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 of the other myriad Democrats who were the presumptive nominee, the media would be fawning virtually the same way.

Interestingly, the International Herald Tribune discusses something most media outlets won’t: the appearance of massive bias in the media towards Barry.

All in all, how pompous will this trip make Obama look?

While the Grey Lady keeps up with their “just wondering” line of attacks on John McCain, as well as outright attacks barely disguised as journalism, they give us balanced pieces like this

In the breathless weeks before the Oregon presidential primary in May, Martha Shade did what thousands of other people here did: she registered as a Democrat so she could vote for Senator Barack Obama.

Now, however, after critics have accused Mr. Obama of shifting positions on issues like the war in Iraq, the Bush administration’s program of wiretapping without warrants, gun control and the death penalty — all in what some view as a shameless play to a general election audience — Ms. Shade said she planned to switch back to the Green Party.

“I’m disgusted with him,” said Ms. Shade, an artist. “I can’t even listen to him anymore. He had such an opportunity, but all this ‘audacity of hope’ stuff, it’s blah, blah, blah. For all the independents he’s going to gain, he’s going to lose a lot of progressives.”

Now we get to the point of the story

As Ms. Shade herself noted, while alarm may be spreading among some Obama supporters, whether left-wing bloggers or purists holding Mr. Obama’s feet to the fire on one issue or another, the reaction among others has been less than outrage.

For all the idealism and talk of transformation that Mr. Obama has brought to the Democratic Party — he managed to draw a crowd of more than 70,000 here in May — there is also a wide streak of pragmatism, even among many grass-roots activists, in a party long vexed by factionalism.

“We’re frustrated by it, but we understand,” said Mollie Ruskin, 22, who grew up in Baltimore and is spending the summer here as a fellow with Politicorps, a program run by the Bus Project, a local nonprofit that trains young people to campaign for progressive candidates. “He’s doing it so he can get into office and do the things he believes in.”

Moral of the story: it is OK that Barry has lied and will continue to lie in order to get power. Democrats in a nutshell.

Nate Gulley, 23, who grew up in Cleveland and is also here as a Politicorps fellow, said too much was being made of Mr. Obama’s every move.

“It’s important not to get swept up in ‘Is Obama posturing?’ ” Mr. Gulley said. “It’s self-evident that he’s a different kind of candidate.”

How? What makes him different? The fact that not only is he the most liberal/progressive person to ever run for President? Or that he is simply the most inexperienced? Or, he is the candidate who will lie the most?

Sidenote: the Times repeats the truthiness about those 75K people coming to see Barry speak, rather then for the concert.

Yeah, I am a bit late to the party been kinda iBusy.

Way back on the February 8, 2008, I caught some Lefties whining about McCain’s birth, and whether that made him inneligible to become President. I said it would become the next lefty meme.

Then the NY Times tried it on for size. They were “just wondering.” And Lefties have been pushing on that meme ever since.

Now, the Times tries it yet again

In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain’s eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.”

The analysis, by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely overlooked in the debate over Mr. McCain’s eligibility to be president. The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen.

“It’s preposterous that a technicality like this can make a difference in an advanced democracy,” Professor Chin said. “But this is the constitutional text that we have.”

OK. Sure. Whatever.

Back to my first post

McCain was born at Coco Solo Air Base in the Panama Canal Zone, August 29, 1936. Unfortunately for liberals, the Panama Canal Zone was a U.S. Territory from 1903 to 1979 (thanks, Carter!), so, any person born there was automatically considered a U.S. citizen, except if born to foreign diplomatic personnel. Woops!

It just goes to show the lengths liberals will go to gain power. Lie, cheat, make shat up.

Sister Toldjah: Could the NYT be more obvious in its repeated attempts at casting doubts on McCain’s natural born US citizen status?

James Joyner: Frankly, it might be time to simply fix the Constitution in the manner the Framers intended: by amendment. It’s wholly unclear to me why all of the restrictions on whom Americans may elect president (age, citizenship, number of years previously served) shouldn’t be swept away.

Funniest headline of the day: NY Times - McCain Plan to Aid States on Health Could Be Costly

 Health economists say it could take untold billions to transform the patchwork of programs into a viable federal safety net. The McCain campaign has made only a rough calculation of how many billions would be needed and has not identified a source for the financing beyond savings from existing programs. Finding the money will only get more difficult now that Mr. McCain has pledged to balance the federal budget by 2013, which already requires a significant reduction in the growth of spending.

Mr. McCain’s proposal stands in sharp relief to that of his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, who wants to require insurers to accept all applicants, regardless of their health. That is now the law in five states, including New York and New Jersey.

Nice try, Grey Lady. The Times just gives us the phrase “untold billions,” and that is to transform the existing programs. Hmm, I guess they missed the stories of how Obama’s plan will cost $50-$65 billion per year.

But, hey, it does get better. Kevin Sack, who wrote the Times story, probably should have checked with board of loons member Paul Krugman first

Mr. Gruber finds that a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion per year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured — essentially everyone — at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700.

Woops.