Remember all those silly foreign affairs positions held by Barack Obama?  You know, like meeting directly with our enemies, which showed that Obama was naive and inexperienced?  Like setting a timetable for Iraq which was not important but on the other hand could lead to chaos and genocide?  

Over the last couple of weeks, conservative Andrew Sullivan notes that the lines between Obama's positions and those of McCain and Bush are starting "to blur."  Only, that blur seems to be moving in a particular direction.  

Iran

Obama has famously argued that the US should deal directly with the mullahs, negotiate the nuclear question and have talks without the precondition that Tehran suspend uranium enrichment. This was a clear and vital difference, we were told only a short time ago, between a reckless, appeasing Obama and the resolute, Churchillian Bushies.

And yet last week Bush authorised William Burns, a high-level State Department official, to attend talks with Tehran’s representatives on the Iranian nuclear question.

Iraq

Obama’s position has long been that troops should be withdrawn expeditiously but with care, and that the US military should shift its emphasis towards Afghanistan and Pakistan. And, lo and behold, last week we were also told that Bush was considering accelerating the exit of Iraq troops to beef up the Afghan mission.

For good measure, McCain also gave a speech backing what he calls a "surge" in Afghanistan, with more troops and a counterinsurgency strategy in the style of General David Petraeus, the commander of US forces.

And that's before McCain has made any response to Iraqi President Maliki's agreement with Obama's timeline.  Sullivan notes that the candidates are now sounding an awful lot alike, and that they're having trouble "putting blue sky" between their positions.

One thing he doesn't make clear: the lack of sky is because McCain and Bush have adopted more and more of Obama's "naive" positions rather than his bowing to their towering experience.

Blurry.  It's all so blurry.  Sure, Obama has a timeline, but now Bush has a "horizon," and by tomorrow McCain will probably have a purview, or a vision, or a vista.  It's all the same.  Right?

It's sad that words like this even have to be said aloud.

From TPM:

In a sign that senior Democratic officials remain deeply concerned that post-primary bitterness could imperil Barack Obama's chances, two top Democratic officials have emailed a sharply-worded letter to major donors and other leading Dems confessing "fatigue and irritation" at those withholding full support from Obama and demanding that they get behind him "without conditions or demands."

Here's the letter:

108 days until the morning of November 4, 2008.

I have been lulled into complacency. So much good news going on. The Maliki endorsement of Obama, his trip overseas, recent polling news, his June fundraising numbers. It's gonna be a landslide. It's a steam train, and it's rolling. How could this POSSIBLY go wrong?

I'm a regular on Internet Movie Database.  I visit various boards.  I even troll a bit also.  But I need your help.

OK, short and sweet folks. This appears to be the first AP video report on Obama's trip to Kuwait.

By Jwilkes from Eyes on Obama:

Democrats haven't always been particularly successful in the West. But with current polling numbers indicating a strong preference for Illinois Senator Barack Obama over John McCain, 2008 may be a different year entirely. Polling shows that Obama is faring well in as many states in the West as any Democratic candidate since 1964.

(Cross-posted at Raising Kaine and Cobalt6)

...I was volunteering in Phase I of the Virginia Democratic Party's ground game.  I laugh at myself and think of it as "Webb 2.0" (heh), because my first protracted and sincere canvass efforts were for Jim Webb two years ago.

Today, I joined the ranks of the very early canvassers and it was absolutely fascinating.  Details over the fold.

"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes." - Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki, Der Spiegel, 7/18/2008

With the words above, Barack Obama becomes the prohibitive favorite to win the White House in less than 4 months, if he wasn't before.

With today's news that Iraq's Prime Minister Maliki agrees with Barack Obama's plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months, the McCain campaign has so far failed to comment on the story. But McCain did have something to say about it in 2004:

QUESTION: Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it's a hypothetical, but it's at least possible.

McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because— if it was an elected government of Iraq— and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi
people.

Prepare yourself for spinning of Linda Blair-like proportions.

The past few weeks have quietly validated some of Obama's foreign policy positions. It started a few weeks ago when the Bush administration was able to get key concessions from North Korea on their nuclear program through......wait for it..........diplomacy. After years of tough talk that only served to escalate tensions and destabilize the relationship, finally direct engagement made brought about a acceptable solution.

Which brings us to Iran. Funny how this week we learned that the US was having direct conversations with Iran on their nuclear program......Hmmmm think the lowering tensions in the middle east had anything to do with the drop in oil prices?

Direct engagement...... where have I heard that before? Not that there is anything wrong with talking tough, but without direct engagement it accomplishes NOTHING. Thankfully as the administration winds down they are feeling some urgency to do something.

So that's two wins for Obama advocated policies, none for John McCain.

That brings us to Afghanistan.

