Well, not that that is in any way a surprise. He wants to retreat in Iraq, pre-retreat from conflict with Iran (or, is that proactively surrender?), retreated from public campaign finance, retreated from his position on off-shore drilling, and retreats from so many of the people who support him (that whole ObamaBus issue)

Democratic candidate Barack Obama on Saturday backed away from rival John McCain’s challenge for a series of joint appearances, agreeing only to the standard three debates in the fall.

In May, when a McCain adviser proposed a series of pre-convention appearances at town hall meetings, Obama said, “I think that’s a great idea.” In summer stumping on the campaign trail, McCain has often noted that Obama had not followed through and joined him in any events.

Is anyone else seriously getting the feeling that the Credentialed Media is losing its love affair with Barry? Can you imagine a story like this, say, just 4 months ago that is written in that tone?

Obama’s reversal on town hall debates is part of a play-it-safe strategy he’s adopted since claiming the nomination and grabbing a lead in national polls. Advisers to the Illinois senator, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss strategy, say Obama is reluctant to take chances or give McCain a high-profile stage now that Obama’s the front-runner.

The way this story is written reminds me more of the way a member of the Reagan Revolution would write about something they were not happy with Reagan about. Soft-peddling it, but, the upset is there. Or, the way the NY Times writes about the progress in Iraq: they really do not want to admit it, but, they have to, damnitall! Now let me get a martini. Or 5.

Anyhow, it is no wonder Obama doesn’t want the extra debates: he bumbles and stumbles and makes no sense without his prepared speeches. Bush may bumble and stumble, but, he at least gets his point across.

Image via Jim at bRight & Early

This editorial is either a humor piece, or the Times has failed Politics 101. The fact that the Times is in the bag for Obama is a given

Well, that certainly didn’t take long. On July 3, news reports said Senator John McCain, worried that he might lose the election before it truly started, opened his doors to disciples of Karl Rove from the 2004 campaign and the Bush White House. Less than a month later, the results are on full display. The candidate who started out talking about high-minded, civil debate has wholeheartedly adopted Mr. Rove’s low-minded and uncivil playbook.

Oooooh, the Karl Rove boogieman! Besides, how can McCain have a high-minded, civil debate when Obama refuses to debate and rarely talks in anything other then high-minded feelings?

In recent weeks, Mr. McCain has been waving the flag of fear (Senator Barack Obama wants to “lose” in Iraq), and issuing attacks that are sophomoric (suggesting that Mr. Obama is a socialist) and false (the presumptive Democratic nominee turned his back on wounded soldiers).

The Times forgets to defend the notion that Barry is not a socialist. In fact, he isn’t: he is a Marxist and Authoritiarian, and his ideas and ideals move beyond the Socialist-Democracy model. And, so far, it looks like Obama decided that working out at the gym was more important then visiting the troops, since he could not use it as a photo-op.

And Obama does want to lose in Iraq. What else could you call a policy that has been calling for pulling all the combat troops out of Iraq before they should be?

Mr. Obama’s politics are hardly far-left, and anyone who has spent time in a socialist country knows how ridiculous that label is for any member of Congress. It would be bad enough if Mr. McCain honestly believed what he said, but we find that hard to imagine.

Wow. Now there is a deep denunciation of the notion that Obama is a socialist! “Hard to imagine.” As Ed Morrisey points out, this is the paper that had no problems with printing the General Betrayus ad. And if Obama’s politics are “hardly far-left,” I shudder to think what they consider to be far-left. In fact, Obama was the most liberal Senator. He favors massive redistribution of wealth from those who work to those who don’t. He favors nationalizing the healthcare and health insurance systems. He favors a weak national security policy based on talking without conditions to America’s enemies, with no possibility of military action. He favors open borders and complete and utter legalization of all methods of abortion. And the hit parade goes on and on. Sounds “far-left” to me.

All in all, I wonder if the Times will publish the same thing regarding when Obama and his MoveOn sycophants distort McCain’s record, assault him and his wife personally, and denigrate McCain’s military service and time as a POW? Oh, wait, they already are, and the Times hasn’t had anything negative to say about Barry and his Rat pack.

The Associated Press gives it the old college kindergarten try: Iraq War’s Price Tag Nears Vietnam’s

The total cost of the Iraq war is approaching the Vietnam War’s expense, a congressional report estimates, while spending for military operations after 9/11 has exceeded it.

