Obama Shows Weakness vs. Clintons

I found this interesting article from previous Clinton adviser, Dick Morris, who points out that while Obama has become a media darling his inability to control even his own convention may ultimately prove his inability to meet the extreme demands of leading this nation:

Hillary and Bill are demonstrating the ease with which Barack Obama can be pushed around. With no real leverage over Obama, they have managed to secure prime time speeches for themselves on Tuesday and Wednesday night at the convention and to get Hillary’s name placed in nomination. They have won all of their demands for convention scheduling. In the name of party unity, Obama has given away the store. After the nominations, there will be a roll call vote. This further assures that the convention will be a continuation of the primaries and that Obama will be a guest at his own convention.

This begs the basic question: Is Barack Obama strong enough to be president?

McCain, not Obama, was right about Georgia

August 12, 2008

STEVE HUNTLEY shuntley.cst@gmail.com

Mention Georgia a few days ago, and most of us would have thought of the state evoked so sweetly in "Georgia on My Mind," the classic tune sung by Ray Charles. Very few of us had heard of the South Ossetia province of Georgia, the nation with the misfortune to have Russia as its neighbor, until war broke out last week.

Like Kosovo, Bosnia, Kuwait and other unfamiliar places before, Ossetia reminds us that a small, remote corner of the globe can explode into an international crisis. One who was up to speed on Georgia and the menace it faced from Russia was veteran Sen. John McCain. He had visited the Caucasian nation three times in a dozen years. When fighting erupted, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate got on the phone to gather details and issued a statement Friday summarizing the situation, tagging Russia as the aggressor and demanding it withdraw its forces from the sovereign territory of Georgia.

It took first-term Sen. Barack Obama three tries to get it right. Headed for a vacation in Hawaii, the presumed Democratic candidate for commander in chief issued an even-handed statement, urging restraint by both sides. Later Friday, he again called for mutual restraint but blamed Russia for the fighting. The next day his language finally caught up with toughness of McCain's.

Making matters worse, Obama's staff focused on a McCain aide who had served as a lobbyist for Georgia, charging it showed McCain was "ensconced in a lobbyist culture." Obama's campaign came off as injecting petty partisan politics into an international crisis. This was not a serious response on behalf a man who aspires to be the leader of the Free World. After all, what's so bad about representing a small former Soviet republic struggling to remake itself as a Western-style democracy?

The comparison between the two candidates served to emphasize the strength McCain's experience would bring to the White House in a dangerous world.

Obama's favored approach to international issues, diplomatic talks, failed to stop Russia's invasion. Vladimir Putin, a KGB bull in the former Soviet Union, wants to restore Russia as the supreme power of Eurasia and, to that end, bully former vassal states like Georgia out of their democratic ways. The fear is that Ukraine will come in his cross hairs next.

However the world's newest war ends, America's leadership must recognize and respond to the underlying dynamic of Russia's resurgent aggressive instincts -- the power bestowed on Moscow by its oil and gas riches.

While we don't get fossil fuels from Russia, Western Europe does, and the Kremlin's energy might is fueled by the worldwide demand for oil. Developing U.S. domestic energy sources and alternatives to oil will only enhance our national security and, by reducing the world's petroleum demand, undermine the economic, political and military advantage vast oil and gas reserves give to unfriendly powers like Russia, Iran and Venezuela.

Obama calls for transforming America's economy in a decade. He's got the right idea -- long term. But short term, this nation must push for energy security on all fronts -- now. That includes new offshore drilling for oil, which Obama loathes, and new nuclear plants, which he views with aversion. We can't just wait for breakthrough technologies for wind, solar and biomass energy.

McCain has got it right in advocating new offshore drilling and a federal push to add 45 nuclear generators over the next two decades. Given the evidence of Russia's energy-fueled aggression, he should abandon his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve and to extending subsidies he favors for nuclear energy to include renewables.

As Georgia burns, we need to light a fire under all the talk about energy security and start doing what it takes to make it happen.

Pied Pipers

By Cal Thomas, New York Sun

When wants and needs are confused, desires become entitlements and politicians are afraid to tell people what they need to hear. Instead they tell them what they want to hear. Anger and envy result, as well as frustration with a political system that was not designed to indulge its citizens in their lusts or subsidize their greed. The economy isn't bad. We are bad for believing that more is better and the most is best. We have an abundance of things, but a deficit of character. The economy is a false god, a golden calf. When this false god doesn't deliver, we complain to politicians who are happy to accept our faith in them to give us what we want - if we will only pledge to them our allegiance at election time.

Grand Old Party

In sheer agony I am watching the progress (or lack thereof) of this presidential competition. While Obama rushes to the right, McCain is sitting back watching the days go by. Aggression. That is what this campaign is all about, and it will be the more aggressive candidate sitting in the Oval come January 09.

