gour·mand

It goes without saying that I eat these kinds of stories up. Heh. 

From the Chicago Sun-Times:

“We believe that a candidate’s taste in food is a more reliable indicator of character than the carefully strained statements issued in this atmosphere of gotcha and gotcha back. So we have worked our sources and come up with the names of the candidates’ favorite restaurants in their home states. We have tried them out and assessed what an appetite for their offerings might mean about two men with a 50-50 chance at spending the next four years ordering meals from the White House chef.”

(read the rest of the article here - warning: It will make you hungry) 

Thanks to all who weighed in on my question I posed to you: is the media giving Obama coverage that’s a little too favorable?

Here’s what some of you had to say:

“Of course it is unbalanced! It has been since Obama announced his campaign for the presidency. No one in the news media has questioned him why, if he is interested in the Iraq situation, he has not visited in the last 900 days.” - Louis Priddy

“I think Obama gets more coverage and positive feedback from the media no matter what he does.” - Lisa

I’m sure that it wasn’t meant to be biased, but the on-going coverage of Mr. Obama makes many believe that “the news media” is looking for another champion. I truly wish that all news media would just report the news and not try to make or sway it. That tends to not only take away credibility from the news agencies, but it also leads many to just “down-right” distrust them. That’s not at all good; not for the media and certainly not for the country. At least try to show the better side of both candidates and not just point out their mistakes. Thank you for at least asking. - C. Waller

Thanks again, & I hope you all comment a lot more in the future.

A thought. I think some of the concerns people have is not that they themselves are swayed by the media, but that there are countless others who will be. I would recommend to those of you who feel this way to sit back & take a deep breath. You yourselves have figured out how to tell facts from bias - it’s a different world with the internet, & that’s forced us all to be more skeptical, but at the same time, do more homework. You should have faith that the rest of the American electorate is learning this as they go, too. It goes back to the advice that we should vary our media diet & decide for ourselves what is “fact” & what is “bias.”

& most importantly: Do not make your choice for president this November based on who gets favorable or unfavorable media coverage! It’s your patriotic duty to make your decision based on YOUR feelings about a candidate, not the media’s!

Rasmussen conducted the poll in Georgia on July 17th, & it shows little movement from the one we highlighted here, on June 30th.

McCain: 48%

Obama: 39%

Include “leaners” (people who might be persuaded one way or the tother), McCain’s lead widens to 53-42.

& the Bob Barr factor? Apparently not as big as previously estimated:

“Libertarian candidate Bob Barr who served in Congress as part of Georgia’s Congressional delegation picks up 5% of the vote initially, but only 1% when “leaners” are included. This means that up to 5% of voters now say they would vote for Barr but when asked a follow-up question only 1% remain committed to the man some view as a potential spoiler for McCain’s hopes.“

EARLIER: See our take on the results of the latest presidential poll in Tennessee (June 27th) here.

What do you think?

The above two photos proportionally represent the amount of media coverage each candidate is getting this week.

Obama has been criticized by members of the right wing for making the trip. Yet these same folks were running a countdown on the days it’s been since Obama visited Iraq or Afghanistan.. in fact, that countdown still remains on the main page of GOP.com. To those who criticize Obama for making this trip, I ask you: what’s your proposed alternative? That he not go? Isn’t that what you criticized him for in the first place?

Many have criticized the media for adding to the Obama-overseas-mania for having all three network news anchors visit him while he’s abroad. Dee Dee Myers, former Bill Clinton press secretary & Hillary Clinton 2008 supporter asks in Vanity Fair “Is the Media Trying to Elect Obama?” One could make that case, but please tell me the last time you thought the three network news anchors were relevant in any way. Far fewer people consider “the big 3″ when getting their news these days than ever before. Those who would inflate this trip as a pure example of media bias would do well to remember this.

It is news. You can’t not cover it.

Plus look at this poll from ABC News that shows Obama lags far behind McCain in terms of who’d make a better commander-in-chief. This trip is necessary for any candidate, Democrat or Republican, who faces those numbers.

& besides, McCain should consider himself lucky that he’s out of the spotlight a little more this week:

p.s., Senator McCain: Czechoslovakia doesn’t exist anymore. He had better be careful with these gaffes, because there is a good chance that the media will start paying closer attention to them as November draws near.

What do you think? Is the coverage of Obama’s overseas trip unbalanced? Should he have just stayed at home? Time for you to weigh in!

from the Washington Post’s Pat Oliphant.

