kimblr.com

General David Petraeus told the Senate armed services committee that the year-long troop increase had led to an improvement in security in parts of Iraq but that these gains were “fragile and reversible.”
Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John McCain joined the debate in the crowded hearing room, reflecting the deep divide on the war.
Mrs Clinton, who is battling for the Democratic Party presidential nomination with Barack Obama, told Gen Petraeus the US should begin withdrawing its troops from Iraq to focus on problems elsewhere.
“I think it’s time to begin an orderly process of withdrawing our troops, start rebuilding our military, and focusing on the challenges posed by Afghanistan, the global terrorist groups and other problems that confront Americans,” she said.
Mr McCain said he saw a genuine prospect of success in Iraq and warned that defeat could require US troops to return in a broader war.
“We’re no longer staring into the abyss of defeat and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success,” said Mr McCain, a strong supporter of the US presence who has clinched the Republicans’ presidential nomination.
Mr Obama, who also advocates pulling out US forces, was to face Gen Petraeus later at a hearing of the Senate foreign relations committee.
A recent increase in violence – including the deaths of 11 American service personnel in 48 hours – has thrust Iraq back among the top concerns of war-weary American voters ahead of the November election.
The US now has 160,000 troops in Iraq. Under plans announced last year, the Pentagon is pulling five combat brigades – or about 20,000 troops – out by mid-July, bringing the level down to what it was before the troop increase.
More than 100,000 US troops could still be in Iraq until George Bush leaves office in January 2009, leaving the US presence to the next president to handle.

news.scotsman.com

Recently, Hillary Clinton presciently warned that she would be the best Democrat presidential candidate because she’s already been “vetted.” Now, that’s not necessarily a good thing for Mrs. Clinton considering her (and her husband’s) checkered past. But she does have a point when it comes to Barack Obama, the new, fresh, moderate-sounding, wildly popular-and largely uninvestigated-frontrunner candidate. And, as it turns out, pro-abortion radical.
We all know Obama’s style, his regal, visionary bearing, his above-the-fray persona, his inspired - and, give him his due, inspiring - performances, his “Audacity of Hope,” and his hypnotic, upbeat, unifying message. He is skilled. If we were voting for a chief motivational speaker or a political “American Idol,” even I’d be on the bandwagon.
But for a candidate for Chief Executive, Commander-in-Chief of the US military, and leader of the free world, we need more. We need some record or some history. His soaring rhetoric aside, it’s long-past the time to ask: just who is this guy? What’s at his core? Where is his moral compass? Do we share the same basic values? Is he as moderate in deed as in word? Apparently not, at least judging by his record on a key sanctity-of-life issue. It is beyond extreme; it is jarring.
Reasonable people may differ in their opinions regarding abortion and thorny questions of precisely when life begins. Jewish doctrine, with its focus on the health of the mother, may differ from Christian or other religious positions over the circumstances under which abortion may be permitted. But once a baby is born, even prematurely, there is across-the-board agreement that a new human life exists. Certainly, there is no longer any threat to the health of the mother. Abortion is no longer an option, as there is no longer a pregnancy to terminate.

jpost.com

ALTOONA, Pa. — While Democrats increasingly worry about winning ugly, Barack Obama was losing gracefully at a bowling lane in Altoona.
“My economic plan is better than my bowling,” Obama told fellow bowlers Saturday.
“It has to be,” a man called out.
Obama let everyone know he hadn’t bowled since Jimmy Carter was president — and finished with a score of 37. A perfect game is 300.
On Sunday, the Illinois senator visited a dairy farm run by Pennsylvania State University and held a campaign rally.
Pennsylvania’s April 22 primary is the next contest between Obama and Hillary Clinton in their fight for the Democratic presidential nomination. Pennsylvania is the biggest single delegate prize remaining in the Democratic primaries.
Clinton and the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, took Sunday off.
Clinton’s camp spent the weekend courting crucial superdelegates and blasting calls for her to drop out of the race.
McCain launched his first TV ad of the general election Friday, portraying himself as a leader with the experience to keep the country safe as a wartime commander in chief.
By the Associated Press

