“Is Denver Burning?”

I’ll actually give the left more credit for fealty to policies, even though they’re totally wrongheaded, like pulling out of Iraq as soon as possible and not drilling for new oil and natural gas sources everywhere. What got them into a state of orgasm over Obama was here was a candidate who was with them on all their key positions and was not only black (assuaging their liberal guilt), but was a non-threatening black…

jon1979 on July 16, 2008 at 11:49 AM

I would prefer that you be more correct about this than I am. If policy really does play a larger part then appeals to reason, statements of facts and pointers to Obama’s position shifts may give McCain a better chance both with independents and by alienating the most rabid Left.

The fluffy emotionalism of much of Obama’s support does seem impervious to the usual arguments though. FISA tantrums aside, many on the Left just think he’s doing whatever’s necessary to hoodwink the rubes into handing him the Presidency and he’ll revert to his ultra-liberal roots on Jan 21, 2009.

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

Seriously, this is how the man and his handlers work. To their mind, all this crap about national security is a distraction. Their eyes are on social engineering; they can’t wait to get this election over with and start the real transformation!

jeff_from_mpls on July 16, 2008 at 10:30 AM

Worth repeating.

The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war’s outcome — that Iraq “distracts us from every threat we face” and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That’s an irrational and ahistorical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world’s largest oil reserves.

(emphasis added)

The above noted words, from the Washington Post’s editorial are stunning and powerful. They have essentially said that Sen. Obama’s message in Iraq is “irrational”. That is quite a word choice from one of the country’s most influential dailies when speaking about the policies of a Presidential candidate widely favoured to win.

I think that this is something that ought to be emphasized repeatedly. If the WaPo. sees Sen. Obama’s policies this way, given its political slant, it could spread.

The personality cultists will follow their leader no matter what. Policy can’t be very important to most of his sycophants – their childish demonization of Hillary Clinton, with positions almost identical to Obama’s, made that clear.

Gilda on July 16, 2008 at 10:38 AM

I’ll actually give the left more credit for fealty to policies, even though they’re totally wrongheaded, like pulling out of Iraq as soon as possible and not drilling for new oil and natural gas sources everywhere. What got them into a state of orgasm over Obama was here was a candidate who was with them on all their key positions and was not only black (assuaging their liberal guilt), but was a non-threatening black, whom they believed could get moderates to vote for him, in a way past presidential wanna-bes like Jackson or Sharpton could never hope for.

But the Obama campaign understands that to get moderates, they have to moderate at least the rhetoric, even if they plan to be as liberal as they were during the primaries if Barack gets elected. Their problem right now is they acted as if Hillary’s suspension of her campaign in June was the end-all, and it’s not, because Obama still needs the superdelgates to win in Denver, and in thinking that Obama’s personality trumphed anything he might say now among those on the left, who are still more devoted to their loopy causes than they ever would be to one person.

So by being arrogant jerks to the career pols while at the same time moving towards the center to battle McCain, they’ve managed to piss off both sides, and now have to run back to the left to shore up their fidelity to Obama, which in turns prevents any of the more wavering superdelegates from trying to stage a convention uprising for Hillary.

…I’ve never had any doubt that the U.S. military would defeat Saddam Hussein’s army. There was never any doubt that if we poured enough resources in there, that we could lock down Iraq.

Yesterday I saw that videotape of Obama back when the surge idea was first being floated. He says it won’t matter if we send 10,000 or 20,000 or even 30,000 more troops to Iraq — it will not end the violence, it will just make it worse.

Well we sent 30,000 more troops, and the violence has lessened dramatically. The Iraqi government has met almost all of the benchmarks, and the majority of the American public now feels that we are winning.

Barack “I have superior judgment” Obama was proven to be dead wrong. Yet instead of admitting that he was wrong, he’s been trying to re-write history — flat out lying to the American public — and claiming that he said all along that the surge would work (despite the video evidence to the contrary).

There’s a lot I don’t like about John McCain, but on the issue of the surge, he deserves a lot of credit. It was not a popular idea when it was first proposed, but McCain insisted that it needed to be done. He was right — and Barack Obama should at least have enough integrity to admit that. But integrity — like superior judgment — is not a quality that Barack Obama possesses.

The Left nearly pitched him overboard this month during the FISA vote, and any weakening on Iraq will prove fatal to his presidential aspirations.

But now he’s got the WaPo kneecapping him for not changing his position, and he can also thank them for coining a phrase, “the Iron Timetable,” that will hang heavily around his neck from now on.

The concrete is definitely starting to congeal around Obama’s feet. Dowd, WaPo, LA Times (for his reaction to the New Yorker cover), these are all in the last few days, and if he gets hit with another couple of shots from formerly reliable media buddies, the rest of them might start to pile on, in typical group-think fashion. There’s a lot of stuff they’ve been ignoring that they might decide to pay attention to. And after all–wouldn’t a messy convention, and the resurrection of Hillary make tons of great copy?

