always been Israel. Now, do you think Obama will go against Israel, after watching him kissing for hours AIPAC ass? Ha. So yeah, that will be a disappointment also. Not to mention that Obama won't withdraw from Iraq. He won't. He can't. At best he will do a partial withdrawal, while leaving a good chunk of US soldiers there. But bring all the troops home? Not gonna happen. And that's what the arab and muslim street wants, no? Let's not even contemplate the notion for a second that he is serious about going after Pakistan, like he said over and over again. Yeah, the Obama foreign policy will be- in the words of the great Borat- GREAT SUCCESS! I am sure.

Oh, and I am sure that once he gets elected that the Islamists will warm up to him immediately. You know, because there is nothing that Islamists like more than a former born- muslim who chose, by his own accord, to become a Christian and an active one at that. Yeah, I am sure they will be very impressed, and quit fighting the US immediately. After all, he said that he intends to deliver a speech from a muslim nation in his first 100 days of office. Yeah, that kind of pandering really calms islamists down, especially coming from apostates. And they will surely respect him if he withdraws partially from Iraq, and not mistake it as a sign of weakness or that they are winning or anything. And since we are on the topic, can you imagine what will happen if a terrorist attack took place during the Obama Presidency, after he does all of this? Can you imagine how America will feel, when they realize that even after they voted for the Blackman with Arab middle name and Muslim background who gave a speech during his first 100 days in a muslim nation, that the world still hates them and that Islamists still want to kill them? Talk about a rude awakening. And can you imagine if they do demand a response from Obama, and Obama decides to take off the Dove hat and put the Hawk one on? Do I have to remind you how things went the last time a Dove tried to be a Hawk? Olmert and Peretz (who both, may I remind you , ran on the platform of withdrawing from the Westbank) during the Lebanon war, anyone? Ok, how about Carter and the rescue mission in Iran? How about Clinton in Somalia? We getting the picture? Should be a fantastic fun time for everyone involved.

But let's say you are the kind of American who doesn't care about all that, like this silly American chick I met here a week ago, who told me that "the basis of hope is hope" and "I really don't care if your people like us, I just want to be proud of my country again!". Ok, fair enough. So one would assume you are supporting Obama for domestic policy reasons. That you believe that he will clean Washington from the Special Interests and the lobbying and all that Jazz he has been talking about, and implements his "Socialism is fun" electoral program, aided surely, by the fact that the House and the Senate looks like it will tilt in favor of the democrats again this year, finally giving them full majority in both the house and Senate. I am sure he will be able to cut out the special interests and implement his policies in a Jiffy, right?

Ehh, nope. Because even if he is not beholden to special interests- which I am not sure is exactly true-every single politician in the House and the Senate is, and they kinda like their seats. Not to mention, about half of the democrats who won in 2006 were Pro-War, Pro-Guns, Anti-Abortion democrats- i.e. confused republicans- who will undoubtedly, given how they are now fully in power, start fighting amongst themselves in earnest, the way the democrats always do. And if you don't believe me, check 1992, the first Clinton Presidential term. It's the Same shit. Charismatic unlikely democrat in the white house after 12 years of republican rule, bridled with unrealistic expectations of a starved political base who somehow expected him to miraculously solve all of their problems in the first 100 days, and had the majorities in the House and the Senate to pull it off. But he didn't. He couldn't. The Democrats were too busy fighting amongst themselves, and he was too busy trying to be a centrist and work with an institution that wouldn't work and all the hopes, dreams and expectations evaporated by the end of his first year in office. But yeah, I am sure the Obama first term will be different, because, like, he is Black. Oh, and a Washington outsider. Yes, that's the kind of person who can get things done in Congress, no doubt! But I digress, when I think of Obama, I don't think of Clinton. At the end of the day, everyone knew that Clinton would play Ball and isn't exactly driven by his own ideological view and belief in his own goodness. Nahh, when I think Obama, one name really comes to mind: Carter!

Obama is the second coming of Carter, there is no doubt about it. From the way he took over the party, to the election against an uncharismatic standard-bearer opponent in the elections, to his belief that America is bad, and it's all America's fault anyway, and that all that is necessary to make everything work is appeasement and humility, and oh, let's try to fix are suffering economy by implementing socialist ideas. So yeah, if you are reading this and you remember those days, then please brace yourself, because it's gonna suck again for the next four years. But don't fret, there is a bright side to this, because remember, after Carter came Reagan. And maybe that's what America needs right now. To experiment with Obama to see if there is any truth to his fiction. If there is, sweet, I am not gonna hate, but there likely isn't, and that will be the necessary wake-up call that half of the US have been needing for the past 4 years. That's what it's gonna take: a colossal presidential failure of the size of Carter (whose approval ratings, by the way, make Bush's look really high, believe it or not), to get the US back into thinking about how to deal with their problems, instead of pretending they don't exist.

