Campaigns Elections Videos
newest 100 campaigns elections videos / campaigns elections widgets / media rss:

Senator Obama delivered a soaring speech today in Berlin before an estimated crowd of over 100,000 200,000 in which he called for a renewed trans-Atlantic indeed, trans-global alliance to fight the common threats we all face. Appealing the ideals America was founded on and has tried to promote since it s inception, Senator Obama stated that whether it s terrorism and global warming, or genocide and disease, there is no problem we cannot overcome nor enemy we cannot defeat when we are united in common purpose. Watch a few of his remarks below. Download | Play Download | Play People of Berlin - and people of the world - the scale of our challenge is great. The road ahead will be long. But I come before you to say that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom. We are a people of improbable hope. With an eye toward the future, with resolve in our hearts, let us remember this history, and answer our destiny, and remake the world once again. Watch the entire speech here. UPDATE: German papers put the crowd at over 200,000 UPDATE II: Wow. It looks like US Foreign Service personnel were banned from the speech. And not by Senator Obama. Full transcript below the fold: OBAMA SPEECH TRANSCRIPT: Remarks of Senator Barack Obama (as prepared for delivery) A World that Stands as One July 24th, 2008 Berlin, Germany Thank you to the citizens of Berlin and to the people of Germany. Let me thank Chancellor Merkel and Foreign Minister Steinmeier for welcoming me earlier today. Thank you Mayor Wowereit, the Berlin Senate, the police, and most of all thank you for this welcome. I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before. Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen - a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world. I know that I don t look like the Americans who ve previously spoken in this great city. The journey that led me here is improbable. My mother was born in the heartland of America, but my father grew up herding goats in Kenya. His father - my grandfather - was a cook, a domestic servant to the British. At the height of the Cold War, my father decided, like so many others in the forgotten corners of the world, that his yearning - his dream - required the freedom and opportunity promised by the West. And so he wrote letter after letter to universities all across America until somebody, somewhere answered his prayer for a better life. That is why I m here. And you are here because you too know that yearning. This city, of all cities, knows the dream of freedom. And you know that the only reason we stand here tonight is because men and women from both of our nations came together to work, and struggle, and sacrifice for that better life. Ours is a partnership that truly began sixty years ago this summer, on the day when the first American plane touched down at Templehof. On that day, much of this continent still lay in ruin. The rubble of this city had yet to be built into a wall. The Soviet shadow had swept across Eastern Europe, while in the West, America, Britain, and France took stock of their losses, and pondered how the world might be remade. This is where the two sides met. And on the twenty-fourth of June, 1948, the Communists chose to blockade the western part of the city. They cut off food and supplies to more than two million Germans in an effort to extinguish the last flame of freedom in Berlin. The size of our forces was no match for the much larger Soviet Army. And yet retreat would have allowed Communism to march across Europe. Where the last war had ended, another World War could have easily begun. All that stood in the way was Berlin. And that s when the airlift began - when the largest and most unlikely rescue in history brought food and hope to the people of this city. The odds were stacked against success. In the winter, a heavy fog filled the sky above, and many planes were forced to turn back without dropping off the needed supplies. The streets where we stand were filled with hungry families who had no comfort from the cold. But in the darkest hours, the people of Berlin kept the flame of hope burning. The people of Berlin refused to give up. And on one fall day, hundreds of thousands of Berliners came here, to the Tiergarten, and heard the city s mayor implore the world not to give up on freedom. There is only one possibility, he said. For us to stand together united until this battle is won The people of Berlin have spoken. We have done our duty, and we will keep on doing our duty. People of the world: now do your duty People of the world, look at Berlin! People of the world - look at Berlin! Look at Berlin, where Germans and Americans learned to work together and trust each other less than three years after facing each other on the field of battle. Look at Berlin, where the determination of a people met the generosity of the Marshall Plan and created a German miracle; where a victory over tyranny gave rise to NATO, the greatest alliance ever formed to defend our common security. Look at Berlin, where the bullet holes in the buildings and the somber stones and pillars near the Brandenburg Gate insist that we never forget our common humanity. People of the world - look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one. Sixty years after the airlift, we are called upon again. History has led us to a new crossroad, with new promise and new peril. When you, the German people, tore down that wall - a wall that divided East and West; freedom and tyranny; fear and hope - walls came tumbling down around the world. From Kiev to Cape Town, prison camps were closed, and the doors of democracy were opened. Markets opened too, and the spread of information and technology reduced barriers to opportunity and prosperity. While the 20th century taught us that we share a common destiny, the 21st has revealed a world more intertwined than at any time in human history. The fall of the Berlin Wall brought new hope. But that very closeness has given rise to new dangers - dangers that cannot be contained within the borders of a country or by the distance of an ocean. The terrorists of September 11th plotted in Hamburg and trained in Kandahar and Karachi before killing thousands from all over the globe on American soil. As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya. Poorly secured nuclear material in the former Soviet Union, or secrets from a scientist in Pakistan could help build a bomb that detonates in Paris. The poppies in Afghanistan become the heroin in Berlin. The poverty and violence in Somalia breeds the terror of tomorrow. The genocide in Darfur shames the conscience of us all. In this new world, such dangerous currents have swept along faster than our efforts to contain them. That is why we cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone. None of us can deny these threats, or escape responsibility in meeting them. Yet, in the absence of Soviet tanks and a terrible wall, it has become easy to forget this truth. And if we re honest with each other, we know that sometimes, on both sides of the Atlantic, we have drifted apart, and forgotten our shared destiny. In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common. In America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe s role in our security and our future. Both views miss the truth - that Europeans today are bearing new burdens and taking more responsibility in critical parts of the world; and that just as American bases built in the last century still help to defend the security of this continent, so does our country still sacrifice greatly for freedom around the globe. Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more - not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity. That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down. We know they have fallen before. After centuries of strife, the people of Europe have formed a Union of promise and prosperity. Here, at the base of a column built to mark victory in war, we meet in the center of a Europe at peace. Not only have walls come down in Berlin, but they have come down in Belfast, where Protestant and Catholic found a way to live together; in the Balkans, where our Atlantic alliance ended wars and brought savage war criminals to justice; and in South Africa, where the struggle of a courageous people defeated apartheid. So history reminds us that walls can be torn down. But the task is never easy. True partnership and true progress requires constant work and sustained sacrifice. They require sharing the burdens of development and diplomacy; of progress and peace. They require allies who will listen to each other, learn from each other and, most of all, trust each other. That is why America cannot turn inward. That is why Europe cannot turn inward. America has no better partner than Europe. Now is the time to build new bridges across the globe as strong as the one that bound us across the Atlantic. Now is the time to join together, through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifice, and a global commitment to progress, to meet the challenges of the 21st century. It was this spirit that led airlift planes to appear in the sky above our heads, and people to assemble where we stand today. And this is the moment when our nations - and all nations - must summon that spirit anew. This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it. This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it. If we could create NATO to face down the Soviet Union, we can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York. If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope. This is the moment when we must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan, and the traffickers who sell drugs on your streets. No one welcomes war. I recognize the enormous difficulties in Afghanistan. But my country and yours have a stake in seeing that NATO s first mission beyond Europe s borders is a success. For the people of Afghanistan, and for our shared security, the work must be done. America cannot do this alone. The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, to develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation. We have too much at stake to turn back now. This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The two superpowers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love. With that wall gone, we need not stand idly by and watch the further spread of the deadly atom. It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era. This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons. This is the moment when every nation in Europe must have the chance to choose its own tomorrow free from the shadows of yesterday. In this century, we need a strong European Union that deepens the security and prosperity of this continent, while extending a hand abroad. In this century - in this city of all cities - we must reject the Cold War mind-set of the past, and resolve to work with Russia when we can, to stand up for our values when we must, and to seek a partnership that extends across this entire continent. This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many. Together, we must forge trade that truly rewards the work that creates wealth, with meaningful protections for our people and our planet. This is the moment for trade that is free and fair for all. This is the moment we must help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East. My country must stand with yours and with Europe in sending a direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions. We must support the Lebanese who have marched and bled for democracy, and the Israelis and Palestinians who seek a secure and lasting peace. And despite past differences, this is the moment when the world should support the millions of Iraqis who seek to rebuild their lives, even as we pass responsibility to the Iraqi government and finally bring this war to a close. This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands. Let us resolve that all nations - including my own - will act with the same seriousness of purpose as has your nation, and reduce the carbon we send into our atmosphere. This is the moment to give our children back their future. This is the moment to stand as one. And this is the moment when we must give hope to those left behind in a globalized world. We must remember that the Cold War born in this city was not a battle for land or treasure. Sixty years ago, the planes that flew over Berlin did not drop bombs; instead they delivered food, and coal, and candy to grateful children. And in that show of solidarity, those pilots won more than a military victory. They won hearts and minds; love and loyalty and trust - not just from the people in this city, but from all those who heard the story of what they did here. Now the world will watch and remember what we do here - what we do with this moment. Will we extend our hand to the people in the forgotten corners of this world who yearn for lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and justice? Will we lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty, shelter the refugee in Chad, and banish the scourge of AIDS in our time? Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe? Will we give meaning to the words never again in Darfur? Will we acknowledge that there is no more powerful example than the one each of our nations projects to the world? Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law? Will we welcome immigrants from different lands, and shun discrimination against those who don t look like us or worship like we do, and keep the promise of equality and opportunity for all of our people? People of Berlin - people of the world - this is our moment. This is our time. I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we ve struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions. But I also know how much I love America. I know that for more than two centuries, we have strived - at great cost and great sacrifice - to form a more perfect union; to seek, with other nations, a more hopeful world. Our allegiance has never been to any particular tribe or kingdom - indeed, every language is spoken in our country; every culture has left its imprint on ours; every point of view is expressed in our public squares. What has always united us - what has always driven our people; what drew my father to America s shores - is a set of ideals that speak to aspirations shared by all people: that we can live free from fear and free from want; that we can speak our minds and assemble with whomever we choose and worship as we please. These are the aspirations that joined the fates of all nations in this city. These aspirations are bigger than anything that drives us apart. It is because of these aspirations that the airlift began. It is because of these aspirations that all free people - everywhere - became citizens of Berlin. It is in pursuit of these aspirations that a new generation - our generation - must make our mark on the world. People of Berlin - and people of the world - the scale of our challenge is great. The road ahead will be long. But I come before you to say that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom. We are a people of improbable hope. With an eye toward the future, with resolve in our hearts, let us remember this history, and answer our destiny, and remake the world once again.

