certianly the kooks at no quarter and confluence were all over it.

but some reporting says he was told by military he could not attend unless it was a senate trip not a campaign trip.

uh, no he hasn’t. obama’s policy has remained remarkably consistent. the mccain campaign keeps claiming that he’s flip-flopped and the lazy press sometimes just repeats mccain at his word.

last fall obama set out his iraq policy as follows:
(1) his goal in office will be to withdraw from iraq,
(2) he will order a withdrawal as quickly to have the safe withdrawal of all combat forces,
(3) it is his understanding that #2 can be done by removing 1-2 divisions per month, but he would consult with military commanders about the quickest and safest way to do it.
(4) although he will withdraw all combat forces from the country, he has made no promises regarding “non-combat” military personnel. and he has suggested that he wants some kind of residual anti-terrorism reaction force in the region.

don’t get me wrong, i don’t completely approve of obama’s plan (specifically, i have a problem with #4). but that’s what his proposal has been throughout the campaign. if you think he’s “backtracked” from it, what specifically has he changed about his iraq plan?

He hasn’t said a word about the Bushian contraception = abortion outrage. He’s backtracked and flipflopped on Iraq withdrawal, FISA, late-term abortions, NAFTA, gun laws, capital punishment, public financing, etc. His embrace of faith-based programs is creepily Republican. Most recently, one of his chief legal advisers has said it would be ill-advised to prosecute the illegal activities and civil rights violations of the current administration. This is a Democrat?

Meanwhile, he spends his time campaigning in Germany (but not visiting the hospitalized troops there), planning an extravaganza at a football stadium (to which you can only gain admittance by agreeing to work for the campaign), and generally self-aggrandizing.

IMO, Obama’s going to have a hard time getting elected as long as he’s trying to out-Republican the Republicans and ignoring the people and issues he’s supposed to represent and be fighting for. No amount of “telling the Obama story” is going to convince people who actually care about, you know, progressive issues and policies and a candidate’s stance on them.

and the outcome of the election will determine the story that takes hold. if he wins, his campaign will go down in history as a well-oiled machine, breaking new ground over the internet and showing great fundraising prowess.

if he loses, then the story will be that obama was a bad manager, his campaign was “wracked with in-fighting”, that his fundraising abilities were overstated (or, alternatively, that money that he thought he could “buy the presidency”) and that he relied too much on the internet and didn’t pay enough attention to traditional media.

the odd thing is that whether story A or story B becomes the truth may depend more on how rainy it is in ohio on the first tuesday in november or what voting machines are used in florida than anything the obama campaign actually does. these kinds of stories are almost always after-the-fact tales. all campaigns include some disagreements between the people involved. but if the campaign works, no one cares. if they lose, the disagreements become “in-fighting” and the incompetent campaign die is cast.

In fact, I think I am going to subscribe to the LA Times!

I am just glad people don’t like obama for substantive policy differences such as:

1. his decision to accept the Democratic nomination at a football stadium

2. his use of a knockoff of the presidential seal at a campaign event

3. his early interest in giving his Berlin speech at the famous Brandenburg Gate

4. his failure to attend a cancer forum sponsored by Lance Armstrong

5. forming a transition team

6. appearing to act as if he were president

7. hiring a former Clinton campaign worker

8. being aloof

9. not being there for “ordinary” people

I mean really, those are all important issues as the economy craters, the war in Iraq enters its 6th year, and the country loses power and prestige.

to deal with these complex issues, it is obvious that we need a presidential candidate who will:

1. only speak at small venues–like VFW halls or perhaps masonic lodges (but not big ones!)

2. attend every event to which she is invited–hello Rockin’ on the River in beautiful Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio!!!

3. have no campaign logos, designs, or emblems–plain neutral colored backgrounds please.

4. have no interest in speaking at any foreign landmark–we shouldn’t have a leader with a sense of history or, god forbid, an interest in architecture or nice backgrounds.

5. not make any preparations for actually taking office until the last possible moment–anything could happen, she really shouldn’t have a transition team until she is sworn in!

6. not do anything to appear presidential as she goes through a process designed to see if she would be a good president. dignity is overrated!
– in fact, she should do non-presidential things like prat falls, fart jokes, etc.

7. not hire any former staffer or campaign worker from any rival’s campaign. any person fired by another candidate cannot be hired.

8. not act like she is an important person even though she is attempting to become the most important person in the world

9. always be “there” for “ordinary people.” the “un-ordinary people” can fuck off!

based on the substantive issues raised by the LA TImes article, I think if we can find someone to follow the above list we can achieve ALL of the following:

defeat terrorism, stop torture, fix the subprime mortgage crisis, end the iraq war, repair our crumbling infrastructure, pay off the national debt, provide health care for all, fix our schools, aid our wounded veterans, preserve social security, restore our worldwide reputation, and usher in a new era of peace and prosperity!