In this article on Huffington Post, you can see that an Obama campaign insider seems to be laying the groundwork for moving to the right on Iraq. Here's the relevant quote:

Speaking on background, a source in the Obama campaign admitted to a certain frustration with the current narrative of their candidate "moving to the center" on issues where the Illinois Democrat has always staked out moderate ground. When talking about a gradual pullout from Iraq during the primary season, for example, Obama took some abuse from the "immediate withdrawal" crowd for his repeated mantra that "we should be just as careful getting out" of Iraq as we were "careless getting in." (And indeed, as represented by the "Responsible Plan" website, that kind of talk is firmly in the mainstream of activist anti-Iraq war sentiment anyway.) In the aftermath of Obama's FISA repositioning, the Obama campaign's fear, however, is that every subsequent moderate noise will be interpreted as a cynical centrist tack.

I'm worried this sounds like a campaign floating the idea that they might move their position on Iraq. They seem to be trying to prepare the ground that Obama has always been for gradual withdrawal from Iraq. Here's the thing, almost no one is for immediate withdrawal. That's a straw man argument. So, why are they now bringing up this gradual withdrawal point? I think bending on his 16 month timeline for withdrawal during the general election campaign is a terrible idea. I explain why below:





There is a difference between moving to the center and moving to the right. There is a difference between making tough choices about Iraq once you get into office and flip-flopping in the middle of the campaign. There is a difference between being moderate and being weak. Changing your position on such a central issue would be taken as a tremendous sign of weakness. They better not even be thinking about it.

Obama didn't come this far by running a traditional campaign. Why would you switch now and go back to running the same old conventional losing campaign that Democrats have run for so long? Appeasing the right brings you no political friends. It just brings you justified scorn from both sides. Go with what brought you here, not some cheap old political tricks.

Watch the Best Political Commentary (And More) on The Young Turks You Tube Channel

Frankenstein's back, with a resounding endorsement of Barack Obama. I refer, of course, to the reemergence in public of former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

Albright chastized Bush and defended Obama's statement that he would be happy to talk to Iran and other enemies of the United States. Albright blasted the current approach to the Middle East and made the anodyne point that it is just as important to converse with one's adversaries as it is to converse with one's friends.

The problem, of course, is not with talking with folks like Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. The problem is: who is going to do the talking? Certainly a President McCain has the experience and resolve to sit across the table with the bad guys and not fall for their deceptions or give in to their pressures. With an unseasoned guy like Obama, whose global experience may be confined to an occasional visit to the International House of Pancakes, who knows?

With Albright too it is credibility that becomes an issue. On May 11, 1996 this woman was asked by a television interviewer for "60 Minutes" whether she was troubled by the fact that Clinton-supported sanctions had resulted in the death of 500,000 Iraqi children. "It's a hard choice," she replied, "but we think it's worth it."

Leftists should keep Albright's response in mind when they wail about civilian casualties as a consequence of Bush's war in Iraq. Iraq Body Count keeps track of these casualties, and they are less than one-fifth the number of innocent civilians (mostly children) killed in the aftermath of sanctions. Sanctions had no effect on Saddam or his henchmen, who didn't miss a meal. Rather, they hurt the most vulnerable members of Iraqi society.

These facts remind us not only of the shortcomings of sanctions, which are not likely to work better with Iran than they did with Iraq. They also remind us that bad things in the world must be measured not against utopia but against what came before. Bush's Iraq war has resulted in a steep reduction of Iraqi deaths compared to the 300,000 people Saddam deposited in the mass graves and compared to the even greater number of deaths that Clinton's policies seem to have produced.

Still, I come back to Albright's original dismissal of half a million deaths with the calm affirmation: it's worth it. Can you recall another secretary of state making a remark more shockingly callous than Albright's? How this Frankenstein became the first female secretary of state remains a mystery.

And it is this same person who would presume to lecture us on what we should now be doing with Iran. I don't think we need more advice from Albright. Rather, what we need from her is an apology, followed by an overdue withdrawal from public life.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama claimed over and over during the primaries that they were strong leaders who could take America in a new direction. They also claimed that George W. Bush was the worst president in US history. Then, how come they have never been able to beat him in almost any legislative battles?

This week they surrendered again. This time it was about giving immunity to telecommunication companies who broke the law to placate the Bush administration. Nearly everyone involved admits they broke the law -- otherwise they wouldn't need immunity.

I didn't rob a bank, so I don't need immunity for robbery. Everyone should have their rights, and that definitely applies to the telecom companies and the Bush administration as well, so it should be very simple for them to go into a courthouse and show there was nothing wrong with what they did. Except they can't, and that's why desperately need immunity for the crimes they have committed.