(above clip: near the end, Obama sinks a 3-pointer on the 1st try)

OK, a confession: I have been up all night producing the 2-hour Good Morning Chattanooga newscast, & thus am left a bit groggy today.

But I’d be remiss if I didn’t tell you about Obama’s overseas trip that’s going on right now, even though I’m letting others do the heavy lifting.

Click here to read about his visit to Afghanistan.

(above: Obama interviewed in Afghanistan)Click here to read the latest from Iraq, where Obama arrived early Monday.

Iraq’s prime minister Nouri al-Maliki made news over the weekend by saying he is in favor of Obama’s plan to pull troops out in 16 months.

That dovetails into an issue I think is a fascinating one for this election: how closely are the soldiers following this presidential campaign?

ABC’s Martha Raddatz just got back from her 17th trip to Iraq, & two Fridays ago she had some interesting tidbits that help answer that question on PBS’s Washington Week in Review:

MS. IFILL: Can John McCain do - can Barack Obama or John McCain do what they’ve been promising, in Obama’s case in 16 months? Martha Raddatz is just back from another one of her periodic trips to Iraq and she has tonight’s reality check. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says there should be timetables for withdrawal, so does Obama. McCain says no. Who’s right?

MS. RADDATZ: (Laughs.) I don’t know who’s right, but I think Maliki saying he was timetables is a little ironic since the administration would never put any timetables on them. I think that story about Maliki was slightly overplayed this week. I think that’s all about domestic politics - that Maliki wants to sort of show he’s not being pushed around totally by the Americans. They had some successes in Basra and in Sadr City. And I think in the end what you’ll see, and you’ve already heard the language change a little bit - it’s no longer timetables. It’s time horizons. Doesn’t that sound -

MS. IFILL: Horizons?

MS. RADDATZ: - so soft. The national security adviser there backed off on that timetables just a little bit. Now, Barack Obama - I go to the website. I know he’s added nuance. I know there’s been a little nuance throughout the campaign, but they’re -

MS. MURRAY: He calls it refining -

MS. RADDATZ: - refining, but the core of his plan - and I’m sure it attracted a lot of Democratic voters - is, I will start drawing down immediately, and will withdraw up to two combat brigades a month. That’s a whole lot of combat brigades. It’s a whole lot of people. It’s a whole lot of equipment. And the people I talk to, including commanders, I ask them a couple of questions. They’re not going to talk about politics first of all. They’re not - I’m not going to say, what do you think of Barack Obama? What do you think of John McCain’s plan?

But when you say, if someone ordered you to draw down immediately and pull out two combat brigades a month, and one of the commanders over there who has Baghdad said, you cannot do it unless it’s conditions based, meaning you can’t make those decisions unless you know what’s happening on the ground, or they fail. They couldn’t be successful. He actually said he thought it was dangerous to withdraw on a timetable if it was not conditions based.

MR. GJELTEN: But is that - is it politically impossible or is it logistically impossible? What about - could they - even if you didn’t consider -

MS. RADDATZ: Physically pull out the equipment?

MR. GJELTEN: Could you do it logistically?

MS. RADDATZ: There’s a really interesting point about this. We redeploy troops all the time. We’ve got - we just ended the big troop surge and all of those came out, but what you usually happen is you have more going in. The soldiers and Marines leave, a lot of the equipment stays. And you’re talking about for two combat brigades 1,200 Humvees. So I also went to Kuwait and said, how do you get these out of here? You’ve got one little port in Kuwait, where everything would have to come out. Ninety percent of that equipment would have o come out through that port. They have to wash it all - I was standing in a howling dust storm and they’re trying to wash these Humvees and things like that. So you look at all the complications there. A couple of commanders said to me off camera, there is no way we could do that logistically.

MS. MURRAY: Do you get the sense - we expect Senator Obama to go to Iraq shortly - and do you expect them to confront this issue with him when he -

MS. RADDATZ: I think they will give their honest opinion. And if you look back what David Petraeus has said in the past, he talks about conditions based too. He talks about no timetable. I can’t imagine they’re going to suddenly change their tune because Senator Barack Obama’s there. I think he will get straightforward advice. They certainly know civilians control the policies and civilians control the military. And they do what they say and whoever gets elected, I’m sure they’ll follow orders. But I think he will probably get an ear full.

And the conditions really have improved. This was the first trip - and this was trip 17 - that I’ve been on, where I actually felt we were in an exit phase. It just felt different. It doesn’t mean it’s going to happen in a year. It doesn’t mean it’s going to happen in four years. It obviously depends on who the president is. And John McCain has said that he certainly wants to stay and see this through. But you felt like you weren’t just bogged down there, that you were in an exit phase.