During an exclusive interview Tuesday with Katie Couric, John McCain revealed a clear and fundamental misunderstanding of the situation in Iraq. However, you wouldn t have seen it if you watched the CBS broadcast version, because this part was left on the cutting room floor. In response to a question about Barack Obama s contention that it was a confluence of events, not just The Surge™, that was responsible for the reduction of violence, McCain falsely states that the Anbar Awakening was a direct byproduct of The Surge™, even though the Awakening began months before President Bush first announced the buildup of force. Download | Play Download | Play Couric: Senator McCain, Senator Obama says, while the increased number of US troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What s your response to that? McCain: I don t know how you respond to something that is as such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarlane [phonetic] was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that s just a matter of history. Thanks to General Petraeus, our leadership, and the sacrifice of brave young Americans. I mean, to deny that their sacrifice didn t make possible the success of the surge in Iraq, I think, does a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed. Thanks to FDL s Spencer Ackerman, this is what Colonel MacFarland, the man to whom McCain refers in his answer, said in September 2006: With respect to the violence between the Sunnis and the al Qaeda actually, I would disagree with the assessment that the al Qaeda have the upper hand. That was true earlier this year when some of the sheikhs began to step forward and some of the insurgent groups began to fight against al Qaeda. The insurgent groups, the nationalist groups, were pretty well beaten by al Qaeda. This is a different phenomena that s going on right now. I think that it s not so much the insurgent groups that are fighting al Qaeda, it s the well, it used to be the fence-sitters, the tribal leaders, are stepping forward and cooperating with the Iraqi security forces against al Qaeda, and it s had a very different result. I think al Qaeda has been pushed up against the ropes by this, and now they re finding themselves trapped between the coalition and ISF on the one side, and the people on the other. Furthermore, MacFarland even co-wrote an article (.pdf) published earlier this year in which he explained how most of the Anbar progress occurred between June 2006 and February 2007, months before the first surge troops even arrived. The Anbar Awakening is argued by many to be one of the most crucial turning points in the war. For McCain to falsely claim that The Surge was responsible for it is rank dishonesty and a blatant attempt to re-write history. McCain has recently sunk so low as to say this about Obama: This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign. Well, here s my response: McCain is essentially betting his entire presidential bid on his support for The Surge, so if he has to lie about its effects, he will; it s his only shot. As ThinkProgress notes, even President Bush made mention of this fact in a speech to the Naval War College last year. Anticipating that they were going to get hammered for the screw-up, the McCain campaign released a statement last night that the Andersen Cooper panel largely bought hook, line and sinker. Ackerman nails it: For McCain to say that the Anbar Awakening is the product of the surge is either a lie or professional malpractice for a presidential candidate who is staking his election on his allegedly superior Iraq judgment. So does Ilan Goldenberg at HuffPo: YOU CANNOT GET THIS WRONG. [ ] John McCain made a mistake this evening, which as far as I m concerned, disqualifies him from being president. It is so appalling and so factually wrong that I m actually sitting here wondering who McCain s advisers are. This isn t some gaffe where he talks about the Iraq-Pakistan border. It s a real misunderstanding of what has happened in Iraq over the past year.

Memo to John McCain: When trying to sell your energy plan (Drill! Drill! Drill!) you might not want to cite the approval of oil executives. The last thing voters want to hear is that the fatcats who have been raking in record profits at our expense are happy with your solution to our problems. Download | Play Download | Play We have to drill off-shore. The oil executives say that within a couple of years we could be seeing results of it. Ken over at Howies place asks: Are those his environmental experts??? And the DNC notes that McCain s position on off-shore drilling, beyond the initial flip-flop, keeps evolving: McCain was in New Hampshire this afternoon where he unveiled the latest excuse for coastal drilling. Oil executives tell McCain that within a couple of years we could be seeing results from it. There s no doubt that oil companies will profit handsomely from McCain s coastal drilling plan. It s helpful that McCain would relay that to an audience of voters. First position: When he first announced his decision to abandon his longstanding opposition to offshore drilling, McCain said it would be helpful in the short term. Second position: Days later, McCain and his top economic advisor admitted it would have no immediate effect, but would have a psychological impact. Third position: Later he reversed himself once again, say drilling is part of his short term solution to energy prices. The latest: During today s town hall meeting in New Hampshire, McCain says oil executives told him we could see results from offshore drilling within a couple of years. Considering that he can t even keep his facts straight, is it any surprise that his new ad offensive has been universally panned as false, misleading, and wrong?

The speculation before Senator Obama left for Iraq that he would possibly commit a presidential-bid-ending gaffe was deafening. So naturally the media was caught off guard when John McCain managed to beat Obama to the punch. Download | Play Download | Play Stewart: Come on! This guy is a newbie! You can t snag one faux pas, one misstep, a blunder, a boo boo, a brainfart? Something small a geography mix-up? McCain: It’s a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border. Stewart: The Iraq-Pakistan border, otherwise known as IRAN.

Barack Obama s trip overseas is off to a great start with Prime Minister Maliki endorsing his withdrawal plan and the White House accidentally informing every news organization about it and Chuck Todd is hearing that Republicans are starting to worry. Download | Play Download | Play MR. TODD: Republicans are panicked about this trip because they think that this is going to be a home run. And arguably, you ve got some Obama folks who actually think he ought to come home right now. It s never going to get as good as it s gotten in the last 48 hours. You ve got McCain suddenly in the White House parroting what Obama has been saying in Afghanistan. The McCain folks will say, Hey, we re not parroting. We ve been there before. But they clearly caught McCain flat-footed there. And then what Maliki did, even in the backtrack statement that the spokes the government spokesperson over there said, he threw in the word timetable. In order to really appreciate the importance of the Maliki development, consider what would happen if the opposite occured: To really understand the importance of Maliki s comments, you need to consider their opposite. Imagine if Maliki had walked in front of the cameras and said, at this stage, a timetable for withdrawal is unrealistic, and we hope our American friends will not bow to domestic political pressures and be hasty in leaving Iraq just as the country improves. It would be a transformative moment in this election. John McCain would talk of nothing else. The cable shows would talk of nothing else. Magazines would run thousands of covers about Obama s Iraq Problem. Obama would probably lose the race. Exactly. And this is what Marc Amibinder has to report: Via e-mail, a prominent Republican strategist who occasionally provides advice to the McCain campaign said, simply, We re fu*ked. If McCain loses the foreign policy debate, which is becoming increasingly likely, he ll have an insurmountable problem on his hands.

Barack Obama sat down with CBS Lara Logan Sunday morning for a long interview about his meeting with President Karzai and his vision for American foreign policy. Calling the security situation in Afghanistan precarious and urgent, the presumptive Democratic nominee stressed that that country is the real central front in the war on terror, and it s about time we started treating it as such. Download | Play Download | Play The Afghan government needs to do more. But we have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan. And I believe this has to be our central focus, the central front, on our battle against terrorism. Full transcript below the fold: Logan: Why does it have to be the central focus? What is so critical to U.S. interests here? Obama: This is where they can plan attacks. They have sanctuary here. They are gathering huge amounts of money as a consequence of the drug trade in the region. And so that global network is centered in this area. And I think one of the biggest mistakes we ve made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job here, focus our attention here. We got distracted by Iraq. And despite what the Bush Administration has argued, I don t think there s any doubt that we were distracted from our efforts not only to hunt down al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but also to rebuild this country so that people have confidence that we were to here to stay over the long haul, that we were going to rebuild roads, provide electricity, improve the quality of life for people. And now we have a chance, I think, to correct some of those areas. There s starting to be a broad consensus that it s time for us to withdraw some of our combat troops out of Iraq, deploy them here in Afghanistan. And I think we have to seize that opportunity. Now s the time for us to do it. I think what s important for us to do is to begin planning for those brigades now. If we wait until the next administration, it could be a year before we get those additional troops on the ground here in Afghanistan. And I think that would be a mistake. I think the situation is getting urgent enough that we ve got to start doing something now. The United States has to take a regional approach to the problem. Just as we can t be myopic and focus only on Iraq, we also can t think that we can solve the security problems here in Afghanistan without engaging the Pakistan government. Logan: And how do you compel Pakistan to act? Obama: Well, you know, I think that the U.S. government provides an awful lot of aid to Pakistan, provides a lot of military support to Pakistan. And to send a clear message to Pakistan that this is important, to them as well as to us, I think that message has not been sent. Logan: Under what circumstances would you authorize unilateral U.S. action against targets inside tribal areas? Obama: What I ve said is that if we had actionable intelligence against high-value al-Qaeda targets, and the Pakistani government was unwilling to go after those targets, that we should. My hope is that it doesn t come to that - that in fact, the Pakistan government would recognize that if we had Osama bin Laden in our sights that we should fire or we should capture him. Logan: Isn t that the case now? I mean, do you really think that if U.S. forces had Osama bin Laden in their sights and the Pakistanis said No, that they wouldn t fire or wouldn t go after him? Obama: I think actually this is current doctrine. There was some dispute when I said this last August. Both the administration and some of my opponents suggested, Well, you know, you shouldn t go around saying that. But I don t think there s any doubt that that should be our policy. Logan: But [not going after him] is the current policy. Obama: I believe it is the current policy. Logan: So there s no change, then? Obama: I don t think there s going to be a change there. I think that in order for us to be successful, it s not going to be enough just to engage in the occasional shot fired. We ve got training camps that are growing and multiplying. Logan: Would you take out all those training camps? Obama: Well, I think that what we would like to see the Pakistani government take out those training camps. Logan: And if they won t? Obama: Well, I think that we ve got to work with them so they will. Logan: Would you consider unilateral U.S. action? Obama: I will push Pakistan very hard to make sure that we go after those training camps. I think it s absolutely vital to the security interests for both the United States and Pakistan. Logan: You do have a situation seven years on into this war where Osama bin Laden and all his lieutenants and all the leaders of the Taliban, they re still there. They re inside Pakistan. Obama: It s a huge problem. First of all, if we hadn t taken our eye off the ball, we might ve caught them before they got into Pakistan and were able to reconstitute themselves. So we made a strategic error. And it s one that we re going to pay for, and unfortunately the people in Afghanistan have paid for it as well. But we now have an opportunity to correct that problem. One of the, if you look at what s happening right now in Iraq, Prime Minister al-Maliki has indicated he wants a timetable full withdraw. That is the view of the vast majority of Iraqis as well. We ve seen a quelling of the violence. We haven t seen as much political progress as needs to be made. But we re starting to see some efforts on the part of the various factions to deal with some of the issues that are out there. Logan: Token efforts at best. Obama: They are token efforts at best. But if we have a timetable and they suddenly see an urgency behind the fact that the American troops are going to be leaving and that they need to get their act together, then this is the perfect moment for us to say, We are going to shift our resources. We re going to get a couple of more brigades here into Afghanistan. We re going to be willing to increase our foreign aid to Pakistan. In exchange, we re going to expect that Pakistan takes much more seriously going after al-Qaeda and Taliban base camps on their side of the borders. Logan: What would be a mission accomplished for you in Afghanistan? Obama: Well, a mission accomplished would be that we had stabilized Afghanistan, that the Afghan people are experiencing rising standards of living, that we have made sure that we are disabling al-Qaeda and the Taliban so that they can longer attack Afghanistan, they can no longer engage in attacks against targets of Pakistan, and they can t target the United States or its allies. Logan Losing is not an option? Obama: Losing is not an option when it comes to al-Qaeda. And it never has been. And that s why the fact that we engaged in a war of choice when were not yet finished with that task was such a mistake. Logan: Do you believe the war on terror can t be won if Osama bin Laden is still alive and if he s still out there? Obama: I think there would be enormous symbolic value in us capturing or killing bin Laden, because I think he s still a rallying point for Islamic extremists. But I don t think that by itself is sufficient. I think that we are going to have to be vigilante in dismantling these terrorist networks. Logan: Okay, last question: There is a perception that you lack experience in world affairs. Obama: Right. Logan: Is this trip partly aimed at overcoming that concern, that, you know, there are doubts among some Americans that you could lead the country at war as commander in chief from day one? Obama: You know, the interesting thing is that the people who are very experienced in foreign affairs, I don t think have those thoughts. The troops that I ve been meeting with over the last several days, they don t seem to have those doubts. The objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to ten years. It s important for me to have a relationship with them early, that I start listening to them now, getting a sense of what their interests and concerns are, because one of the shifts in foreign policy that I want to execute as president is giving the world a clear message that America intends to continue to show leadership, but our style of leadership is going to be less unilateral, that we re going to see our role as building partnerships around the world that are of mutual interest to the parties involved. And I think this gives me a head start in that process. Logan: Do you have any doubts? Obama: Never.