That being said, I will feel bad for Obama when this eventually happens though, because unlike every other President before him, Obama isn't just running as himself, he is running as the Black Candidate, so when he fails, it's not just him that will be looked upon as a failure, but his race with him. The nice white people of America will congratulate themselves when he is elected for no longer being a racist nation (they did elect a black man after all) and when he fails they probably wouldn't run another Black candidate for President for another 30 years or so. Not to mention, after Obama, being a black candidate won't be a big deal anymore. The novelty would've worn off, and the candidates will be assessed based on their experience and their plans, instead of just being an inspiring notion whose time has come as a Black Man for President of the USA. I hope this wouldn't be the case, but, ehh, I doubt it!

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)

Dems Slip in Congressional Poll; McCain and Obama Now Tied

It's doubtful Barack Obama's media cheerleaders will notice since they're so in the tank for their guy, but the poll numbers for The Messiah have been steadily eroding the past two weeks to where he and Senator McCain are now tied, according to the latest Rasmussen numbers. If you look at the daily numbers the past two weeks, you'll notice Obama's six-point edge has disappeared.

How is this happening with all the slavish attention for Obama's world tour? Well, it could be people are so turned off by the fawning coverage of Obama, which has gotten so ridiculous in recent days to the point where even the leftist media is noticing how out of control it is.

Meanwhile, the generic Congressional ballot, which had the Democrats up 14 points last month has now eroded to nine points. Hmm. Might the public finally be realizing what a lousy job the Pelosi Congress has been doing? It may finally have occurred to those complaining about $4 a gallon gas that they may wind up paying much more with a No-Drill Congress and a pliable President Obama?

Just imagine if the media coverage of Obama and McCain were anywhere near remotely fair and balanced.

Source






Andrea on Obama Trip: 'What Some Would Call Fake Interviews'

Andrea Mitchell might be a doyenne of the liberal media, but she has her reporter's pride and principles, which have been trampled by the way the Obama campaign has managed the media during the candidate's current trip to Afghanistan and Iraq. Mitchell let loose on this evening's Hardball, speaking of "fake interviews," and decrying that she was unable to report on pertinent aspects of the trip because the media has been excluded and that the video released is unreliable because it's impossible to know what has been edited out.

Before Mitchell made her displeasure known, Roger Simon of Politico, Chris Matthews's other guest during the segment, depicted the images coming out of the war zone as all Obama could have dreamed of.

ROGER SIMON: The optics are all very good on this trip. I mean, the beginning of this trip is so good, Senator Obama might just want to call off the end and just keep running the videotape.

He goes into a gym, everybody, all the service people there cheer. He shoots a basket, you know, it goes through the hoop. He's obviously standing there with troops, they seem to be liking him, smiling. They don't seem to feel that Barack Obama wants to desert them, to leave them in Iraq. This is exactly what the Obama campaign hoped for, and this was supposed to be the tough part of the trip. The meatiest part of the trip in Jordan and Israel may be tough in terms of foreign policy, but the back end of the trip to cheering European crowds will certainly be as good if not better than this. So I think he's feeling very good right now.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Andrea, I want to get ethnic a little bit here --

ANDREA MITCHELL: This is message --

MATTHEWS: Yeah, go ahead, please.

MITCHELL: Let me just say something about the message management. He didn't have reporters with him, he didn't have a press pool, he didn't do a press conference while he was on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq. What you're seeing is not reporters brought in. You're seeing selected pictures taken by the military, questions by the military, and what some would call fake interviews, because they're not interviews from a journalist. So, there's a real press issue here. Politically it's smart as can be. But we've not seen a presidential candidate do this, in my recollection, ever before.

When Matthews inquired about the atmospherics of the trip, Mitchell made clear her frustration as a reporter.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about access to the troops, Andrea. A lot of African-American faces over there, very happy, delighted faces. Is that a representation of the percentage of servicepeople who are African-American, or did they all choose to join someone they like, apparently? What's the story?

MITCHELL: I can't really say that. Being a reporter who was not present in any of those situations, I just cannot report on what was edited out, what was, you know, on the sidelines. That's my issue. We don't know what we are seeing.

Good on Andrea. Now, will the rest of the MSM press the Obama campaign to release the outtakes from the war zone?

Source






Obama Comes Up Short in Approach to Poverty

By John R. Lott, Jr.

Does government do enough to help the poor? John McCain and Barack Obama could not be more divided on their approach. Obama's Web site even has a section entitled "poverty," with a large list of new antipoverty programs, while McCain's doesn't. Yet, this is part of a bigger difference between the campaigns in whether to single out specific groups for help.

While Obama's Web site includes issue headings for "women," "rural," "seniors" and "disabilities," McCain's Web site generally focuses only on broad "issues" that affect everyone, such as "energy," "education," and "economic plan." Both Web sites have sections on veterans.