MS. TUMULTY: And what is your sense of how closely the troops are following this election. Does it feel like completely divorced from the reality that they are dealing with every day, or does it feel like it matters to them?

MS. RADDATZ: It really matters to them and they’re under orders not to talk about particular candidates. But I asked one young sergeant - we’re walking around and I said, I’m going to ask you if you’re following the presidential race. And he said, yes, ma’am, I am. I’m undecided, but I have read John McCain’s book and I have read Barack Obama’s book. They knew so much about these candidates. It was really extraordinary. It really - and randomly chosen soldiers, Marines, you can ask questions about it, and they are really, really - there’s a lot at stake for them.

MS. IFILL: And they can give you an informed opinion about whether -

MS. RADDATZ: About the economy, about gas prices - it is not - that’s what’s most surprising. It’s not all about Iraq. That certainly matters to them, but it’s gas prices and my wife says this - so it’s a fascinating look at politics over there.

MS. IFILL: Well, thank you. Trip 17, huh? Well, welcome back again.

Know what I wish? I would love it if every eligible voter in America is following the presidential race as closely as Raddatz says the troops serving our country overseas are. Can we make that happen, people?

Back to Obama. John McCain released what you could call his first negative tv ad of the campaign on Friday. (he has had others, but they were web-only):

RealClearPolitics is a good place to get links to differing views on the Obama trip; they don’t have their Monday pieces in yet at the time I’m writing this but they should by the time you’re reading this.

So what do you think about any of this? The floor is yours!

Zogby Poll: Obama/Powell Ticket Could Bode Well for Democrats

Survey finds Clinton VP pick favored by nearly half of Dems; Huckabee, Romney viewed as best running mates for McCain

UTICA, New York - As the Presidential candidates ponder potential running mates, a new Zogby International telephone poll shows many voters would be more inclined to vote for Democratic Sen. Barack Obama if he were to select retired four-star general and former Secretary of State Colin Powell as his running-mate.

If Obama were to choose Powell, 42% of likely voters nationwide said it would make them more likely to support the Democratic candidate - as did 42% of Democrats and 43% of political independents. The Zogby International telephone poll of 1,039 likely voters nationwide was conducted July 9-13, 2008, and asked respondents how the selection of certain vice presidential candidates would affect their likelihood to vote for the two leading presidential candidates. It carries a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.

Why I’m not surprised: Go back & read this Vote08 post from June 11th.

ALSO:

“Powell Hints at an Obama Endorsement” (June 13th)

“Computer Says Ideal VP for Both Dems & GOP is the Same Guy” (July 1st)

“Colin Powell on Barack Obama” (April 10th)

Yes, it’s a long shot, but I’m going to go ahead on the record right here & now & say that Powell is my official prediction for Obama’s Veep. The major hurdle, I think, is Mrs. Powell, who was instrumental in keeping Powell out of the running in 1995. Stay tuned.

Meanwhile.. I’ve long thought Romney is the money-favorite as of right now, & that’s reinforced even with Huckabee’s numbers as outlined below. For McCain to have a comparable “WOW” pick to Powell, I’m picking his longshot Veep pick as Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

Former Republican rivals Huckabee and Romney could give McCain a boost

Among McCain’s potential vice presidential picks, former Republican nomination challengers Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney earned the strongest support from likely voters overall, as well as from Republicans and political independents. Among likely voters, 27% would be more likely to support McCain with Huckabee on the ticket, and 26% said the same if Romney were selected. A Huckabee pick would cause 13% of likely voters to be less likely to support McCain, while 11% would be less supportive of the presumptive Republican nominee if he were to choose Romney as his running mate. Among Republicans, 40% would be more likely to support a McCain/Huckabee ticket, while 11% would be less likely - a 29% net positive for the choice of Huckabee. If Romney were to be chosen, 41% of Republicans would be more inclined to vote for McCain, compared to 8% who would be less likely, for a net positive of 33%. Both fare well among political independents, with a 15% net positive for Huckabee and a 17% net positive for Romney if chosen as a running mate by McCain.

Watch the new 8-minute video attacking Obama’s Iraq stance above, then read the full memo here. 

Then read the Obama camp’s response here.

& ABC News discovered that McCain has a worse record than Obama on attending Senate foreign policy hearings, particularly on Afghanistan; read about it here. 