When asked for his opinion on the whole Jesse Jackson/Barack Obama dust up, Dan Rather talks about his admiration for the legendary civil rights activists, and says Osama bin Laden wouldn t be possible without him. Say what? Download | Play Download | Play (h/t Bill W) I can understand accidentally mixing up Obama and Osama. It happens. What I don t understand is how Dan Rather could make the mistake of actually calling him the full Osama bin Laden. More astonishingly, how can the entire Morning Joe cast sit there and not correct him? Stupefying.

Attention liberals and progressives: This is how you shut down Republican foreign policy talking points. During the Face Off segment on Race for the White House today, Rachel absolutely eviscerated every pre-packaged argument Noah Oppenheim had to offer about McCain s supposed strong suit. Download | Play Download | Play Here is just a small taste of the smackdown: Maddow: Noah, when it gets down to concrete issues, and when it gets down to making a judgment call, I think if people are looking at Bush and McCain in deciding to go after Osama bin Laden by invading and occupying for five years a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 or actually going after Osama bin Laden where he is, probably in Pakistan, I think people will probably go with the latter judgment. Oppenheim: Are you suggesting an invasion of Pakistan? Maddow: He hasn t said he would invade Pakistan. He said he would go after Osama bin Laden where he is insted of outsourcing the fight against al Qaeda to General Musharraf who happily took our billions of dollars worth military aid and then gave al Qaeda and the Taliban safe haven in the tribal regions. So go after bin Laden or fight Iraq? I d take the former. Ouch. Remember when President Bush said this in his 2004 State of the Union address?: America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country. The same people who defended President Bush and attacked Senator Kerry back then are now attacking Senator Obama for stating that, as President, his policy will be to pursue Osama bin Laden wherever he is, even if that means we have to go into Pakistan against Musharraf s wishes. How is that possibly a controversial concept? Are these right-wingers really arguing that we need a permission slip in order to hunt down the man responsible for 3000+ Americans? Thank the media gods for Rachel Maddow.

So I guess the Official Republican Talking Points™ now include proclaiming that Barack Obama is a socialist who s more liberal than Bernie Sanders. It looks like those Bush/Cheney guys McCain hired are starting to earn their money. Download | Play Download | Play (h/t Heather) CNN.com BLITZER: But Bernie Sanders says he s a socialist. JEFFREY: Well, I think Barack Obama is a socialist, and let me defend that remark. First of all, I would say Barack Obama is the most left-wing candidate that s ever been nominated by a major party for president of the United States. But is he a socialist? This is a man who s campaigning with Hillary Clinton, arguing for who had a better nationalized health care program. A nationalized health care program, Wolf, is socialism. Another thing that Barack Obama BLITZER: Just because it s government sponsored doesn t mean it s socialist. [ ] Do you believe Medicare or Medicaid is socialist? JEFFREY: Well, yes. Actually, I would say that Medicare and Social Security are flat-out socialism. What. A. Clown. If support for universal health care is a litmus test for determining whether someone is a socialist, I got bad news for Terry: 66% of Americans are socialists: Why do they let these idiots on television? And I m not even talking about Jeffrey. Look at how Wolf ended the segment: All right, guys. We ve got to leave it right there, but a good, serious discussion. Thanks for coming in. Geez.

Sure sounds like it. The Kansas City Star s Dave Helling interviewed John McCain after a town hall meeting Thursday in Kansas City and had this little exchange about one of the Republican nominee s stump speech attacks. Download | Play Download | Play Helling: You talked about a little bit about Senator Obama today. You said he was the most extreme member of the Senate. McCain: Yea, that s his voting record. Helling: Extreme? You really think he s an extremist? I mean he s clearly liberal.. McCain: Well, that s his voting record. All I said was his voting record. And it s more to the left that the announced socialist in the United States Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont Helling: You really think he s a socialist, Barack Obama? McCain: Oh, I don t know. All I know is his voting record. This is hardly the first time the McCain campaign has tried to distort Obama s record and tag him as some sort of extremist. Joe Lieberman says it s a good question to ask whether Obama is a marxist, Glenn Beck rants about Michelle Obama having a socialist agenda, and Bill Kristol believes the bitter remarks revealed Obama s inner Karl Marx. Steve Benen has already debunked the right-wing claim that Obama is the most liberal member of the US Senate so I won t bother repeating it here, but a look at McCain s voting record during the Bush years reveals just what you would expect: Despite the CW that McCain is a party-bucking maverick, he s voted with Bush 91% of the time including 100% and 95% in 2008 and 2007, respectively. A debates over voting records is not one the McCain campaign should be eager to engage in. Also take note of McCain s blatant lying towards the end of the clip as he attempts to defend himself from flip-flopping charges. Unlike the majority of McCain s Media™, Helling actually confronts the candidate, and gets him on tape denying things that are demonstrably true. Take, for instance, the myth McCain now peddles that he only opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001 because they weren t accompanied by restraint in spending. Well, if that was the case, why did he say this back then?: I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief. It s really a shame that the somewhat-respectable Republican McCain used to be has become possessed by the base-pandering, run-of-the-mill GOP ideologue he is today. Like Jon Stewart once said, McCain has gone to crazy base world. And it doesn t look like he s coming back.

Jesse Ventura announced to the world last night that he will not challenge Norm Coleman and Al Franken in the Minnesota Senate race, and managed to get a funny jab in at President Bush s personal relationship with God. Download | Play Download | Play CNN.com: And so I will tell you now, I am not going to run at this moment. But if between now and 5:00 maybe God comes and speaks to me like he did the president, and tells me I should run, like he apparently told the president to invade Iraq, well, then maybe at 5:00 tomorrow, Larry, don t call me a liar, just understand God sent me to file.

The Daily Show was in top form last night as they called out every single cable news network for helping spread the myriad scurrilous and unfounded rumors about Senator Obama. Download | Play Download | Play Obama s camp initially agreed that the cartoon was tasteless and offensive . Really? You know what your response should have been let me put this statement out for you. Barack Obama is in no way upset about the cartoon that depicts him as a Muslim extremist because you know who gets upset about cartoons? Muslim extremists, of which Barack Obama is not. It s just a f%#!-ing cartoon! But as always, no where was the anger at the media hotter, than in the media. Even though these coordinated lies about Barack Obama are shameful and disturbing, the fact remains that this presents a real problem for his campaign. According to a recent Newsweek poll, a whopping 29% of respondents said they believe Obama was raised a Muslim, while a significant 12% said Obama was sworn in on the Qur an. Indeed, most of the reservations I hear from close friends about thier reluctance to vote for Obama revolve around their doubts about his character, most of which are exacerbated by these deliberate and coordinated distortions. This is where the whole New Yorker cartoon comes into play. Although many have argued that the whole controversy is a net gain for Obama because it vividly illustrated the absurdity of the lies, therefore debunking it on a wider scale than otherwise possible I tend to agree with those who think it s harmful to the cause of setting the record straight. Regardless of whether or not you found the satirical cover funny and clever, I fear it may have just reinforced the false impressions people may (or may not) have had. In the end, though, it s almost kind of humorous. After the whole Jeremiah Wright saga, you would think everyone would recognize that Obama is, in fact, a Christian. I think Kos said it best when he wrote this: [The Wright scandal] really puts Obama s smear merchants in a bind do they push false rumors that he s a secret Muslim bent on delivering America to Al Qaida, or is he a member of an intolerant and radical black Christian church? While I know the crazies on the Right have a remarkable power to ignore the laws of reality, science, and logic in pursuit of their wrongheaded ideology, trying to float both these theories at once might be a stretch, even for them. Unfortunately I think Markos may have misunderestimated the power of the right wing smear machine and its ability to convince more than a handful of people that both lies are simultaneously true.

Yesterday on Meet the Press, former HP CEO and current McCain surrogate Carly Fiorina lamely attempted to argue that those who claim John McCain always supported President Bush on Iraq are trying to change history. Unfortunately for Fiorina and the campaign she represents, we have footage of John McCain himself saying the exact opposite on more than one occasion. Here s a little compilation I put together calling out this blatant revisionist history. Download | Play Download | Play Fiorina: But to say that John McCain was aligned with President Bush on the prosecution of the war in Iraq is to change history. McCain June 2005: I will also submit that my support for President Bush has been active and very impassioned on issues that are important to the American people. And I m particularly talking about the war on terror, the war in Iraq [ ] So I strongly disagree with any assertion that I ve been more at odds with the president of the United States than I have been in agreement with him. McCain, 3/28/08: “No one has supported President Bush on Iraq more than I have.” It s pretty funny to watch the McCain campaign walk this tightrope as they attempt to embrace and reject President Bush at the same time. Luckily for us, the video tape tells the true story.

After hearing about John McCain s ridiculous criticism of Social Security you know, the fact that it still functions the way it has for, oh, 75 years CNBC s Jim Cramer can t help but laugh at the disorganized John McCain and his complete lack of knowledge about all things economic. Download | Play Download | Play I gotta tell you: McCain is the most disorganized, lack of any knowledge whatsoever about economics. Cramer makes another salient point when he mentions that McCain is in favor of private accounts (well, he does depending on which day you ask him) and that millions of Americans would have lost their shirts if they had been investing their money during this economic climate. The fact of the matter is the whole banking system is falling apart. If you had money in the stock market Republicans want you to invest it yourself you would have lost a fortune. Is that what we really want? A bailout of another bailout or another bailout?

File this under: If Only Barack Obama Said It. After being asked a question on the Suck Up Express yesterday about his position on insurance companies covering Viagra but not birth control, McCain became visibly uncomfortable and was unable to reconcile his past vote against requiring the coverage of birth control with a statement one of his top advisers made just earlier this week. Download | Play Download | Play WSJ: When McCain was asked for his position on the issue, he said—with a nervous laugh–“I certainly do not want to discuss that issue.” The reporter pressed. “But apparently you’ve voted against—“ “I don’t know what I voted,” McCain said. The reporter explained that McCain voted against a bill in 2003 that would have required health insurance companies to cover prescription birth control. “Is that still your position?” she persisted. During the awkward exchange, with several lengthy pauses, McCain said he had no immediate knowledge of the vote. “I’ve cast thousands of votes in the Senate,” McCain said, then continued: “I will respond to—it’s a, it’s a…” It s pretty sickening to watch the cast of Morning Joe laugh it up and fail to acknowledge that this is a pretty big stumble by McCain. Not only is his campaign sending mixed messages about a rather important issue to millions of Americans, the Senator is so clearly confused and caught in the headlights as he s called out on a blatant flip-flop. Imagine if Barack Obama had been stumped like this. It would have been the story of the day, with the blaring headline: Obama Stumbles On Key Women s Issue; Will He Lose Their Support? Then talking head after talking head would be paraded on television to lecture seriously about Obama s women problem and whether or not this will doom his chances at winning them over. But instead, McCain said it, and everyone has a laugh and moves on. UPDATE: (Nicole) McCain hasn t spent a lot of time on these issues at all. In fact, as The Political Base recounts, last year he couldn t tell reporters if condoms stop STDs or if he supported Bush s abstinence-only education. I m sure I ve taken a position on it in the past, he stammered as he looked to his communications director. I m sure I m opposed to government funding. Sensing a vulnerable moment, reporters kept the questions coming. What about sex education in the schools? Should it mention contraceptives? Or only abstinence, like President Bush wants? I think I support the president s present policy, he said, tentatively. More questions: Do condoms stop sexually transmitted disease? A long pause. A stern look. I ve never gotten into these issues or thought much about them, he said.

Today s vote in the Senate approving FISA legislation was a huge blow to our country, our Constitution and our rule of law. Twenty-six Democrats stayed true to democratic principles and voted against the bill, which grants immunity to telecommunication companies who betrayed the American people by illegally spying on our communications without warrants. Download | Play Download | Play One of the Democrats who voted correctly today was Senator Russ Feingold, who appeared on Wednesday s Countdown with Rachel Maddow. Feingold has long been a staunch advocate for following the Constitution, speaking out against President Bush s illegal wiretapping program and fighting and voting against the anti-American Patriot Act. Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama voted for the FISA legislation, and while Feingold says there is hope that as president, Obama could change the unconstitutional aspects of the bill, it was still the wrong vote. Maddow: It is heartening to hear your optimism on the prospect of Obama s presidency on this issue, but of course, his vote today led a lot of us who see this as a real abrogation of the fourth amendment to be very concerned. Feingold: Well, it was the wrong vote. Any Democrat that voted that way was not voting according to what people in the Democratic Party clearly want, but, you know, we ll pull together after the election, we ll lay the case out again.