On poverty, Obama has a very long list of proposals, including government-created "transitional jobs and career pathway programs," a "Green Jobs Corps," money to ensure that "low-income Americans have transportation access to jobs" and provide a large array of new social programs specifically targeted to criminals when they are released from prison.

Those are just his top four proposals. Others include trained registered nurses for home visits to all low-income expectant mothers and first time mothers, a $500 tax credit to all low and middle income people who are working, an affordable housing trust fund, other tax benefits for the poor, a new health care program for the uninsured, and so on. Other proposals -- such as expanding paid sick days for low-wage workers and higher minimum wages -- would have to be paid for by employers.

While Obama talks about personal responsibility, he proposes a government program to be involved in every aspect of people's lives. By contrast, McCain's programs are generally not set up specifically to help just the poor. The poor benefit much more from educational choice for their kids, primarily because their children are in the worse schools. Tax credits for individuals buying health insurance give individuals portability and the choice of which insurer suits them best. Both proposals help the poor, but they also help all Americans. Lowering corporate tax rates increases companies' incentives to invest in their workers.

Yet, before figuring out what new programs we should have, it might be useful to re-examine the welfare system we already have. A new book, "Stealing from Each Other, How the Welfare State Robs Americans of Money and Spirit" by Edgar Browning, an economics professor at Texas A&M University and a world-renowned expert on government finance, has added up the costs and consequences of the existing programs.

By 2005, the Ways and Means Committee in the House of Representatives pointed out 85 separate programs that primarily aided persons with limited incomes. Total federal, state, and local expenditures amounted to $620 billion. That came to $16,750 per person in poverty, or over $50,000 for a welfare family of three, several times higher than the official poverty line for a family of three, which was $15,577 in 2005.

Browning estimates that only 10 percent of these expenditures went to administrative costs. He provides some perspective: "We are already spending more than enough to completely eliminate poverty, even if the poor have zero earnings or other sources of income on their own." The official government estimates of the number of poor people rarely count the government aid when calculating the poor's income. Browning also notes that there are so many programs and some are so complicated, "no one understands fully how the welfare system operates."

Yet even these numbers underestimate how much help the government spends on the poor. For example, Social Security does not provide benefits that are proportional to what people pay into the system. The system provides large transfers from high-income to low-income individuals. Browning estimates the welfare portion of Social Security accounts for $100 billion a year. According to him, adding this to Medicare, other uncompensated medical care, and other costs increases welfare payments to over $1 trillion in 2005. By comparison, Browning has noted elsewhere that the first five years of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars cost $473 billion, less than half what the war on poverty spent in one year.

But the desire to help the poor creates its own problems. Giving more money to people, the poorer they are, also means that the more income these poor individuals make, the more government assistance is taken away from them. Just as higher taxes discourage work, the loss of a significant portion of one's benefits will also discourage work.

Unfortunately, many of Obama's proposals learn little from this lesson. Raising the minimum wage at the same time that mandates are put on companies that want to hire poor people will make it so that firms won't want to hire those workers. And the people who are hired will get fewer fringe benefits and shorter hours. Minimum wage jobs are also the first jobs people get that give them training, which makes better jobs possible in the future. At the same time, expanding the size of income support and housing allowances creates more of an incentive not to work.

Obama's plans try to offset some of these problems with other new programs that make a complicated and at times contradictory set of programs even more complicated. To offset the disincentives for training, new government training programs will be set up. There is a twist in that many will be set up in politically correct jobs such as the environment. Other subsidies will be set up to attempt to offset the disincentives to work.

The differences between Obama's and McCain's approaches couldn't be starker. While neither Obama nor McCain will eliminate any of the existing programs aimed toward the poor, McCain also doesn't try to use new programs, subsidies, and taxes to coax people into certain jobs. He wants to let people decide for themselves what choices they like best.

Obama might urge that black Americans take more personal responsibility, but his programs have government agencies trying to micromanage their lives. McCain's policies fit better than Obama's do with Obama's rhetoric.

Source







One Conventional Bomb Can Ruin Your Whole Day

Taranto on the latest Obagaffe

We'll give you three guesses which political leader said this:

Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor, to the threat of nuclear annihilation. Americans have adapted to the threats posed by an ever-changing world.

Hint: The speaker was born in Hawaii. Thinking that perhaps it was a transcription error, we checked the video, and sure enough, he actually said "the bomb." Could our speaker be mixing up Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima, or Nagasaki? In any case, it's perhaps the biggest Pearl Harbor goof since Sept. 7, 1988, when George H.W. Bush got the month of the attack wrong.