This isn't about spying on terrorists. The FISA court gives out warrants like they're growing on trees. If they spied on terrorists, it's the easiest thing in the world to show. No, this is for breaking the law and spying on Americans without a court order. Do we know who they spied on? No, and now we never will. Why? The Democrats are going to give these companies -- and by extension the Bush administration -- immunity for breaking the law.

In essence, the Democrats are giving a preemptive pardon to George Bush and everyone else that authorized and participated in this illegal surveillance program.

Now, if we only had a couple of strong leaders on the Democratic side who could stop this. Oh wait a minute, I remember two people that kept telling me how strong and capable they were. One of them even claimed that change was coming. You know when it might be a good time for change? Right about now.

Instead, Hillary Clinton is on vacation somewhere doing absolutely nothing about this immunity bill. When it's not about her career, all of a sudden she's not that moved to fight for us, our laws and our constitution. Since she's not going to be president, she's taken her ball and gone home.

And what about Obama? Nothing. Worse than nothing, because he's actually thinking about voting with the Republicans on a so-called compromise, which in the words of Sen. Feingold is nothing short of a "capitulation." Leadership you can believe in!

You think I sound angry here, you should have seen me all week on the show. If you want to see what I think of pathetic Democratic weakness, watch this (not safe for work or with kids around). The Democrats make it nearly impossible to respect them. And if you want to see what I think of Senator Clinton and Senator Obama's awful record of leadership on this issue, watch this:




If you can't beat the most unpopular president of all time in a simple legislative fight like this, how can you claim to be a strong and effective leader?

Young Turks on You Tube

Here's the first twenty minutes of Michelle Obama's eagerly anticipated appearance on The View, which we just watched over on Salon's Broadsheet. Talk about a slam dunk. Even if you're not as besotted with the Obamas as we are, you have to admit, she worked that TV show for all it was worth.

Everyone there seemed enchanted by her, even conservative co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck, who Michelle made a point of saying nice things to, like: "This girl is solid. She's got great kids. She's a great mom. She's funny. I can disagree with her on a whole bunch of points, but we can come together tomorrow." They fist-bumped, too!

Is it 1976 all over again? Is Obama the new Jimmy Carter?

I get this idea from, of all people, Democratic strategist Bob Beckel. Beckel was on TV the other day saying that Obama was looking a bit like Jimmy Carter in 1976. Beckel intended this as a compliment. After all, Carter came out of nowhere to steal the Democratic nomination and then went on to win the election. Obama too has vanquished a woman who was thought to be invincible for the Democratic nomination.

I think Beckel has a point with his Carter analogy, although Beckel does not seem to have thought it through deeply enough. Actually it goes even further than he imagines. Obama, like Carter, has had no preparation for the high office he seeks. Carter's background was in peanut farming; Obama's is in community activism. Yes, Carter was governor of Georgia and Obama has served briefly in the Senate. But no one can seriously argue that either brings to Washington anything like the experience necessary to run the United States of America.

Second, Obama, like Carter, tries to be all things to all people. Carter campaigned largely on vacuities like "change" and "cleaning out Washington." Sound familiar? Of course Americans after Watergate wanted Washington cleaned up and they wanted change. And of course Carter gave it to them, although it wasn't exactly the change they sought: stagflation, economic recession, runaway interest rates, U.S. hostages in Iran, a Soviet bear on the prowl, and what Carter himself called a national "malaise."

Obama is hoping that once again Americans will fall for his content-free campaign. And so far he seems to have the white liberal intelligentsia completely fooled. A classic example is my former debate opponent Alan Wolfe, who has endorsed Obama on the sole grounds that it's about time America let a black man into the Oval Office. Wolfe is not the brightest light in the academic firmament--I think of him as white America's answer to Cornel West--but he is one of the biggest opportunists this side of the Nile. Consequently his support of Obama shows which way this academic weatherman thinks the wind is blowing.

I don't know if Obama, like Carter, will make it to the White House in November. But the best thing about Carter was that, by being a complete disaster, he helped Reagan get elected in 1980. Even so, America paid a high price for Carter's foolishness--several countries fell into the Soviet orbit, and Iran fell into the clutches of the radical mullahs. Who knows how costly an Obama presidency could be? I for one hope it's not 1976 all over again.

Barack Obama's Father's Day speech over the weekend was terrific. The media has focused on what he said about absent black fathers, but there was another side to the speech and it spoke to the responsibility we all have as fathers and as a society. Within that explanation, Obama, in essence, explained what it means to be a liberal:




Watch Young Turks Here

Pat Buchanan has a new way of describing Barack Obama -- exotic. Gee, I wonder if this word is loaded with racial and ethnic implications? On the upside, at least this wasn't on Fox News Channel. It's good to get some diversity.