The new report by the Congressional Research Service estimates the U.S. has spent $648 billion on Iraq war operations, putting it in range with the $686 billion, in 2008 dollars, spent on the Vietnam War, the second most expensive war behind World War II. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the U.S. has doled out almost $860 billion for military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere around the world.

All estimates, adjusted for inflation, are based on the costs of military operations and don’t include expenses for veterans benefits, interest on war-related debts or assistance to war allies, according to the nonpartisan CRS.

“Doled out.” I wonder how much money has been doled out in the war on poverty, now in it’s 5th decade with no end in sight, no progress, and no exit strategy.

You have to know that the AP was thrilled when it saw the figures “hey, we can compare Iraq to Vietnam again! Maybe people on the Left will buy a few newspapers. We’re getting killed here!”

Have we spent too much on Operation Iraqi Freedom? Yes, I think we have. There were a couple fundamental flaws in the initial plan. We should have understood that the Iraqi military units would say “screw this, I’m outa here. I’m not dying for Saddam,” based on what happened during the Gulf War.

And, we should have secured the borders of Iraq, putting the word out that we would kill anyone crossing into Iraq at anyplace other then approved checkpoints, and followed thru. Regardless, and whether on purpose or by accident, Iraq has become the central focal point in fighting the war on terrorism. It is a much better place to draw the jihadis in and kill and capture them then Afghanistan, one of the worst places to fight on the planet.

But, really, the whole point of this exercise by the AP, which includes the costs of America’s wars and their percentage of the GDP, is to compare Iraq to Vietnam, a war that the Left forced the USA to lose. Which is what they still want for Iraq. As does their candidate.

I’d also say they are attempting to link McCain, who served in Vietnam, with the cost of Iraq, but, I don’t think the AP is really that smart. Do you?

Trackposted to Nuke’s, Allie is Wired, third world county, 123beta, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Phastidio.net, Cao’s Blog, The Amboy Times, Democrat=Socialist, and Conservative Cat, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Barry may be losing the media here in America, but he sure has Der Spiegel in the bag

Anyone who saw Barack Obama at Berlin’s Siegessäule on Thursday could recognize that this man will become the 44th president of the United States. He is more than ambitious — he wants to lay claim to become the president of the world. (massive snip)

George W. Bush is yesterday, the Texas version of the arrogant world power. Obama is all about today — the “everybody really just wants to be brothers and save the world” utopia. As for us, we who sometimes admire and sometimes curse this somewhat anemic, pragmatic democracy, we will have to quickly get used to Barack Obama, the new leader of a lofty democracy that loves those big nice words — words that warm our hearts and alarm our minds.

Let’s allow ourselves to be warmed today, by this man at the Victory Column. Then we’ll take a further look.

The editorial by Gerhard Spörl, chief editor of DER SPIEGEL’s foreign desk, has it all. The idolatry of the Messiah as the savior of all the world, Bush Derangement Syndrome, insulting the South, the Barry Love, and, to end it off, a realization that Barry is all talk, and “what the hell does he really stand for?”

And the New York Times notices Barry’s sweeping rhetoric in a piece entitled Obama, Vague on Issues, Pleases Crowd in Europe

But he was vague on crucial issues of trade, defense and foreign policy that currently divide Washington from Europe and are likely to continue to do so even if he becomes president — issues ranging from Russia, Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan to new refueling tankers and chlorinated chickens, the focus of an 11-year European ban on American poultry imports.

That’s what Barry is about. He’s the kind of guy giving a presentation in a meeting who keeps going on and on and on, and everyone is thinking “can we get to the actual action plans, please?”

I have to mention this bit of slightly off subject BDS foolishness, if you will induldge me

Europeans admire Mr. Obama’s political skills, and welcome his apparent readiness to respect opposing points of view. For many here, that raises the prospect of a sharp break with the policies of the Bush administration, especially in its first term, when the United States chose to ignore the Geneva Conventions at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, rejected the Kyoto accord on global warming and invaded Iraq, starting a war that some of America’s European allies opposed.

Um, no. Clinton rejected it, as did the Democrat led Senate. Is it possible for the Credentialed Media to get it right? Also, most Americans were against the two massive wars started by Europeans, where we had to come and rescue Europe once they started.

But the Gun Toting Liberal says that Barry blew it.

But, let’s not forget, as Six Meat Buffet puts it, “A taxpayer funded Benetton campaign ad culminating in ditching a visit to US forces stationed in Germany.”

But, good news! Sister Toldjah reports on the Obama campaign using the Berlin stop to raise cash. I recieved the email myself this morning. But, Berlin wasn’t a campaign stop.

But, why did Barry snub the troops? No photo op allowed.