Obama spoke at the NAACP convention yesterday, McCain today.

McCain first. He said something interesting to start off with:

“Let me begin with a few words about my opponent. Don’t tell him I said this, but he is an impressive fellow in many ways. He has inspired a great many Americans, some of whom had wrongly believed that a political campaign could hold no purpose or meaning for them. His success should make Americans, all Americans, proud. Of course, I would prefer his success not continue quite as long as he hopes. But it makes me proud to know the country I’ve loved and served all my life is still a work in progress, and always improving. Senator Obama talks about making history, and he’s made quite a bit of it already. And the way was prepared by this venerable organization and others like it. A few years before the NAACP was founded, President Theodore Roosevelt’s invitation of Booker T. Washington to dine at the White House was taken as an outrage and an insult in many quarters. America today is a world away from the cruel and prideful bigotry of that time. There is no better evidence of this than the nomination of an African-American to be the presidential nominee of his party. Whatever the outcome in November, Senator Obama has achieved a great thing – for himself and for his country – and I thank him for it.”

Yes, it’s shrewd, but it’s also classy. Nice move. (Full McCain speech transcript here)

Here’s Obama yesterday (McCain clip will be in this post as soon as it’s available):

UPDATE: Here’s the full speech, in 4 parts:

Aside: With polls showing a near-monolithic African-American voting block swinging Obama, McCain could easily have just blown a speech like this - one which talks about the problems facing the African-American community - off. Even though it would be political suicide to do otherwise, he does get credit for trying here.

Above: McCain in Albuquerque, New Mexico yesterday, on winning in Afghanistan.

Below: Obama in Washington, D.C. yesterday, on winning in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Who’s right? Post a comment!

FURTHER READING:

–McCain could be the new Nixon in terms of foreign policy - the New Republic

–Obama’s Iraq speech “suffers from fundamental flaws of logic & fact that Obama refuses to confront.” - the New York Daily News

–How talk of a withdrawl - speedy or otherwise - is shifting the the dynamics of Iraqi politics - the Guardian

–Grading the candidates war speeches - Slate

NEW YORK (AP) - A satirical New Yorker magazine cover cartoon depicting Barack Obama and his wife as flag-burning, fist-bumping radicals is on newsstands and the Obamas aren’t happy.
The illustration, titled “The Politics of Fear” and drawn by Barry Blitt, depicts Obama wearing traditional Muslim clothing while his wife, Michelle, is dressed in camouflage with an assault rifle slung over one shoulder and her hair in an Afro.
The cartoon is not explained inside the magazine, where readers will also find a 15,000-word story about Obama’s political education and early years in Chicago.
An Obama spokesman says when it comes to the magazine cover, “most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive,” adding, “and we agree.” John McCain is also calling it “totally inappropriate.”

Above: a discussion of the controversy with editor Hendrik Hertzberg.

One opinion: the cover is in poor taste:

“…such a complex meta-joke is, firstly, tricky to accomplish, and, secondly, too abstract to adequately smack down the gargantuan size and volume of these rumors. So the point is lost without the benefit of the “it’s about scare tactics” press release, and the cartoon fails. But, unfortunately, such a failure risks the illustration ultimately becoming part of the rumor it seeks to expose.”

Other opinion: the cover is not in poor taste:

“When liberals start policing the “poor taste” of cartoons so that some people don’t get the “wrong idea,” it only reinforces the notion that all the fearmongering was effective, and perhaps right — and also shows how weak and tenuous Democrats fear their position on terrorism remains.”

Our opinion: leaning toward the latter. Come on people, lighten up. This is satire. It’s a pretty poor attempt, but it’s not the end of the world as some are saying.

What do you think about it? Let us know by posting a comment!

OBAMA-JACKSON
Jackson apologizes for comments about Obama

CHICAGO (AP) - The Reverend Jesse Jackson says he’s “very sorry” for comments he made about Barack Obama during what he thought was a private conversation with a reporter.
Jackson tells The Associated Press he doesn’t remember “exactly” what he said after a Sunday interview about health care with a Fox News reporter when asked his opinion about Obama speaking in black churches.
Jackson says the comments were “a side light in a broader conversation about urban disparities.”
He issued a written statement Wednesday apologizing “for any harm or hurt that this hot mic private conversation may have caused.”
He says his support for Obama’s campaign is “wide, deep and unequivocal.”

What did he say? Oh, I’m not gonna go there. You can find it on the internets if you try a little.