Here's Pat Buchanan being called out on his absurd description of Obama:




Young Turks on You Tube and The Real Deal Here

The conventional wisdom holds that John McCain should lean to his right in making his choice for a vice presidential candidate. This wisdom is completely wrong. Most of the names being bandied about would make terrible choices for McCain. I don't claim to be a political expert in the manner of Dick Morris, but I think the best choice for McCain would be Colin Powell.

Yes, Colin Powell. And here are the reasons why. First, Powell has an independent mind. He is not a captive of the right, and consequently he reinforces the public perception that McCain is not a pawn of Bush. True, Powell served in the Bush administration, but his disagreements with Bush are well known. Obama is trying to portray McCain as a Bush clone. Powell will help McCain convince independent voters--the ones he needs most--that his administration would not constitute a third Bush term.

Second, Powell has experience. The man has served honorably and responsibly in more high positions than Obama and all the other Democratic candidates combined. Moreover, Powell has gravitas while Obama merely has the gift of the gab. So Powell helps to highlight how green and goofy Obama really is. The point is not to contrast one African American with another, or to show how Powell like Obama has immigrant roots. Rather, it is to dissolve the race issue by showing that capability and experience, not race and skin color, are the real issues here.

Finally, who apart from the Obamorons can doubt that Powell would make a capable president? This is especially important given the fact that McCain is over seventy. A Powell choice would also reinforce the big question about the man at the top of the Democratic ticket: Is he ready? I am not going to say that Obama can never be a good president, but I seriously doubt that he is mature enough to climb into the saddle. Who would you trust--Powell or Obama--to better handle a national emergency?

Now all of this could be idle speculation, because Powell may not want to be vice president. I keep hearing about how his wife is so completely against the idea. But this could be one of McCain's first tasks: to persuade Powell to do it. This wouldn't be the first time that this soldier has been asked to put personal considerations second and to take on a great challenge for the future of his country.

Here is why I believe General Wesley Clark is the top candidate for Barack Obama's vice-presidential slot:




Watch The Young Turks Here and TYT on You Tube

Bob Dylan - who has never formally endorsed a candidate and who spent a great deal of his amazing memoir Chronicles describing how he's avoided taking sides in anything - tells the Times of London this about Obama:

"Well, you know right now America is in a state of upheaval. Poverty is demoralizing. You can't expect people to have the virtue of purity when they are poor.

"But we've got this guy out there now who is redefining the nature of politics from the ground up...Barack Obama.

First, there was the press fascination with Michelle and Barack Obama's fist bump before Tuesday night's victory speech (what is all the fuss about - people have been doing this in America for a long time -- it is neither a scary new concept or even anything that is particularly cool). But now, as usual, Fox News has taken it over the top.

If I described how they characterized this fist bump, you wouldn't believe it, so watch it for yourself (an MSNBC report on how bewildering this new concept is comes first and then the insane Fox description):




What's great about Fox now is that they've lost all subtlety, so we don't have to try to convince anyone that they are a conservative propaganda outfit anymore. It's as clear as anything can possibly be. The slogan "fair and balanced" has become a joke everyone gets. It has entered the lexicon as an ironic statement meant to convey the opposite of what is really happening.

Now that Fox News has become full-blown parody of itself, the next question is -- how can anyone hire people who work on Fox as legitimate "news" reporters anywhere else? Whatever it is that they do over there clearly isn't journalism, so why in the world would anyone hire these people as legitimate journalists again?

Young Turks on You Tube

This is hard to believe until you watch it with your own eyes. Fox News took two random clips from Barack Obama and Mario Cuomo that have absolutely nothing to do with one another and tried to call it plagiarism. But for me to describe how ridiculous this charge is wouldn't do it justice, you have to see it for yourself:




I think this might be a pathetic attempt to connect Obama to "liberals" of the past to strike back at the Democrats for constantly connection McCain to Bush. If it is, it definitely isn't working. These guys are running on empty.

Young Turks on You Tube

When you look at the speeches of John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama last night, one things becomes clear. There is one speech which lacked all energy, excitement and interest -- and that clearly was John McCain's.

We did a mashup of their speeches from Tuesday night, we picked some of McCain's best moments to be fair to him and it still looks pretty miserable by comparison:




More Young Turks on You Tube

Now that Barack Obama has pretty much wrapped up the nomination, it's time to raise a question that lots of people have been talking about privately but not publicly. Is it possible that Michelle Obama is the force behind Barack Obama's refusal to embrace traditional patriotic symbols? Could Obama's wife be largely responsible for the candidate's damaging associations with crackpot race-baiters like the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and the Reverend Michael Pfleger? In sum, could Obama's wife be a large part of his political problem?

