On Thursday, as was reported here, Obama said he would continue to refine his policy on Iraq, which was widely seen as a softening of his promise to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible. Today, recognizing the furor that statement created, he tried to patch it up:

"I was a little puzzled by the frenzy that I set off by what I thought was a pretty innocuous statement," he said. "I am absolutely committed to ending the war."

...

"The tactics of how we ensure our troops are safe as we pull out, how we execute the withdrawal, those are things that are all based on facts and conditions," he said. "I am not somebody - unlike George Bush - who is willing to ignore facts on the basis of my preconceived notions."

Which I take to mean that if the current troop levels are promoting stability and peace in Iraq and to withdraw them will destabilize Iraq, Obama would keep the troops in. But that's what I take it to mean. It could also mean that he'll do what he always said he would and withdraw the troops regardless of their effect on conditions on the ground and that it was pointless to keep them there.

And that's the real problem, isn't it? Obama revels in these vague rhetorically brilliant statements that can mean all things to all people. Built in is the ability to read any meaning into current or previous statements that he wishes people read into them. This is one real difference between the candidates. With McCain, there is some dissembling, especially on politically touchy issues like immigration, but in large part, you know where McCain stands and what he would do. With Obama? Not so much.

This could be interesting. Democrats know they have a good thing going with the whole Obama cult of personality and figure the bigger venue the better, and why not open it up to the general public:

Barack Obama's campaign is considering moving his nomination acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention from the Pepsi Center to Invesco Field at Mile High to allow tens of thousands to witness the historic moment, sources say.

The move would mark a major departure from tradition, but would be in keeping with the candidate's desire to build a large grass-roots campaign focused on "change."

Should the Illinois Senator give his Aug. 28 speech - which occurs on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech - at Invesco, the move would leave behind the multi-million-dollar broadcast studios and high-tech podium and stage to be constructed at the Pepsi Center.

Possible downside? Well I suppose it's a possibility that he could tank the speech like Kerry in 2004 and come off as awkward in front of even more people, but given that it's Obama, that's not something I would count on happening. McCain could try the same thing I suppose, but could he fill a stadium? Would be embarrassing if he didn't.

I guess that Team Obama decided the Fourth of July weekend would be a great time to float the idea of refining his Iraq position. The idea is that most Americans (and hopefully media reporters) are too busy to pay attention to a very substantial shift in his Iraq stance.


GOPublius lays out the unfortunate choices of Mr. Obama:

John McCain has set a trap for Barack Obama, and its one Obama may find hard to avoid. Obama owes his current candidacy and his position at the top of 2008 Democratic ticket to his uncompromising anti-war stance. Through the fall and spring, Obama's position on the war was unmistakable, "Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq and there never was...the best way to protect our security is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months, or one year - now!" As a regular part of Obama's stump speech, the freshman Illinois senator pledged, "I will end this war in 2009." Such a position worked well with the left-wing base of the Democratic Party, but over the course of the past year a funny thing has happened in Iraq - the U.S. has employed an increasingly successful military strategy, and its primary public proponent has been Senator John McCain.

...

...Will Obama campaign as the man who wishes to singlehandedly snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq, or the man who flip-flopped on the central issue of his campaign and embraced Bush? ...

A year ago conventional wisdom told us that McCain's position on Iraq would surely doom him as a candidate in the general election. It now appears that being one of the few politicians that has stood firm on a single position that turned out to be correct might be his saving grace!

Which is another example of why I hold conventional wisdom with such a low regard. CW and $3 will buy you a very small (but tasty) coffee at Starbucks.

Hillary might have fared better, had she been the nominee, but unfortunately for her and the Democrats, she's not the nominee, and even if she was Obama and the left roots pulled her so far into the anti-war camp that her earlier strong position on the war in Iraq had been quibbled into meaninglessness.

It's not as crazy as it sounds. Clinton is most likely out because A: She doesn't want it, and B: Obama doesn't want to give it to her. Edwards was out because he already tried that last time around. So, somebody else then.

Republican strategists trying to game Sen. Barack Obama's choice for a running mate are focusing more and more on the possibility that he might pick former House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt, a friend of labor and blue-collar workers. "Gephardt is the one we're most afraid of," said a key GOP strategist and Bush ally.

Gephardt has run for the presidency and scored well among the types of voters Obama is trying to reach out to--lower and middle-class workers, laborers, and minorities. Another strategist said that Gephardt presents a friendly face of liberalism that would be hard to attack. He also has a deep well of support among House Democrats, who they believe would rally around an Obama-Gephardt ticket, especially the allies of Sen. Hillary Clinton.

He could make up for many Obama weaknesses among the blue collared crowd, and could be the bridge between the new and old Democrats. So yes, it could be Gephardt. Also among those running in the Dem primary in 2004, Gephardt was the only one I was afraid of. I was relieved when they chose the grand dufus John Kerry. (Gephardt would never have made a cringeworthy moment like "reporting for duty")

Downsides to Gephardt? He generates little excitement and appears to have no eyebrows. Oh and also, he is apparently being picked by GOP strategists, so it could be a Republican dirty trick. Be careful.