freep.com

Yeah, Marc. It would be accurate to say there’s no record of his tithing in the returns. The site you link to at least acknowledges he may have given to causes that weren’t tax-deductible; I’m not saying he did, but if your post was appearing in a print medium with a copy editor worth a damn, that would get fixed. You’re not doing the Fourth Estate any favors when you can’t stick to the fundamentals of actual, principled journalism. They taught that thing about assuming in my Basic Reporting class. Actually, they taught it when I started working on my high school newspaper.
All that said, it’s going to be so great to see the same people who’ve been outraged about Obama attending Wright’s chuch being outraged about how he didn’t give it enough money.
And you know, you actually can just change the verbiage really quickly with this fancy-schmancy “Weblog” software, but that would be silly, and let’s face it, quite common, in the worst sense of the word. Because phrasing something almost accurately is just as good as phrasing it accurately!
If I had to put money on it, I’d bet that the returns are indicative of Obama’s regular tithing, or lack thereof, rather. But again, this kind of sloppiness masquerading as snark is fully objectionable on principle, especially when it would be so easy to get it right.

marcambinder.theatlantic.com

It’s not a part of his official economic plan. But as my colleague Kimberly Wilson wrote earlier, Barack Obama already is stimulating the Oregon economy. Well, the underground economy anyway.
As Obama Time approached, scalpers were busy as bees outside the coliseum, offering up the free tickets for as much as $40.
Try as she might, Obama supporter Rory Pickett of Portland couldn’t get her hands on tickets for herself and two friends.
That’s why they were surveying the prices outside the arena this morning. “I’m not going to pay 40 bucks,” she said.
A man with an extra ticket overheard her comment. “I’ll give you a ticket if you buy my daughter an Obama button,” he said, gesturing toward a man hawking buttons for $5.
“OK. $5. I can do that,” Pickett said. She asked the girl: “Which button do you want?”
The kid had her eye on the “Hot Chicks for Obama” disc but settled on one with a more traditional look. Obama is surrounded by an angelic glow on the button.
Maybe I should have told them that the buttons were bootlegs, meaning the money went to the vendor rather than the campaign. But I bit my lip.

blog.oregonlive.com

NPR.org, March 19, 2008 · It is naive, and in retrospect a bit delusional, to have thought that with the first African-American making a serious bid for president, race would not be an issue. And for all the declarations that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) “transcended” race — thus, taking race off the table — we really should have known better.
First of all, we should have known about Geraldine Ferraro — or, perhaps better put — the Geraldine Ferraros of the world, who think that Obama’s color is what got him where he is today. And we should have paid more attention to the rhetoric of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose long personal relationship with Obama has alarmed whites at a time when the Illinois senator needs to shore up his standing with the white community — while at the same time not alienating his base in the black community.
That was the context behind Obama’s remarkable speech Tuesday in Philadelphia. But it was more than simply rescuing a candidacy that was thrown on the defensive over race. You can argue back and forth whether it was the design of the Clinton campaign — witness statements by surrogates such as Ferraro, Bill Clinton, Bob Kerrey and others — to “remind” voters that Obama was black. You can argue that Obama needed to reassure white voters in the upcoming Pennsylvania primary. But there’s no argument that incendiary and inflammatory statements made by Wright, plastered all over the evening news and YouTube, were threatening to derail the bi-racial coalition Obama had carefully tried to assemble.
It’s more than Obama because, as he said in his speech, it’s been 50 years since the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education and distrust between whites and blacks continues. Segregated schools continue. Disparate incomes by race continue. Maybe only someone with the background of a Barack Obama could have given this speech, perhaps the most comprehensive speech on the subject ever given by a presidential candidate. In the short time period since he spoke, it has been compared countless times to John F. Kennedy’s famous speech to Protestant ministers in Houston in 1960, when JFK needed to address the issue of his Catholic faith.