And what is Obama going to say when he comes back from Iraq? The generals, and the Iraqi leaders don’t know what they’re talking about? Better start making room under the bus for the nutroots–unless Obama wants to wear the Iron Timetable Cross until the convention.

A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often….

Q Absolutely. And we know you prize loyalty, so I wonder whether you felt betrayed by Scott McClellan’s assessment of the war in Iraq? And moving forward, since there have been positive signs on the ground in Iraq, Senator Obama is about to take a trip there — what would be your advice to him as he tries to assess the situation on the ground?

THE PRESIDENT: I have had no comment on — no comment now on Scott’s book.

Secondly, I would ask him to listen carefully to Ryan Crocker and General Petraeus. It’s — there’s a temptation to let the politics at home get in the way with the considered judgment of the commanders. That’s why I strongly rejected an artificial timetable of withdrawal. It’s kind of like an arbitrary thing, you know — “We will decide in the halls of Congress how to conduct our affairs in Iraq based upon polls and politics, and we’re going to impose this on people” — as opposed to listening to our commanders and our diplomats, and listening to the Iraqis, for that matter. The Iraqis have invited us to be there. But they share a goal with us, which is to get our combat troops out, as conditions permit. Matter of fact, that’s what we’re doing. Return on success has been the strategy of this administration, and our troops are coming home, but based upon success.

And so I would ask whoever goes there, whatever elected official goes there, to listen carefully to what is taking place, and understand that the best way to go forward is to listen to the parties who are actually on the ground. And that’s hard to do. I understand for some in Washington there’s a lot of pressure; you got these groups out there — MoveOn.org, you know, banging away on these candidates, and it’s hard to kind of divorce yourself from the politics.

And so I’m glad — I’m glad all the — a lot of these elected officials are going over there, because they’ll get an interesting — they’ll get an interesting insight, something that you don’t get from just reading your wonderful newspapers or listening to your TV shows.

John.

THE PRESIDENT: You call them TV shows? Newscasts, yes.

It was clear that Bush was trying to give Obama a way out his corner and he very diplomatically called it exactly as it is.. Obama bends with the wind of his poll numbers and this time it is Soros and Moveon.org.

I really enjoyed the subtle comment at the end though .. wonderful newspapers and calling Newscast, TV Shows.

BARACK OBAMA yesterday accused President Bush and Sen. John McCain of rigidity on Iraq: “They said we couldn’t leave when violence was up, they say we can’t leave when violence is down.”

Love it! Waaaaa! They won’t flop around like a fish out of water like I’ve been doing!!! Waaaa!

Hilarious! , Ok, I’ll finish the article now.

That’s pretty much the Democrat Platform today.

This is the liberal Washington Post saying that Obama was wrong and McCain was right! The Washington Post is read by a lot of people in the heavily-populated suburbs of northern Virginia. If they start breaking for McCain, or there’s an even split, Obama loses Virginia, which could be a big blow to his hopes of winning the Presidency.

But that’s “Barack the Liberal Messiah” they’re enraptured with, not “Barack the Chicago Hack” who adjusts his strategy to meet the impending political situation. So he’s got to remain The Chosen One to that group at least through the DNC convention to maintain his base…

jon1979 on July 16, 2008 at 10:18 AM

I agree with your post but I do wonder how many of his devoted followers are even capable of seeing the “hack” behind their “messiah.”

The personality cultists will follow their leader no matter what. Policy can’t be very important to most of his sycophants – their childish demonization of Hillary Clinton, with positions almost identical to Obama’s, made that clear.

Isn’t it scary to know that of the two, Hillary is at least a principled Marxist/socialist?
–Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 16, 2008 at 10:25 AM

Yes,

I’ve come to the conclusion, that what the Clinton regime did by mistake, is what an Obama regime would do on purpose.

Obama is not a serious politician. He should not be taken seriously.
–drjohn on July 16, 2008 at 10:12 AM

I’m not too sure about that.

I think, he knows exactly what he’s doing.

You underestimate him at your own peril.

He’s not selling you the benefits of his product, he’s obsessed with the procedural details of getting you to sign the contract and hand over your money.

That’s Barry. He doesn’t even try to sell us on the benefits of his plan. He’s actually annoyed that he has to fashion a coherent position at all!

It was supposed to work like this: We were supposed to faint, and he would revive us — he’d ask if everything was okay, we were supposed to sigh: O Senator Obama, you had me at change!

Seriously, this is how the man and his handlers work. To their mind, all this crap about national security is a distraction. Their eyes are on social engineering; they can’t wait to get this election over with and start the real transformation!

“For weeks, now, Senator McCain has argued that the gains of the surge mean that I should change my commitment to end the war.”

This, of course, is a lie and it is not noted as such by the suck-up media.