Obama himself seems, at least on the surface, relatively free of the kind of corrosive racial resentment that is so common among African American activists of our day. This resentment is especially puzzling as it often comes from people who, far from being victims, have actually enjoyed benefits and privileges that they would probably never get if they happened to be white.

Consider the case of Michelle Obama. She was raised in a two-parent, middle-class family. She applied to one of America's top universities, Princeton, and was admitted. Of this experience, Michelle says on the stump, "All my life I have confronted people who had a certain expectation of me. Every step of the way, there has been people telling me what I couldn't do. When I applied to Princeton, they said: you can't go there, your test scores aren't high enough."

Which is all very moving, except that her test scores weren't high enough. Michelle Obama is part of the affirmative action generation of above-average but far-from-stellar performers who were granted preferential admission to America's most elite institutions.

Michelle notes that she graduated with honors in her major. Again, the problem is that her undergraduate thesis is on the web. You might expect that she wrote about Shakespeare's sonnets or the political evolution of W.E.B. Du Bois. Well, no. Essentially Michelle Obama wrote about the problems of being a black woman at an Ivy League university.

Here is a typical passage: "By actually working with the Black lower class or within their communities as a result of their ideologies, a separationist may better understand the desparation of their situation and feel more hopeless about a resolution as opposed to an integrationist who is ignorant to their plight."

Alas, the grammar is all wrong here. More than once, the tenses are garbled. People are ignorant "of" the plight of the lower class, not ignorant "to" their plight. And"desparation" should be spelled "desperation." To wreak so much havoc on the English language in one sentence, without conveying anything of substance, is perhaps deserving of a prize. Is this what her professors were thinking when they granted her honors? Whatever the Obamorons say, let's remember that that these are not mere typos; they reflect an estranged relationship to the English language. Moreover they appear not in a daily blog but in a thesis that is supposed to reflect the culmination of one's college career.

Subsequently Michelle went on to further appointments and even managed to cash in big time on her skin color and marriage to Barack Obama. She was hired by the University of Chicago hospitals to run "programs for community relations, neighborhood outrecah, volunteer recruitment, staff diversity, and minority contracting." Here her salary was $400,000 a year.

One might expect that the reaction of someone who gets so many privileges to be grateful to a society that makes them possible. But no. Michelle Obama thinks that her very success is an example of white oppression. By a bizarre twist of logic, she converts "you're not good enough, but we'll take you anyway" into a message of "they said I wasn't good enough, but I proved them wrong."

Ordinarily these psychological peculiarities may be of little interest, except perhaps to a therapist. But Michelle now stands next to a man that may be elected president of the United States. Barack Obama wants everyone to "lay off" his wife. He doesn't seem to realize that this is not a reasonable request concerning a woman who clearly influences him and who stands to have public influence in her own right. Moreover, for months the media has been laying off her precisely because she is his wife. Like Michelle, Obama seems to confuse preferential treatment with ill treatment.

Of course we've had controversial first ladies in the White House before. The Obamas, however, aren't there yet. Will Barack Obama be ultimately forced to distance himself not just from the Reverend Wright and the Reverend Pfleger but also from his own wife?

Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination tonight, but you couldn't tell that if you were listening to Hillary Clinton's speech. I really thought she would have the good sense to know when the fight is over. But her refusal to concede tonight went from determination to derangement. Everybody likes a good tough fighter, but no one likes someone who keeps hitting after the bell has rung. It's ugly.

Watch her speech here (this is the part where she refuses to acknowledge that Obama has won) and then we explain how crazy this decision is:




Then Obama spoke and he was very gracious to her, even though he had already heard that she wouldn't concede. What more does he have to do? He passed the magic number. He has more pledged delegates, super delegates, overall delegates (and more popular votes too, despite Clinton's maniacal and completely unjustifiable claims to the contrary). The race was to get to a majority of the delegates -- and he got there. What is there not to concede?

There is one possible explanation for Hillary's actions tonight, I explain that in the clip below. First you'll see Obama's historic speech (the part where he claims victory) and then hear the possible reason Hillary is still hanging around in this race:




By the way, did you see McCain's speech tonight? Wow, that was embarrassing. It was anemic, lame and lacked even one percent of the energy of Clinton or Obama's speech. Unless some world changing event happens, McCain doesn't stand a chance. Anyone who saw Obama's speech and McCain's speech tonight can see that plain as day.

Young Turks on You Tube