Download | Play Download | Play Keith Olbermann presented Barack Obama with a few options on how to handle the pending FISA legislation in a Special Comment on Monday s Countdown. Senator Obama had once said he was against giving immunity to telecom companies who assisted the Bush administration in illegally spying on American citizens, but more recently has said he would, in fact, vote for the FISA legislation, immunity included. As Keith points out, Obama has taken political hits from the right and the left and the right is going to attack him no matter how he votes, so he might as well do the right thing and demand telecom immunity be stripped from the bill. You ve already taken the political hit from the Right, for saying you d seek to strip out, or rescind immunity. You ve already taken the political hit from the Left, for saying you d vote for the FISA bill even with the immunity. You ve paid the political price in advance. Now buy yourself and those who have most ardently supported you something worth more than just class action suits against Verizon. Explain that you are standing aside on civil immunity, not just for political expediency, but for a greater and more tangible good the holding to account, of the most-corrupt, the most dangerous, and the most anti-democracy presidential administration in our long history. Of course, if you disagree with this interpretation if you think the FISA bill doesn t have the giant loophole, or if you don t think you, as president, would be ready to support criminal prosecution of well, criminals then your duty is clear. Vote against the FISA bill, if it still carries that immunity. Full transcripts below the fold: Finally, as promised, a Special Comment on FISA and the Junior Senator from Illinois. The Democratic leadership in the Senate, Republican knuckle-dragging in the same chamber, and the mediocre skills of whoever wrote the final version of the FISA bill, have combined to give Senator Barack Obama a second chance to make a first impression. And he damned well better take it. The Senate vote on this tortured and reckless piece of legislation has now been postponed until after the 4th of July break. The Democrats, completing their FISA experience (a collective impression of Homer Simpson falling off a cliff and hitting every bramble on the way down), didn t exactly plan this fortuitous delay. Last week, the vote on their cave-in was imminent. But, while arguing over a piece of housing legislation, about how many mortgage lenders can dance on the head of a pin, Republicans dithered so long about protecting their constituents the banks that the Senate calendar got backed up. This, in turn, gave Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid some time to think. There was one among his group, chosen to run for President, who had loudly assailed the idea of handing a get-out-of-jail-free card to corporations who had approached definitional fascism by breaking the law in concert with the Bush Administration. But this Senator had suddenly realized, that to the large group of voters who operate with an information base that would make Cliffs Notes look like the encyclopedia, if, in the final vote, he stood against FISA, he would hand them a rock with which they could hit him over the head, a rock wrapped up in a piece of paper reading: Obama voted uh-uh thing terror stop. Thus, Senator Obama, was born your first second chance. Senator Reid was kind enough to help you out by composing an amendment that would keep FISA which you rightly endorse but strips out the telecom immunity, which you rightly oppose. It s a protest a decidedly lame one but in our daily world of political transactions, voting for the amendment when it has no chance of passing and has been in essence constructed as pure Obama CYA that is a petty crime. Whether it will do more to harm your premise of new politics than to your credibility as an immunity-opponent, is for you, Senator, to assess. And live with. It would be sweet to have a pure, politics-free president, but the last of those retired from office in 1797. And while we ve all quoted the farewell address of The Father Of Our Nation for 211 years now, nobody seems to want to remember that its point was to urge his children that: whatever you do, for God s sake, don t form political parties some day they will kill you. Anyway, Senator, your problem here isn t the backlash about telecom immunity, and it isn t really about your political fluidity on the FISA bill. Your problem is what happens even if this plays out according to plan next week: 1) You vote for the anti-immunity amendment. 2) The anti-immunity amendment fails. 3) You vote for the FISA legislation. And 4) The FISA legislation passes. Oh, and, 5) Senator: The Republicans still run against you with the elections-for-dummies message: Obama voted uh-uh thing terror-stop. Because, inside the obscenity that was Charlie Black s comment about how a terrorist attack in this country would be good good for his boy McCain s chances for election Inside the inhuman calculation that Benazhir Bhutto did not die in vain she helped McCain in the New Hampshire primary There is a sad and cynical reality. The Republicans can scare some of the people all of the time, and they can scare all of the people some of the time. This is all they are right now. Nobody ever said it better than did Aaron Sorkin in his script for the movie The American President : Whatever your particular problem is, friend, I promise you, Bob Rumson (and for Bob Rumson, read John McCain ) is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: Making you afraid of it, and telling you who s to blame for it. Republicans, with almost no exceptions, have no true credibility on counter-terrorism, no track record of prevention or amelioration, and their president can t even remember the name of the skyscraper he claims to have saved in Los Angeles. And yet, somehow, the Republicans have managed to convince the public that it doesn t matter that Mr. Bush had already completed 22 percent of his first term, when he, his administration, and his party, failed so catastrophically on 9/11. The President and party who were at fault, were magically transformed into the President and party who would never let it happen again. An unjust repellant nefarious, trick. But, politically, rather a neat trick. Senator, the Republicans are going to paint you as soft on terror no matter how you vote on FISA. Or how you vote on the Telecom Immunity Amendment. Or on the next farm bill. Last week it was Grover Norquist calling you John Kerry with a tan. By November 1st, it ll be Dick Cheney calling you Osama Bin Laden with a tan. When you announced your support of this latest FISA bill (with or without the telecom immunity), the Republicans actually raced to get out a press release accusing you of flip-flopping. You shared the exact same position, on which they are running their entire campaign and they criticized you anyway! So, Senator, from their point of view, they think they ve got you boxed in. Vote for FISA and you ve contradicted yourself. Vote against FISA and it s Obama voted uh-uh thing terror-stop. Vote for FISA and against immunity, and it s political expediency, and Democrats soft on terror, and Obama voted uh-uh thing terror-stop. This is a problem, Senator. Because, flatly, of all the measures that can be taken to aid our damaged nation, and our de-valued Constitution, the first, if not the foremost, is not blocking telecom immunity, but making sure no Republican is in the White House past noon next January 20th. Of all the remedial efforts against the Bush administration s high crimes and misdemeanors, and of all the prophylactic steps against further inroads against the freedoms of the citizens of this nation and the rights of everyone else, the primary step must still come to us through the prism of politics. Would that it were otherwise. But it ain t. Frankly, Senator, this political tight-rope act you ve tried on FISA the last two weeks, which from the outside seems to have been intended to increase the chances of your election, probably hasn t helped that chance in the slightest. There is, fortunately, a possible a most unexpected solution. Your second second chance. Since the final version of the FISA bill was passed down from on high, John Dean has been reading it, and re-reading it, and cross-referencing it with other relevant law, and thinking. Something bothered him about it. Or, more correctly, something didn t bother him about it. Turns out lawyers at the ACLU have been doing the same thing for the last ten days. John compared notes with them, and will be devoting his column at Find Law this week, to this unlikely conclusion: The Republicans who wrote most of this bill at Mr. Bush s urging, managed to immunize the telecoms from civil suits. But not from criminal prosecution. Senator, here is John Dean s summary of his findings, which he sent me this morning. It is clear not only from the language of the bill (which must be read in the context of other, related statutes to be clearly understood), but also from the legislative history, that there is absolutely no criminal immunity for anyone in these FISA amendments. Moreover, Senator, it seems as if a lot of people have known this, for a long time. During the January 24th, 2008 debate in the Senate, Senator Brownback noted, The immunity provisions would not apply to the Government or Government officials. Cases against the Government regarding the alleged programs would continue. And the provisions would apply only to civil and not criminal cases. In fact, Senator, just last week, Attorney General Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence McConnell sent a letter, for the record, to House Speaker Pelosi emphasizing that the liability protection, quote, does not immunize any criminal conduct. And if you ask, Senator, about the President responding to all this by belching out a series of pardons or a blanket pardon to those who broke the law on his behalf, Dean has you covered here, too It would require acceptance by them of the fact that they had broken the law, and thus be an admission of guilt. And a blanket pardon would be an admission by Bush that his war on terror has been a lawless undertaking, operating beyond the bounds of the Constitution and statutes that check the powers of the president and the executive branch. It would be an admission by Bush, too, of his own criminal culpability (which is why Nixon refused to grant his aides a pardon.) Senator sometimes it is better to be lucky, than good. Keep your eye on the wording of the legislation to make sure the Republicans don t realize its flaws. Then vote for the amendment to strip telecom immunity out of the FISA bill. Then after that fails, vote for the FISA bill, if that s your final answer. Then the minute the president has signed the FISA bill, you announce that you voted for it because it renews FISA and because it permits a bigger prize than just civil suits; that it allows for criminal prosecution of past illegal eavesdropping. Say, loudly, that your understanding of this bill is such, that if you are elected, your Attorney General will begin a full-scale criminal investigation of the telecom companies who collaborated with President Bush in eavesdropping on Americans. And mention oh by the way that your Attorney General will subpoena such records, notes, e-mail, data, and testimony, from any and all Bush Administration officials, FBI or CIA personnel, or any members of the Executive Branch, who may have as much as breathed in the general direction of these nefarious acts of domestic spying at Mr. Bush s behest. Wait you say there s a political hit waiting for you there too? Another Obama voted uh-uh thing terror-stop. ? Actually, Senator, you ve already gone down this road, when you spoke to my colleague, Will Bunch, of the Philadelphia Daily News, on April 14th of this year. He asked about the possibility of criminal investigations of the 43rd President and his henchmen. What I would want to do, you told him, is have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that s already there and to find out, are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can t prejudge that, because we don t have access to all the material right now. You re also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we ve got too many problems we ve got to solve. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in cover-ups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is: nobody above the law. And I think that s roughly how I would look at it. Make this clear, Senator. You ve already taken the political hit from the Right, for saying you d seek to strip out, or rescind immunity. You ve already taken the political hit from the Left, for saying you d vote for the FISA bill even with the immunity. You ve paid the political price in advance. Now buy yourself and those who have most ardently supported you something worth more than just class action suits against Verizon. Explain that you are standing aside on civil immunity, not just for political expediency, but for a greater and more tangible good the holding to account, of the most-corrupt, the most dangerous, and the most anti-democracy presidential administration in our long history. Of course, if you disagree with this interpretation if you think the FISA bill doesn t have the giant loophole, or if you don t think you, as president, would be ready to support criminal prosecution of well, criminals then your duty is clear. Vote against the FISA bill, if it still carries that immunity. The Republicans are going to call you the names any which way, Senator. They re going to cry regardless, Senator. And as the old line goes: give them something to cry about. Good night, and good luck.