US media in love with Obama, says McCain camp

The media and Barack Obama should get a room together if they're so in love

The wall-to-wall coverage of Barack Obama's overseas visit was too much for the campaign of Republican rival John McCain - which has accused the US media of being "in love" with the Democratic presidential candidate. "It's pretty obvious that the media has a bizarre fascination with Barack Obama," the campaign said in an email unveiling a new video, featuring television reporters praising Senator Obama. "Some may even say it's a love affair. The media is in love with Barack Obama. If it wasn't so serious, it would be funny."

The video shows pundits speaking about Senator Obama and the buzz surrounding his campaign. It includes apparent quotes from one reporter saying people who have not seen the candidate in person are "not cool". It then shows a quote of the reporter saying his knees "quaked a bit". It also shows journalists on Senator Obama's plane apparently urging him to strike a pose while on the phone and demanding an "agent" move out of their view of him. Two versions of the video are on the site, featuring different, syrupy love songs playing in the background. Readers can vote for their favourite version.

Republican spin doctors are trying to portray Senator Obama as presumptuous over his major Middle East and Europe tour with presidential trappings, and accused him of ignoring the advice of Iraq war commander General David Petraeus. But Senator Obama said he hoped he would not have to spar with Senator McCain while he was overseas talking about issues of great importance to Americans, despite grabbing a string of photo-ops that are political gold back home.

Senator McCain is himself no stranger to good relations with the US media, who portray him as a straight-talking maverick eager to stare down elements of his party. He has famously referred to reporters as "my base".

Senator Obama held his first major press conference abroad as presumptive Democratic nominee in the shadow of Jordan's Temple of Hercules, a shrine to the mighty Greek mythic hero. Overlooking sun-bleached homes and minarets of the Jordanian capital, Senator Obama spoke about his stealth mission to Iraq, against a backdrop seemingly chosen to suggest a young dynamic potential president, at home and abroad. It was another example of the Obama campaign's flair for political imagery, and a world away from frigid icebound Iowa, or hard-knocks schools in Ohio where presidential candidates usually hang out.

After knocking the dust of Iraq off his boots, Senator Obama swapped his khakis and flak jacket for a suit and red tie. The show was designed to draw a blanket television audience back home, as part of a tour that has ignited a media frenzy, despite Republican claims it is a shallow political stunt. The symbolism seemed to convince one local journalist, who yelled "Mr President" to get her voice heard above the pack at the temple press conference.

With his media pack poised for a gaffe, Senator Obama stuck largely to a news-free spiel, though did make one faux pas. "Israel is a strong friend of Israel's," he said, in a statement that even his opponents could not quibble with.

Source







Germans love Obama -- but will not do anything for him

Germany's Social Democrats are feting Barack Obama's visit to Berlin this week, but behind the scenes they are distancing themselves from the Democratic Party's candidate. Leading SPD members are warning Obama against demanding more German troops for Afghanistan.

In the run-up to Barack Obama's visit to Berlin, leading foreign and security policy experts for Germany's center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD) are warning the United States presidential candidate against making any far-reaching demands on the Germans. "Obama should only ask of us what we are able to deliver," Niels Annen -- a member of Germany's federal parliament, with the left wing of the SPD -- told SPIEGEL ONLINE Monday. "We won't increase our number of troops."

Chancellor Angela Merkel's cabinet, however, has approved a plan to increase the number of troops from Germany's armed forces in Afghanistan by 1,000 to 4,500 soldiers. All troop deployments of the Bundeswehr require a mandate from the German parliament, which is expected to consider the issue in the autumn. And SPD party chief Kurt Beck made clear over the weekend that 4,500 was the ceiling of what could be expected from Germany. The Social Democrats -- who are the junior partner in the grand coalition government with Merkel and her conservative Christian Democrats -- are hoping Obama will take heed of German sensitivities when he visits Thursday. "The senator is smart enough to give a speech here that will be met with applause," Annen said.

The party's defense policy spokesman, Rainer Arnold, also called on Obama to be cautious. "It's part of NATO custom not to overburden partners," he told SPIEGEL ONLINE. "There is no point in issuing demands that the partners cannot fullfil."

In his speech on Thursday at Berlin's Siegess„ule, or "Victory Column," Obama is expected to ratchet up pressure on Washington's NATO allies. In doing so, he also intends to send a signal back to voters in the United States that, in the future, the burden-sharing during war will be greater between partners.

Eckart von Klaeden, the foreign policy speaker for the Christian Democrats' parliamentary group, said one must keep in mind that, during his visit to Berlin, Obama will primarily be addressing American voters. "He may be speaking in front of Germans, but his message is aimed at Americans," von Klaeden told SPIEGEL ONLINE.

Obama has already called on America's allies several times to increase their military involvement. "It would raise questions in America if he didn't say anything about Iraq and Afghanistan during his most important speech to be given in Europe," von Klaeden said, "especially right after having visited both countries."

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. See also AUSTRALIAN CARTOONS by "Zeg". My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)