...you may have been right, damn you. I have been one of those supporters that still carry lots of suspicion when it comes to the Clintons. When news hit that she was asking her donors to let her keep the money for 2012, I went bananas. When I hear about groups buying a website to support a 2012 effort, I get pissed. I would love for Hillary to come out against this sort of stuff, but I think (and rightly so) that she is holding all of these events as cards to get on the ticket and keep her power. That is how the game is played and I should know. Now, I believe that the reason the whispers are out, are because the Republican Party has targeted this as their swift boat attacks. A few post ago, some SUPER-TROLL (if I am a regular troll) posted a remark about Obama tricking him, or some crap. Obama missed on FISA, but this MSM and Republican myth about Obama moving to the center is bull-shit.

And now, as we get closer to the general election, the media will once again blur the lines between Obama and McCain and their stances. This is the way the always get those, "well, aint nothing gonna change so I may as well...." folk. I will do my best not to fall for the republican tricks, trying to divide the Clinton form the Obamas.

More.....

In the grainy video below, Senator Obama presents his views related to tax parity. The GOP would have you believe that Obama will raise taxes and yes he will....

[From the diaries - BarbinMD]

Stupid is as stupid does.

The White House this afternoon accidentally sent to its extensive distribution list a Reuters story headlined "Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit plan - magazine."

The story relayed how Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told the German magazine Der Spiegel that "he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months ... ‘U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes,'" the prime minister said.

The White House employee had intended to send the article to an internal distribution list, ABC News' Martha Raddatz reports, but hit the wrong button.

My take: The WH was obviously freaking out after the announcement that al-Maliki supports Obama's plan, and of course was planning to email this around internally get some some advice from advisers and get their talking points together. This also ensures additional coverage of this issue. The Obama camp of course has already pounced on this:

The national security adviser to the Obama campaign, Susan Rice, said the senator welcomed Maliki's support.

"This presents an important opportunity to transition to Iraqi responsibility, while restoring our military and increasing our commitment to finish the fight in Afghanistan," Rice said in a statement Saturday.

This is just starting to hit the media; unlike McCain leaking Obama's travel schedule, this is just too big to ignore. The implications are huge, when you consider what would have happened had the opposite occurred:

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.

Indeed.

Update: I just had to relay this post on what the al-Maliki statement means for McCain (per Ambinder):

Via e-mail, a prominent Republican strategist who occasionally provides advice to the McCain campaign said, simply, "We're fucked." No response yet from the McCain campaign, although here's what McCain said the last time Maliki mentioned withdrawal: "Since we are succeeding, then I am convinced, as I have said before, we can withdraw and withdraw with honor, not according to a set timetable. And I’m confident that is what Prime Minister Maliki is talking about, since he has told me that for many meetings we’'ve had."

DIGG IT UP!!

Marc Ambinder is exactly right with this statement:

This could be one of those unexpected events that forever changes the way the world perceives an issue. Iraq's Prime Minister agrees with Obama, and there's no wiggle room or fudge factor. This puts John McCain in an extremely precarious spot: what's left to argue? to argue against Maliki would be to predicate that Iraqi sovereignty at this point means nothing. Obviously, our national interests aren't equivalent to Iraq's, but... Malik isn't listening to the generals on the ground...but the "hasn't been to Iraq" line doesn't work here.

Realizing, of course, that Obama can't make political hay of this fact now that he's overseas, I really hope his team is preparing a full court press upon his return.  Imagine Obama saying something as simple as this:

I know Maliki has already been diared.
But quotes were ommitted. I found a bombshell!

We know The Whitehouse, accidently e-mailed this Maliki article, to the wrong reporter list. But what else did he say.

I have the actual article from the German Magazine Der Spiegel., & Maliki's quotes. There's even more damaging stuff against Bush, McCain, and the whole gang guys. Check out this quote:

"So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat," Maliki told SPIEGEL. "But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias."

Wow!

Could Obama ever want more?

It seems the media, just focused on the timeline comment, and the accidental e-mail. But I tracked down the source (the article), read it, and found that juicy quote, above & article (below).

This is too good! No matter what McBush says. Here's the link below.

http://www.spiegel.de/...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!  This race is over.  Pack it in John McCain, no one will ever take you seriously anymore.  The president of your own party is doing exactly what Barack Obama has been saying all along!!!  "General time horizon" for troop withdrawal and now this?  And then the White House sent out an email accidently reporting this story to every news outlet in the country!! HA!  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

As in:

Via e-mail, a prominent Republican strategist who occasionally provides advice to the McCain campaign said, simply, "We're fucked."

That's in response, in particular, to the news that Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki endorsed Obama's timeline for getting US troops out of Iraq.

This doesn't help their cause either:

(Cross-posted at The Field.)

Steve Hildebrand (in the photo above), deputy campaign manager for the Obama campaign, just announced at the Netroots Nation convention a "three-day massive voter registration drive for Labor Day weekend, after the Democratic National Convention."

"Thousands upon thousands of volunteers will go register millions of people that weekend alone," said Hildebrand, a key architect of the 2007 "Walk for Change" strategy that spurred the Obama organization in states throughout the country before the campaign had even a single staff member in most of them.

Hildebrand, speaking at the Organizing for Change: An Inside Look at Obama for America's Grassroots Strategy panel this morning at the Austin Convention Center, called 2008 "an historic opportunity to build a truly dominant Democratic Party and forget, once and for all, about this concept of red states and blue states."

More...