McCain is currently running a losing campaign. If he wants to win the election he needs to step up the pressure on Obama; he needs to bring the fight to Obama's territory. Instead, Senator Obama has brought the fight to the Republican dominated territories, forcing the GOP to go on the defensive.

Why, why, I ask, is the Republican party incapable (apparently) of fighting, of tackling the issues in a way that will show America that it cares. Where is the passion and the drive that once defined this Grand Old Party?

Politics 2.0

In the 21st century America will see a drastic change in the character of its politicians. In a society obsessed with "progressiveness" as defined by its Hollywood idols, the once great leaders of the most respected nation on in history will soon be viewed as no more than mere celebrities - icons in the culture zoo that the media has built.

Hillary Clinton, for example, was never expected to win the nomination on ability or leadership qualities; she was meant to win because of her gender. Now that she has lost, cries of "sexism" will be heard and the mainstream media will accuse Americans of not being open-minded enough to vote for a woman. In a race as crucial as this one, where the ISSUES are what matters how can we as Americans allow such a crucial matter to be so belittled?

Our politicians have become accustomed to the excuse of "we are only human." Yet, political figures are not meant to be placed on the same scale as the average American for they are intended to be the leaders, chosen to do what is best for the nation while upholding a higher level of integrity and morality.

If America's leaders are allowed to be placed on the level of the average Hollywood celebrity, it should come as no surprise that the U.S. is loosing favor in the eyes of the world. The many nations look at us and see a vast community of people obsessed with themselves as typified by the average politician. The key to winning the support of the global community is not to show them that we are capable of electing a woman or a black man - of being "sophisticated" - but to show them that we are a nation of morals, ethics and responsibility.

To be a leader means to lead, not follow the wealthy, publicity-hungry masses.

How #2 Becomes #1

Hillary CLinton is not giving up. She is not admitting defeat, nor is she conceding the most coveted prize in American politics to her rival Barack Obama. Clinton's long-awaited withdrawal is merely a political maneuver aimed at saving face while she continues to pursue the Vice Presidential slot on the Democratic ticket.

That's right, I said "continues" - for I refuse to believe that Clinton did not already recognize months ago that she would not be nominated for President. Hillary Clinton, in an act of brilliant political strategy fought hard to prove her necessity; to show the Democratic party that they need her in order to win this November. Hillary has already begun her campaign for VP, a fact that is obvious to anyone her saw or heard her speech last night in which it would have seemed that she was declaring victory rather than defeat.

Yet, Hillary's attempt to achieve VP will soon be brushed aside for it would be political suicide for Obama to grant her that level of closeness to himself. Firstly, Hillary's supporters and Obama's do not and never have sen eye to eye on anything. Obama runs on a platform of change, whereas Mrs. Clinton dredges up bad memories of scandal and political doublespeak. By granting Hillary the VP slot, Obama would effectively cancel out the votes of his own supporters.

Secondly, if Obama truely wants to prove his ability to lead, he will not allow the Clinton dynasty to overshadow his presidency. As she did when her husband was president, Clinton will attempt to interfere in all aspects of the presidency. It would be the first time in history that the president answered to his VP - a fact that Obama recognizes and fears.

It is for these reasons that Obama will not choose Hillary Clinton as his running mate, and it is for these reasons that the Democratic party cannot yet declare itself united, for the battle for power has merely been clouded over but not yet erased from the public eye.

EDIT: I just read this Dick Morris article which basically agrees with me but throws Bill CLinton into the mix.

US Iraq Deaths At Four Year Low

US Iraq deaths 'at four-year low'

US military deaths in Iraq are said to have fallen to their lowest monthly level for four years, after about 20 soldiers were reported killed in May.

The figures for Iraqi civilian deaths vary according to different sources, but have also dropped.

Most accounts put them at about 530 - or about half the levels seen in March and April.

Meanwhile, Australia has begun withdrawing its contingent of about 500 combat troops from Iraq.

The pullout honours a pledge made by the Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, when he was elected last November.

The Australian troops had been mainly playing what they call an "overwatch" role, assisting Iraqi forces.

Troop 'surge'

The BBC's Jim Muir in Baghdad says one reason for the reduction in US military deaths was the ceasefire in early May, which stopped fighting in the Sadr City district of the Iraqi capital.

Iraqi and American troops had been engaged in an offensive there against Shia militiamen of the Mehdi Army, loyal to the cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

But our correspondent adds that the overall trend of the violence since late last summer has been downwards.

He says the US troop "surge" was clearly a big factor, as was the trend within the Sunni community to turn against al-Qaeda and other Islamic militant groups.

The withdrawal of the additional US troops brought in last year for the surge is expected to be completed by July.