npr.org

Rep. John Lewis of Atlanta said there’s no room in American society for inflammatory rhetoric like that of Barack Obama’s former pastor and that he hopes Obama’s handling of the matter this week will prompt a more honest national dialogue on race.
In an interview, the veteran civil rights leader called Obama’s speech in Philadelphia Tuesday “extraordinary.”
“He was so open, so candid in talking about his own life, his own family and the role that race has played,” Lewis said, comparing it with speeches by presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and John F. Kennedy in the 1960s, when Lewis was leading student protests against segregation.
“It did remind me of another time, another period,” he said.
Lewis said he understands the roots of the anger displayed in sermons by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, formerly of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
“From the days of slavery, the black minister has been one who is about stirring up things … there was a great deal of anger and bitterness,” he said.
But, he added, “I would never say anything like that.”
“I don’t think there’s any room for that type of rhetoric in our society,” he said. “I think we have to recognize the differences we have and the progress we’ve made. We have problems, but we’ve solved many of those problems. We’ve made a lot of progress. That cannot be denied.”
Lewis also said he hopes Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton will join forces to form what he says would be an unstoppable “dream ticket” in the presidential race.
“I don’t see it as a real possibility, but I think it would be a great ticket,” said Lewis, who last month dropped his support for Clinton’s presidential bid in favor of Obama.
Either way, he said, he thinks Obama can still win the nomination despite the controversy.

ledger-enquirer.com

On a conference call with reporters Monday, where Clinton supporters from the military discussed her ability to be commander in chief, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson was asked why the Clinton camp was talking up Mr. Obama as a possible running mate since it was also arguing that he was not qualified to be commander in chief — a standard that most presidents want their vice presidents to meet.
“We do not believe that Senator Obama has passed the commander in chief test,” Mr. Wolfson said. “But there is a long way between now and Denver.”
Which prompted a quick rejoinder from Bill Burton of the Obama campaign, encouraging everyone to call the Clinton press office for an explanation.
I don’t get this. Sen. Obama is leading in the popular vote; he’s leading in the popular vote including Florida and Michigan; he’s leading in the primary-only popular vote including Florida and Michigan; and he’s leading in delegates.
So why are we discussing the possibility that *Clinton* might offer the VP spot to *Obama*? Isn’t the vice presidency the front-runner’s to offer to the runner-up?
This must be the pro-Obama media bias Lorne Michaels keeps telling me about.
— Posted by mmle b.

read_more

Don’tstop searching for the truth. You certainly won’t find it here.
"Thehome of truth entertainment", "The truth is in here" and "Unitingthe world through sarcasm"(c) theVoiceofReason.com TM. World rights reserved. This is a comedy / entertainment site with a mix of realand spoof stories and special features.

thevoiceofreason.com

According to the Drudge Report, a picture of Barack Obama dressed in traditional African dress was provided by an unnamed Clinton staff member.
The picture has caused an escalation of tension between the two camps as they head into the important primary on March 4. Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont will be voting on that date.
The picture shows Senator Obama wearing a turban and a white robe presented to him by a Kenyan tribe elder.
David Plouffe, Senator Obama’s campaign chair, accused Mrs Clinton’s aides of “the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election.”
Mr. Obama offered a brief comment on the row during a radio interview in Texas, when he said: “I think the American people are saddened when they see these kind of politics.”
rwahrens on February 26 2008 10:00:55
I am bothered more and more by Hillary's tactics.
I started this campaign out by trying very hard to wipe the slate clean and give each candidate a chance to draw their own picture of themselves as to how they would like to be seen as a Presidential candidate, without my past biases getting in the way.
Hillary's nasty tactics likes this are beginning to bring back bad memories of vast right wing conspiracies, and relate very badly to Bush's tactics of "if ya ain't fer me yer agin me" type.
Like him or not, Obama is apparantly trying to run a clean campaign, at least in the primaries, and has rarely slipped into the negative mode.
Make all the accusations you want, but be sure you can back them up, and vicious "swift boat" tactics like this are really a turn off.
ethwc on February 26 2008 10:35:32
My daughter in law recently pointed out to me that it is common in the workplace and very common in politics to refer to women by their first name and men by their last name. She was not necessarily criticizing this but wondered why this is the case. I find that I hear much talk about Hillary and Obama. Even she and her staff refer to her as Hillary. whereas he is called Obama. Wonder why?
rwahrens on February 26 2008 11:16:36
More of the good ole' boys' tactics to diminish the female? First names are more intimate or informal, and last names tend to show more respect.
Then again, it's the media leading the charge here. Perhaps there is some other dynamic going on?
Oldfart on February 26 2008 11:52:40
Remember - this is from the Drudge Report. Drudge is the only one with the photo and Drudge is an avid right winger so it would not surprise me at all that Drudge published this just for the controversy. I don't believe it has anything to do with the Clinton campaign at all. They wouldn't be that stupid.
Not a member yet?
Forgotten your password?
Request a new one here.

tothecenter.com