Not gonna spend too much time on this as it’s quite the non-story .. except to say that this is nothing but a plus for Obama. He will win points with anyone considering him who doesn’t like Jesse Jackson, & lose support from … well, no one, actually.

What do you think?

UPDATE: Dan Balz of the Washington Post explains why this is such a boon to Obama:

“Obama did not have to rebuke an important constituency himself to define himself as different from the Jackson-Sharpton wing of the Democratic Party. Being attacked by Jackson was more than enough to get across the point. Whatever people may know or think they know about Obama, they can no longer mistake him as a direct descendant of old-style black politics.”

Totally non-important PostScript: This is a true story. In the summer of 1992 I was an intern at CNN in Washington, D.C. It was a pretty menial & somewhat pointless exercise but I did manage to have a lot of brushes with celebrities. As interns, we were instructed never to approach any of the famous “talent,” & at the time Jesse Jackson was in that group, hosting a show called “Both Sides with Jesse Jackson.” One day he interviewed Ross Perot, who that summer was giving both George H.W. Bush & Bill Clinton a run for their money. So just to say I did, I waited at the outside courtyard in front of the CNN studios to shake Perot’s hand (for the record, I was not a fan of Perot, but it was hard to pass up the opportunity). So finally Perot walks out of the building with Jesse Jackson all alone. No guards or assistants, just them. The height difference was remarkable. I believe Jackson is about 6′ 4″ or so & Perot stands about 4′ 10″ (just a guess). I approached them both, & remembering my earlier edict about not approaching “talent,” I said to Mr. Perot, “Mr. Perot I’m a big fan! Can I shake your hand?” He said “You’re very kind” & shook my hand & gave me an autograph. Jackson said nothing. I hope he didn’t take it personally - I just didn’t want to get in trouble if he saw me later.

Anyway, that was my brush with Jesse Jackson & Ross Perot. At the very least the above news story has given me a chance to tell that tale.

     TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran’s president says there’s no chance of a war with the United States or Israel. But Iran appears to be turning up the heat a bit.
      State television reports the Revolutionary Guards have tested nine new long- and medium-range missiles during war games. One of them has a range of 1,250 miles, which is within striking distance of Israel.
      The report describing missile tests comes a day after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (ah-muh-DEE’-neh-zhahd) played down the risk of war as he visited a summit of developing Muslim nations in Malaysia.
      It also comes about a month after Israel’s military sent warplanes over the eastern Mediterranean. U.S. officials said at the time the military exercise could possibly be a rehearsal for a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

McCain’s response:

“Iran’s most recent missile tests demonstrate again the dangers it poses to its neighbors and to the wider region, especially Israel. Ballistic missile testing coupled with Iran’s continued refusal to cease its nuclear activities should unite the international community in efforts to counter Iran’s dangerous ambitions. Iran’s missile tests also demonstrate the need for effective missile defense now and in the future, and this includes missile defense in Europe as is planned with the Czech Republic and Poland. Working with our European and regional allies is the best way to meet the threat posed by Iran, not unilateral concessions that undermine multilateral diplomacy.”

Obama’s response: 

On NBC’s “Today:”

Said the U.S. must respond with “aggressive diplomacy” to Iranian missile tests, called for possible U.S. divestment of Iranian holdings. Said he doesn’t understand complaints he has shifted to the center, saying he has consistently supported faith-based initiatives and the death penalty for acts such as child rape, and that he would “obviously” listen to military commanders in Iraq.

On ABC’s “Good Morning America”:

Called Iran “a grave threat,” expressed disapproval of higher U.S. exports to the country. Asked about potential Israeli strike against Iran, said “Israel always has the right to protect itself from serious threats, and Iran is a serious threat.” On Iraq, said his position has been “crystal clear” and has not changed. Mentioned economic agenda for women, criticized McCain for not supporting reversal of Supreme Court decision on gender pay discrimination.

On CBS’ “Early Show”:

Again endorsed direct diplomacy with Iran. On Iraq, said “I have been entirely consistent that we are going to end this war when I’m president.” Repeated assertion he has not changed position on gun control, the death penalty and other issues. On the recent trouble aboard his campaign plane, said “When you fly as much as I do, some of this stuff’s going to happen.”

As you might expect, energy is the hottest subject of the latest round of ads from both sides.