MSNBC was covering John McCain s speech in front of a Latino conference this morning when he was interrupted by two anti-war protesters. (at about the 1:10 mark) MSNBC s Alex Witt, while speaking off the cuff during a live event, mischaracterized the women as hecklers. Download | Play Download | Play Protester: Your silence is consent to war crimes! McCain has been met with protest before in this campaign and it won t be last time he hears strong opposition from the American people on his war. He likes to talk about the freedoms our troops provide us, but on the Straight Talk Express, free speech is limited to those who agree with him and President Bush. Also note how McCain states that he didn t learn to love the United States until he went to Viet Nam.

In light of Charlie Black s ridiculous and revealing comments to Fortune magazine Monday, Jon Stewart shows how Republicans are calculating their winning November strategy. Download | Play Download | Play (h/t Heather) Why is it that a terror attack helps Republicans? Well, it s quite simple. A terror attack, when added to an election, equals Republican. Why is that? Let s show our work. First we have to solve for R. Now, if you add 7 1/2 years of Republican administration, times the five years we ve been at war, which has divided the nation, add in the government s incompetent response to the domestic disaster of Katrina, minus the equity in your home thats disappeared, plus the price of oil squared, over the boon that the Iraq war has been to terrorist recruiting, times tortue, minus the resoucres we could have been using in Afghanistan, plus the resources we could have been using to catch bin Laden, carry the Cheney and . Digg It!

Given Obama s huge edge with younger voters, the McCain campaign is trying to capture a portion of that demographic with some admirable, though pathetic, youth outreach efforts. From the Straight Talk Express version of Cribs to the riveting Pork Invaders video game, Jon Stewart shows why McCain just doesn t get it. Download | Play Download | Play (h/t Heather) STEWART: McCain, you know I love you, but you re f*cking old.

Robert Wexler is a surrogate that Barack Obama should be grateful to have on his team. The Florida Congressman squared off against Republican Eric Cantor yesterday on Late Edition and did what every surrogate should do whenever the issue of campaign finance comes up; namely point out that John McCain is breaking his own campaign finance laws as we speak. Download | Play Download | Play CNN: And one other thing Senator McCain s not in the position to speak about this. He used his public financing as collateral to get a loan, and then, low and behold, he didn t use it, and he broke the law. I didn t watch all the Sunday news shows last week, but I m pretty sure Wexler was the only person surrogate or otherwise to make the observation that John McCain has absolutely no standing to lecture others on failing to keep their word on the issue of campaign finance reform. Why Democratic spokespeople aren t on top of this talking point is beyond me.

Republican Presidential Candidate, John McCain, proposed a gas tax holiday which turned out to be a non-starter with the American people, then he flip flopped on offshore drilling, and now, with his latest proposal to help end our current energy crisis, the Arizona Senator proves why voters prefer Barack Obama over him when it comes to the economy and solving the energy crisis. Download | Play Download | Play Keith Olbermann talked to Chris Hayes from The Nation on Monday s Countdown about McCain s $300 million dollar offer to anyone who can design a Flash Gordon-y battery, and exposes it for the joke that it really is. McCain even said he would pay the hefty sum by cutting out pork barrel projects from his budget which is a bit confusing as he is supposed to be the savior who will step in and put an end to all pork barrel spending.

