George W. Bush is a historic embarrassment that will forever stain the legacy of American democracy. Listen to short clips from his press conference yesterday and see if you can make it through a couple of minutes without averting your eyes:




I always come back to the same point because it is the one that makes the biggest difference. The press failed us. This man was always stupid -- and glaringly so. The press needed to tell the American people that the emperor had no clothes on. Instead they spent so many years covering his ass. That's how this imbecile was elected a second time. It was great failing of the press, while they thought they were being "neutral." Your job isn't to be neutral, it's to be objective.

A neutral sports reporter would be laughed out of the press box. The Cowboys beat the Giants 42-10. The neutral reporter says they both played fine. The objective reporter says the Cowboys kicked ass and the Giants sucked. Report the score!

A neutral reporter says John McCain and Barack Obama are both fine candidates who represent a change from George W. Bush. An objective reporters says that John McCain's policy proposals are nearly identical to George W. Bush's. They agree on at least 95% of the issues.

You don't have to say John McCain sucks, that's an opinion. But you do have to say that he is nearly a carbon copy of Bush. That's a fact. If you don't report that, then you are not doing your job of informing the American people. That's how we get incompetent presidents like George W. Bush -- because the press was too scared to report the obvious truth.

The Young Turks on You Tube

My laughter still hasn't subsided from the last post. I told my research assistant, who happens to be an atheist, that many of his fellow non-believers were too dumb to recognize even the most blatant irony and satire. He refused to believe it, until he saw it with his own eyes. He's a believer now, at least in the fact that there are plenty of atheists who are as clueless as the most ignorant fundamentalist.

Now that I've established that beyond a reasonable doubt, it's time to move on to the latest political news. In his latest speech, Obama confidently declared that America's war in Iraq is a "distraction" from our involvement in Afghanistan.

Leave aside the problem that Obama's Iraq views and policy all seem formulated prior to actually finding out what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama is scheduled to go to Iraq later this month on a "fact finding mission." He will also visit Afghanistan for the first time. Couldn't Obama's wisdom on Iraq and Afghanistan have waited for what he might find when he's over there?

Liberal Democrats like Obama keep saying Iraq is the "distraction" when, from the point of view of the Islamic radicals, Iraq is absolutely crucial. Al Qaeda has publicly stressed that Iraq is the global center of the war on terror, the staging ground for the beginning of World War III.

Why is Iraq so important to Bin Laden? Because since 1979 the radical Muslims have controlled only one major Muslim country, and that is Iran. They are desperate to get their hands on a second one. They have already said that if they get Iraq, they will focus next on Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

For America, Iraq is crucial for a reason regularly stressed by real estate agents: Location, location, location. Here are the names of Iraq's neighbors: Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia. Is there any doubt how important it is to have a pro-American Muslim government (or even better, a pro-American Muslim democracy) in that neighborhood?

By contrast, it is Afghanistan that is quite frankly a "distraction." Afghanistan was chosen as the launching pad for the 9/11 attacks because the Taliban government provided rent-free accommodations there for the Al Qaeda training camps. It was essential for the U.S. to get rid of the Taliban, and I'm glad the international community is keeping an eye on the place to prevent a return of those fanatics. Even so, anyone who thinks Afghanistan is strategically more important than Iraq needs his head examined.

If Obama's dismissal of Iraq seems like the unserious speculation of a novice, McCain has shown the prudent judgment of a real statesman. When almost everyone was against the surge, McCain pushed it. It wasn't that Bush talked McCain into supporting the surge. The truth is actually the opposite: McCain sold it to Bush.

It is the surge that seems to have changed the facts on the ground, and that is a testament to McCain's political bravery and strategic far-sightedness. Let's hope Obama finds out what is really going on before he issues more pearls of unwisdom.

Yesterday, the United States government agreed to give up some of our fundamental and unalienable rights because they were scared of Osama bin Laden. That is pathetic. We handed the Fourth Amendment over to Al Qaeda and changed our way of life because our leaders are afraid of a bunch of ragtag terrorists.

Democrats went along with this Republican plan, including Barack Obama, because they are used to the politics of weakness. They would have won and protected our freedoms if they had instead engaged in the politics of strength. How could they have done this? Watch below and you will see:





Watch the Best Internet TV Show on the Planet Here

Young Turks on You Tube

Has Obama actually moved to the center since the beginning of the general election (he claims he hasn't)? And is that a bad idea? Find out here:




Watch The Young Turks Here and Our You Tube Channel Here

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

One of McCain's campaign managers, Charlie Black, told Fortune magazine that an attack on the United States would be good for John McCain's campaign. As I explain in the video below, I'm not a big advocate of over-emphasizing these campaign gaffes but imagine if Obama's campaign had said this:




You know that if an Obama adviser said an attack on America would help their campaign, there would be a media riot over it. They would cover nothing else until that staffer was fired and Obama and denounced and rejected him and everyone he knows. This would be the largest news story for weeks. Now, let's see what happens to McCain and see how fair and balanced our media really is.

Young Turks on You Tube

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

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

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

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

Young Turks producer extraordinaire Jayar Jackson has put together a musical tribute to the Democratic primary race. It starts all the way at the beginning and finishes with the climactic events of this week. Take a look:




It was wild ride. Just when you thought it was over, there would always be one more turn. But now that it has finally come to an end, it is a fond memory. Now, on to the general election!

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