1st up, an ad called “Balance” from the Republican National Committee comparing McCain’s & Obama’s ads. (Note: the RNC, unlike McCain, can receive unlimited contributions)

Here’s ad from McCain that addresses economic insecurities, called “Jobs for America:”

Obama has a new ad that doesn’t shirk from his stance on energy policy. This one’s called “New Energy:”

Here’s an ad from the Senate Republicans Conference (not to be confused with the National Republican Senatorial Commitee) that also hammers home the “drill! drill! drill!” message. Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander appears briefly.

Now another one from McCain, that addresses baby boomers & leans toward the biographical, called “Love.” Note how he “tweaks” the Obama campaign, with the announcer saying ‘hope’ in a way that you can hear quotes around them:

Upon watching this, I noted the the line “when offered early release, he said no,” & wondered if the role McCain’s father played in his prisonerhood will ever be mentioned by the campaign. Did you realize that his father was commander of U.S. operations in the Pacific during the Vietnam War? That’s why his captors considered him such a high-value bargaining chip, & was the reason he was offered an early release. I asked several people in the newsroom if they were aware of this fact & they said no.

MSNBC’s Chuck Todd has some interesting analysis on this ad:

*** Talkin’ ’bout my generation: The TV ad the McCain campaign unveiled yesterday, which invokes the divisive decade of the 1960s, is just another reminder how big a role the generational divide could be in this election. One thing worth pointing out: Perhaps not surprisingly, McCain is over-performing with older voters, while Obama is over-performing among younger ones. According to exit polls, Bush won the 65-and-older crowd by five points (52%-47%) in 2004 and three points (50%-47%) in 2000. But in last month’s NBC/WSJ poll, McCain was leading Obama among this group by seven (48%-41%). Meanwhile, Kerry won the 18-to-29 set by nine points in 2004 (54%-45%), and Gore won them by two in 2000 (48%-46%). Obama? The NBC/WSJ poll had him up 13 points (53%-40%) among those 18 to 34. Also of note: Kerry lost the 30-to-44 crowd in 2004 (53%-46%), as did Gore in 2000 (49%-48%). Yet in our poll, Obama was leading among those 35 to 49 by four points (44%-40%).

…

*** One more thought on the ad: Yesterday’s release of the new McCain bio spot signals a turning point in the McCain message — that everything they do from here on out will be an attempt to make this election a referendum on Obama. The new ad, while appearing biographical in nature, is contrast heavy with Obama. Many Republicans were pushing for McCain to accept the fact that this wasn’t going to be about him, that he had to do something to shift the focus from Bush to Obama. Let’s see if they stick to this.

Finally, from the Republican National Committee, criticizing Obama’s Iraq plan:

It’s Republican heavy, I realize, but that’s just what’s out there now.

So what do you think of these ads? Which one is the most effective? Let us know by posting a comment!

What’s the first word that comes to your mind when you hear the word “Obama” or “McCain?”

The AP is out with a new poll that has the answer:

My answer for both candidates is, of course, “blog-material.”

How would you answer the question? Let us know by posting a comment!

Yes, & that’s actually a good thing.

Click here for a post we wrote all the way back on February 1st, 2008, 28 years ago, & see that we had been critical of both Clinton & Obama’s stances on Iraq. It’s not realistic to promise that we’ll be out in 16 months, & that promise smacks of pure political pandering.

Obama has drawn fire from McCain’s camp for apparent “flip-flopping,” but in actuality his announcement that he will adapt his plan to “facts on the ground” based on advice from military commanders on the ground is merely a step towards reality. & there is no doubt in our minds that McCain will also pursue a more realistic, less-beholden-to-ideology style of military pragmatism, the lack of which got us into the mess we’re in today. Why are we seeing success in Iraq these past few months? Because we’re adapting to whatever facts are presented to us on the ground. We’re not “refusing to talk to our enemies,” but rather convincing our enemies through deeds, not just words, that we’re the side they should be on. If only we could apply this to our entire current foreign policy.

The Washington Post’s editorial today on the matter is generally how we feel about it:

“In fact, Mr. Obama can’t afford not to update his Iraq policy. Once he has the conversations he’s promising with U.S. commanders, he will have plenty of information that “contradicts the notion” of his rigid plan. Iraq’s improvement means that American forces probably can be reduced next year, but it would be folly to begin a forced march out of the country without regard to the risks of renewed sectarian warfare and escalating intervention in the country by Iran and other of Iraq’s neighbors.”

But what about you? What do you think? 

Here’s the current Gallup standing between Obama & McCain:

How does that compare with past presidential contests after the 4th?

Details (as always, with pictures!) after the jump from an article in Politico titled “Past July 4 Polls Promising for Obama:”

(more…)