I'm struggling to find within myself a gut feeling for how this election is going to shake out. This is odd for me. I usually have a definite opinion and people who know that I am into politics are used to receiving a definite answer. My problem is that I like reading about history, especially political history, and this election is really close to either 1972 or 1976, and it could shakeout either way depending on which context matches best.

In 1972 we had a ton of energy on the Democratic side, rallying around an antiwar candidate and having a lot of fun pointing out the inadequacies and lack of charisma of one Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon may have been unlikeable, but he was very much in tune with the mood of the country. By 1972 he had removed almost all American combat troops from Vietnam, ended the draft. and it wasn't nearly the issue McGovern had hoped it would be.

The silent majority spoke loudly and said they were perfectly fine with Richard Nixon.

But in 1976 there was also a moderate Republican and a lot of energy on the Democratic side, huge economic unrest and it helped push Jimmy Carter into office over Gerald Ford.

My problem in trying to make a prediction, is that I can see either of these scenarios playing out. Is Obama a 2nd Jimmy Carter? Able to tap into a huge mainstream of America that is ready for something new? Or is Obama a George McGovern? Lots of flash and sizzle, but no meat. Many high energy supporters, but many, many more who say, meh, I'll take the old Republican guy, he seems more stable.

If the Republicans had nominated anyone else but McCain, I'd say 1972 in a heartbeat and the Democrats are in for a heartbreak (again), but McCain is uncomfortably close to Gerald Ford, and it might be 1976 again. What's your gut feeling?

Fascinating story today about one Obama supporter using all the resources at her disposal (vast, as it turns out) to figure out who's behind the "Obama is a Muslim" chain mails. But the Post probably should have skipped this part.

Allen was ideally suited to embark on such a difficult hunt. She boasts two doctorates, one in classics from Cambridge University and the other in government from Harvard University, and won a $500,000 MacArthur "genius" award at the age of 29. Last year she joined the faculty of the institute, the only African American and one of a handful of women at the elite research center, where she works alongside groundbreaking physicists, mathematicians and social scientists. They don't have to teach, and they face no quotas on what they publish. Their only mandate is to work in the tradition of Einstein, wrestling with the most vexing problems in the universe.

While Allen was already an expert on the mechanics of politics, she fast began to learn the mechanics of the Internet. She discovered, for instance, that the recipe for launching a chain e-mail attack is not as simple as typing it up and hitting the send button to a long list of recipients. It takes effort to seed a chain mail that spreads as widely as the Obama missive, explained Jeff Bedser, president of the Internet Crimes Group, a company that helps corporations battle such broadsides. "Lighting that fire, getting something to have momentum, takes work," he said.

Sheesh, two doctorates, works at Harvard and dumb about the internet. Not exactly a good start there. Or as Rich Lowry put it:

And one of the most vexing problems in the universe, which Allen has decided to pursue in the tradition of Einstein, is the origin of a number of e-mails claiming that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Using the advanced research tools at her disposal, the razor-sharp Allen found...a couple of posters on the Free Republic website, plus a former political rival of Obama's who sends out zillions of e-mails to reporters every day.

Bottom line, it's called Free Speech and the internet is a great enabler of all kinds of speech, especially the free kind. How do you stop smears? By speaking up yourself of course. If the smear is a lie, it will be found out (by the internet, natch), if not, you're in trouble. I really don't see anything that needs fixing here. Your mileage may vary.

Unlike Justin, I think the Heller case overturning the DC gun ban has far larger impact than just Washington DC itself. Scalia and the other four conservative justices left that open for question for now, based on my limited understanding of the opinion. We'll know soon enough, when the inevitable lawsuit against the Chicago ban winds its way up.

Of interest to me was the potential political impact. Obama was clearly scared as hell that the liberal wing of the court was about to eviscerate his chances of winning in November. And yes, a decision nullifying the 2nd amendment would have done so. If you don't believe me, ask Bill Clinton and the many, many outgoing members of the 103rd congress why they think they lost big in 1994. So yes, this was a big deal, as illustrated by Obama's lack of straight talk on the matter:

When Obama has been asked on multiple occasions to weigh in on the D.C. gun case he has regularly maintained that the Second Amendment provides an individual right while at the same time saying that right is not absolute and that the Constitution does not prevent local governments from enacting what Obama calls "common sense laws."

Although he has been willing to describe his general views on this topic, Obama has sidestepped the question of whether the ban in the nation's capital runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

Asked by ABC News' Charlie Gibson if he considers the D.C. law to be consistent with an individual's right to bear arms at ABC's April 16, 2008, debate in Philadelphia, Obama said, "Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence."

I'm very interested in how Obama will play this now that he has dodged this bullet, no thanks to the four liberal justices who dissented. My guess is that he will say as little as possible and again call for common sense gun laws and try to appear as not a threat to the rights of gun owners. Also of interest is that among the grass roots left there is a new appreciation for the 2nd amendment, but worrying about Dick Cheney's shadow government perhaps gave them an appreciation of what it was all about in the first place. John McCain of course, wasted no time.

"Today's decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.

"Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right -- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.

"This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms."