Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
I know that just about the entire blogosphere is talking about John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin (who?) for his running mate, but I, for one, refuse to let John McCain distract me from writing about Barack Obama's acceptance speech last night, given to a cheering throng of 84,000 in Denver's football stadium (I refuse [...]
As I've said, this convention is being directed by a maestro -- slow and warm at first, then a big resounding call for unity, and now, on Day 3, some red meat to the crowd. Tonight should be absolutely stunning, that's all I can say, because the "build" has gone swimmingly well.
Many people have been saying for the past few weeks (myself included) that Barack Obama needs to stand up for himself a little bit more, and strongly counter the negative attacks coming from John McCain. I have also suggested (and I'm not alone in this one either) that Obama needs to start actually taking the fight to McCain, by painting a picture of McCain for America to see -- to counteract who the McCain campaign would like you to believe John McCain is.
The vice presidential guessing game has reached fever pitch, with many betting Barack Obama is going to make his pick known this week, before the Olympics start. But I'd like to suggest another appointment for Obama to announce, which he should do before he selects his running mate. Obama should announce that, if elected, he will offer the job of special envoy to the Middle East to former president Bill Clinton.
Be careful what you wish for, John.
For only the fourth (or fifth, depending on how you count) time in his presidency, George W. Bush had a veto overridden by both houses of Congress this week. This is big news, since it doesn't happen very often.
[I'm not normally this lazy, but today I think I will sit back and let the presumptive Democratic nominee for president speak. Barack Obama was roundly castigated by the media last week for a non-story (because he said he might "refine" his Iraq policy). This seemed to fit into the media narrative of "Barack's a flip-flopper," which they had been pushing hard. But anyone who has listened to what Obama actually has said during the campaign about Iraq was surely scratching their head, since his recent remarks were pretty much what he's been saying all along. Since the media went into overdrive on this non-issue, Barack has been fighting back. And, as I discussed yesterday, Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki has given Obama a huge opening by demanding a timetable for American troops to leave Iraq. Obama has been taking advantage of this opportunity, first by penning an op-ed article in yesterday's New York Times, and today by giving a speech on foreign policy. While this was a wide-ranging speech which addressed more than just Iraq, I think it is worth excerpting Obama's strong commitment to ending the Iraq war, in case anyone's been listening to too much mainstream media in the past week or so. Without further ado, here is Barack Obama on Iraq (if you're interested, you should read the full text of his speech).]
There were two news reports over the weekend about Iraq that George Bush wasn't prepared for, and both the White House and John McCain have been slow to address them. This opens up a window of opportunity for Barack Obama, one that he has already begun to take advantage of. But he needs to do so more succinctly and more forcefully in the next few days, before the Republicans regroup and try to frame it in their own terms.
So, to be fair, I am running a "halfway mark" check on my 2008 predictions. I wrote this column in mid-December last year. My record is not that good, I have to admit. Although the one about Iraq and the elections has so far turned out uncannily accurate, I have to say. But many of these I just got flat-out wrong. I predicted an extended primary campaign... for the wrong party. I predicted all kinds of wild things which just didn't happen. But, for your amusement, I am running the column in full, complete with my own personal self-grading. (You may want to read the column first, and then come back to this list to see how I marked it.)
At the very least, it would be worth pointing out what we could face if we (or Israel) attacks Iran. An unnamed oil market analyst on NBC last night put the price of a barrel of oil after an attack on Iran as "name your price," and then went further with "$300, $400 a barrel." Put in perspective, this would be around $10.00 to $13.50 per gallon to fill up your car. If your tank held 15 gallons, this would cost you from $150 up to almost two hundred dollars for a single fill-up.