More: It gets better, as David Brooks chimes in on Barry’s sweeping rhetoric and vague ideas

When I first heard this sort of radically optimistic speech in Iowa, I have to confess my American soul was stirred. It seemed like the overture for a new yet quintessentially American campaign.

But now it is more than half a year on, and the post-partisanship of Iowa has given way to the post-nationalism of Berlin, and it turns out that the vague overture is the entire symphony. The golden rhetoric impresses less, the evasion of hard choices strikes one more.

Kumbaya, baby, kumbaya. Perhaps this could explain why so many of the younger crowd is not so thrilled and excited for the elections in November. Even the young folks, who are more entranced by yap yap then actual issues, are starting to get fed up.

As proven by the Credentialed Media. IBD - Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1

The New York Times’ refusal to publish John McCain’s rebuttal to Barack Obama’s Iraq op-ed may be the most glaring example of liberal media bias this journalist has ever seen. But true proof of widespread media bias requires one to follow an old journalism maxim: Follow the money.

Even the Associated Press — no bastion of conservatism — has considered, at least superficially, the media’s favoritism for Barack Obama. It’s time to revisit media bias.

True to form, journalists are defending their bias by saying that one candidate, Obama, is more newsworthy than the other. In other words, there is no media bias. It is we, the hoi polloi, who reveal our bias by questioning the neutrality of these learned professionals in their ivory-towered newsrooms.

Wait for it

An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans.

Read the whole thing.

Sa-wing, batter batter batter, sa-wing!

We here at Vanity Fair maintain a kind of affectionate rivalry with our downstairs neighbors at The New Yorker. We play softball every year, compete for some of the same stories, and share an elevator bank. (You can tell the ones who are headed to the 20th floor by their Brooklyn pallor and dog-eared paperbacks.)

And heaven knows we’ve published our share of scandalous images, on the cover and otherwise. So we’ve been watching the kerfuffle over last week’s New Yorker cover with a mixture of empathy and better-you-than-us relief.

We had our own presidential campaign cover in the works, which explored a different facet of the Politics of Fear, but we shelved it when The New Yorker’s became the “It Girl” of the blogosphere. Now, however, in a selfless act of solidarity with our downstairs neighbors here at the Condé Nast building, we’d like to share it with you. Confidentially, of course. (I hate to excerpt the whole thing, but, it is only three paragraphs long.

And what does the cover look like?

Click for full size

I suppose it would be easy to pitch a fit over portraying Cindy McCain as a druggie, we see the burning Constitution, McCain with the walker, but, why bother? People in politics have to have thick skins.

The point here is that Vanity Fair has completely missed the point of the The New Yorker cover, which was intended to make fun of people on the right (and Hillary supporters!) who were painting Obama as a Muslim, Michelle as …. well, you know the deal. So, instead of putting the cover out there as making fun of the Liberal talking points, which are portrayed, VF is making fun of TNY and McCain.

Far be it for me to say that Liberals just don’t get it, but, screw it, they just don’t get it. Reality Based Community. Strike 3!

See tons more at Memeorandum.

Early morning thought: will those on the Port side accuse Obama of going to Iraq for a photo op? IHT - Media stars will accompany Obama overseas

Senator John McCain’s trip to Iraq last spring was a low-key affair: With his ordinary retinue of reporters following him abroad, the NBC News anchor Brian Williams reported on his arrival in Baghdad from New York, with just two sentences tacked onto the “in other political news” portion of his newscast.

But when Obama heads for Iraq and other locations overseas this summer, Williams is planning to catch up with him in person, as are the other two evening news anchors, Charles Gibson of ABC and Katie Couric of CBS, who, like Williams, are far along in discussions to interview Obama on successive nights.

And while the anchors are jockeying for interviews with Obama at stops along his route, the regulars on the Obama campaign plane will have new seat mates: star political reporters from the major newspapers and magazines who are flocking to catch Obama’s first overseas trip since becoming the presumptive nominee of his party.

I wonder if Obama will have any time to meet with the commanders and troops on the ground? WIll he have some preconditions to meet with General Patreaus? How many photos will they have that make it look like he is wearing a halo? Will Katie Couric ask Obama what’s on his iPod? Will Barry find time to talk to the “insurgents?”

The extraordinary coverage of Obama’s trip reflects how the candidate remains an object of fascination in the news media, a built-in feature of being the first African-American presidential nominee for a major political party and a relative newcomer to the national stage.

Well, not completely. If it was Hillary, or Biden, or Dodd, or any o