McCain s Media begins its march against Obama. I ve been saying they will support McCain in the general all along. Listen to the tone of Gibson s voice as he makes a strong statement against Obama s money advantage over the uninspiring John McCain. Something that never seemed to bother the Villagers before. Heck, Bush 41 and the Saudis look really cool as friends He feels oh so awful about the fact that McCain is getting trounced in the fundraising department by Obama. The poor little guy who makes sure the media has plenty of doughnuts on his campaign bus. I m sure that if McCain had the online support that Obama has the story would be something like. Will John McCain s excellent fundraising advantage lead him straight to the oval office? They would be amazed at his fundraising prowess. John McCain: The Internet Maverick! Download | Play Download | Play Let me ask you a question about basic fairness: People in this country like to believe that people play on a level playing field and that a campaign will be about ideas and personality; if you start with that much more money, is it basically fair? As Jeff Cohen notes: There was real emotion in his voice when ABC News anchor Charles Gibson used Friday night s newscast to stand up for little-guy McCain against online-fundraising powerhouse Barack Obama. To me, the good news is that a network anchor was giving prominence to the plight of underfinanced candidates. The bad news is that it s taken years to see an anchor make such a stand. And that Gibson (like other media voices in recent days) is making his stand for fairness against a candidate who has attracted 3 million contributions from 1.5 million donors giving an average donation of $91. In other words, against a candidate who is arguably less beholden to big-moneyed interests than McCain. Thanks to Silent Patriot for the video and screen cap. Full transcript below the fold with a little added tasty treat: CHARLES GIBSON: Barack Obama announced today that he and Hillary Clinton will campaign together next Friday, their first joint appearance since he secured the nomination. The announcement comes a day after Obama said he is not going to take public campaign financing, a decision which has drawn a great deal of criticism, and our chief Washington correspondent, George Stephanopoulos, is joining us again to talk about this. By opting out of the public financing system, George, he could have, depending on how much he raises, two times, three times, four times as much money as John McCain. What s he going to do with all that money? GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, we re already starting to see what he intends to do with this kind of money. Just today, just yesterday in fact, Barack Obama bought his first general election ads. I m going to put up a map showing the states in which he s bought those ads: 18 states overall, Charlie 14 of those 18 states are states won by George Bush in 2004. If he s able to continue to raise money over the Internet, as he expects to over these next several months, it is conceivable that Senator Obama will be able to campaign and advertise in Republican states right up to election day. GIBSON: George, I ve heard a lot of political analysis today about his decision, but let me ask you a question about basic fairness. People in this country like to believe that people play on a level playing field and that a campaign will be about ideas and personality. If you start with that much more money, is it basically fair? STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, I guess we re going to find out in this election whether people believe that or not, Charlie. You know, this public financing system where each candidate, presidential candidate, has the same amount of money has only been in place since 1976. So for a little over 30 years right now. This will be the first time ever that a presidential candidate in the general election will not be taking that public money, but we ve seen the system erode over the last several years. Americans are checking off that contribution to the public financing system by fewer and fewer numbers every single year, and in the primaries, over the last three election cycles, we ve seen candidates in both parties opt out of the system as well.

And why do Democratic strategists who are supposedly on to balance them out let them do it? While discussing Barack Obama s decision to air his first national campaign ad in traditionally unfriendly states, Republican strategist Joe Watkins advises McCain just to be his McMavericky self, because people appreciate someone who won t go back on their word, obviously alluding to Obama s broken promise on accepting public financing. What Joe neglects to mention, and what David Shuster and Morris Reid forget to remind him of, is that John McCain is breaking his own campaign finance laws as we speak. Download | Play Download | Play To his credit, Reid mentioned McCain s flip flop on the Bush tax cuts, but calling out his blatant and perpetually ongoing hypocrisy and lawbreaking on his signature issue would be far, far more effective. Josh Marshall sums up the case against McCain quite nicely: [ ] McCain himself is at this moment breaking the law in continuing to spend over the spending limits he promised to abide by through the primary season in exchange for public financing. (By the FEC s rules, we re still in the primary phase of the election and will be until the conventions.) I want to return to this subject though because this is not hyperbole or some throw away line. He s really doing it. McCain opting into public financing, accepted the spending limits and then profited from that opt-in by securing a campaign saving loan. And then he used some clever, but not clever enough lawyering, to opt back out. And the person charged with saying what flies and what doesn t the Republican head of the FEC said he s not allowed to do that. He can t opt out unilaterally unless the FEC says he can. I understand that it s difficult to stay on top of every nuance of every issue, but this is undeniably McCain s biggest vulnerability right now. It s simply astounding that McCain is allowed to hold others up to standards (aka laws) that he himself is violating. Even worse, it s Democrats on TV who are letting him do it. In other words, the media narrative is now that Barack Obama is a flip-flopper for opting out, and John McCain is a straight-shooter for opting in, then out, then in again, all the while breaking the law by spending more than he s allowed to. Damned liberal media.

Jack Cafferty s 4 o clock question Wednesday dealt with the interesting position John McCain finds himself in while he tries to play both sides of the fence on literally every issue in an attempt to secure the support of the dwindling GOP base, while at the same time trying to maintain his moderate, maverick image. Download | Play Download | Play If John McCain doesn t stop changing his position on the issues, he threatens to make John Kerry look like an amateur. [..] So here s the question. How clear is it where John McCain stands on the issues? I ve said this before and I ll say it again: When the history of the 2008 election is written, the main theme will be the tragic fall of John Maverick McCain who sacrificed every honorable principle he ever had at the altar of rabid and unappreciative Republican base,alienating everyone outside of that shrinking group in the process. Oh yea, that and America electing it s first African-American President. Full transcript below the fold: JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: If John McCain doesn t stop changing his position on the issues, he threatens to make John Kerry look like an amateur. In order for McCain to win in November, he has to appeal to both the traditional Republican base and to Independents. Dana Milbank, in The Washington Post, says that s a delicate dance. And if McCain s not careful, he s liable to break a hip. Of course, any doctor will tell you a broken hip can be very difficult to recover from. On Iraq, the economy, guns and God, McCain is to the right. On immigration, campaign finance reform and global warming, McCain is to the left. Sort of reminiscent of John Kerry back in 2004. McCain went after Barack Obama yesterday for proposing a windfall profits tax on the oil companies. A month ago, McCain said he was willing to consider a windfall tax on the oil companies. What about offshore drilling? During his run for president in 2000, McCain was against it. Now he s for it, saying the states should decide if they want to drill for oil off their coastlines. This could cost him big-time in states like California and Florida, which are very environmentally conscious. Then there are the Bush tax cuts. McCain was against them twice, now he s for them. McCain has also called for the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay to be closed down and torture banned. But last week he criticized the Supreme Court s ruling that detainees there should have access to U.S. courts, calling the Supreme Court decision one of the worst decisions in the history of this country. So here s the question. How clear is it where John McCain stands on the issues? Go to cnn.com/caffertyfile. You can post a comment on my blog Wolf.

Senator Barack Obama was pleased to announce yesterday the support of former Vice President Al Gore. In a speech in Flint, MI, Gore threw his considerable influence behind the Illinois Senator, urging Democrats to volunteer, donate and unite behind the party s nominee. Let the healing continue! Download | Play Download | Play AP: Al Gore says he is backing Barack Obama and will do whatever he can to help him get to the White House. In a letter to be e-mailed to Obama supporters, Gore says Obama has united a movement over the past year and a half. The former vice president also asks for donations to help fund Obama s effort — the first time he s asked members of his Web site AlGore.com to contribute to a political campaign. On a related note, James Carville made a