A couple of seemingly unrelated political developments struck the Ticket early this morning.
First of all, it was unusually thoughtful of Sen. Barack Obama to give his big foreign policy speech before his big foreign policy trip and announce the results of his findings in advance of the actual fact-finding junket to the Middle East and Europe.
There are a lot of things for average Americans to be doing in mid-summer in the United States. And worrying over exactly what the freshman senator heard from U.S., military commanders in Iraq about the actual situation on the ground should not be high on the list.
So now that we know he's going to stick to his 16-month end-the-war-no-matter-what pullout, not just the MoveOn.org crowd but all of us can put on our own flip-flops and start focusing on the upcoming NFL roster cuts.
No, he's never been to Afghanistan, but Obama already knows it is the true central front in the war on al-Qaeda. Which is equally good.
And because the results of Obama's trip are already known and because Obama's staff has been practically begging them, all three network anchors are going to traipse along and seek three non-exclusive exclusive interviews along the route, as will top reporters for print media.
A whole planeload apparently. In marked contrast to the limited press coverage afforded the three foreign trips of Republican Sen. John McCain this year. But that probably has to do with something.
Without worrying over content, Obama's five-nation, 12,000-mile "tour" can be the rock star event Chicago HQ wants. Of course, if he does another one of those "Thank you, Sioux City" things and it gets reported, that might be another thing.
Speaking of change to believe in, ABC's Jake Tapper is reporting that Hillary Clinton has changed her hair and is now parting it on the right, which as believers in the actual little-known hair-part theory understand, is the more feminine side.
We'll leave it to Jake to explain all the details, but right hair parts are believed to connote strength, leadership and masculinity, which explains Jimmy Carter's troubled presidency and Margaret Thatcher's success but not Ronald Reagan's.
The other good news is that -- finally -- after nearly six weeks of not campaigning for a presidency somewhere Clinton has launched her fund-raising for the 2012 election. She says the money drive is for a New York senate reelection effort that year.
But someone just pointed out that 2012 also happens to be the same year as the next U.S. presidential election. What a coincidence, eh?
A funny thing happened over on the Barack Obama campaign website in the last few days.
The parts that stressed his opposition to the 2007 troop surge and his statement that more troops would make no difference in a civil war have somehow disappeared. John McCain and Obama have been going at it heavily in recent days over the benefits of the surge.
The Arizona senator, who advocated the surge for years before the Bush administration employed it, says the resulting reduction in violence is proof it worked with progress on 15 of 18 political benchmarks and Obama's plan to withdraw troops by now would have resulted in surrender.
When President Bush ordered the surge in January 2007, Obama said: "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse," a position he maintained throughout 2007. This year he acknowledged progress, but maintained his position that political progress was lacking.
Tuesday, while Obama gave a speech on foreign policy, the New York Daily News was the first to notice the removal of parts of Obama's campaign site listing the Iraq troop surge as part of "The Problem." An Obama spokeswoman said it was just part of an "update" to "reflect changes in current events," as our colleague Frank James notes in the Swamp. The update includes a new section on the rise of Al Qaeda violence in Afghanistan.
But some might see the updating as part of Obama's skip to the political center now that he's secured the Democratic nomination. "Today," McCain said Tuesday, "we know Sen. Obama was wrong" to oppose the troop surge.
An old quote of Obama's criticizing the "rash war," which helped him with the left wing of his party and helped differentiate his stand from that of Sen. Hillary Clinton, a primary opponent who voted for the use of force in Iraq, has been replaced on his site by one saying that ending the Iraq war will make America safer. That's more of a general election message.
And hat tip to the folks over at the Wake Up America blog for their continuing trenchant analyses of the summer campaigns in general and, specifically, for highlighting the video below that contrasts Obama's pre-surge position with a more recent interview of David Axelrod, his chief campaign strategist, denying Obama's statements. A reminder of how carefully voters must listen during these last four campaign months.
Perhaps inadvertently, Sen. Barack Obama tonight lifted a bit of the secrecy surrounding his upcoming trip overseas, telling reporters aboard his campaign plane that Sen. Jack Reed might accompany him to Iraq along with sometimes Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel.
When a reporter asked what might make Sen. Joe Biden and Hagel good traveling companions to Iraq, Obama made a very revealing correction:“It’s actually Sen. Hagel and Sen. Reed who may be coming with us.”
Well, now! So Biden, who says he doesn't work for anybody else, is not going with Obama? What's that do to the guessing game about the freshman Illinois senator's vice presidential pick, which had previously focused on Biden's foreign policy experience and his reported upcoming travels with Obama?
And does this put Reed of Rhode Island, a three-term ex-House member, two-term senator and ex-Army Ranger, into the VP mix?
Obama's comments came during an infrequent 20-minute exchange with reporters at the back of his plane en route from Chicago to San Diego, a late-night media availability which will help keep him in the news on an otherwise quiet news weekend when his opponent, Republican John McCain, is inactive.
Obama is scheduled to speak to Latino voters in San Diego on Sunday. He also was asked about recent fundraising figures and a crude comment made about him.
Obama went on to say that both Reed and Hagel are foreign affairs experts who “reflect a traditional bipartisan wisdom when it comes to foreign policy.”
“Neither are ideologues," he added, "but try to get the facts right and make a determination of what is best for U.S. interests.”
Then he added: “And they are good guys.”
Obama didn’t want to confirm a trip to Afghanistan, where....
Our colleague Peter Nicholas, trailing along after Barack Obama in Fargo, N.D., reports that Obama seemed just now to signal a softened position on his time line for withdrawing troops from Iraq.
On the campaign website, Obama says he would "immediately" begin withdrawing troops from Iraq and would have "all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months." But at a news conference, he was asked about concerns by some that he was backing off on that timetable.
Obama responded that he is planning a trip to Iraq to do "a thorough assessment" and consult with "commanders on the ground." Key, he said, is to not jeopardize U.S. national security interests. But he did not say that he was still committed to the 16-month timetable, and he has previously seemed to give himself a little wiggle room on the time line.
This is Obama's full response:
"These critics haven't based their comments on anything I've said or anything my campaign has said. It's pure speculation. We're planning to visit Iraq. I'm going to do a thorough assessment when I'm there. I have been consistent throughout this process that I believe the war in Iraq was a mistake, that we need to bring this war to a responsible end.
"I continue to believe that it is a strategic error for us to maintain a long-term occupation in Iraq at a time when the conditions in Afghanistan are worsening, Al Qaeda has been able to establish bases in the areas of northwest Pakistan, resources there are severely ...
Well, we'll admit it, we're suckers for polls, and a recent one that our cousins at The Swamp tipped us to is interesting -- showing that Barack Obama is tapping a potentially rich vein in trying to tie John McCain to George Bush.
The Gallup/USA Today poll found that 68% of voters said they were concerned when asked whether they thought McCain would pursue "policies that are too similar to what George W. Bush has pursued." Of those polled, 49% said they were "very concerned."
As the poll analysis points out: "It is clearly a delicate balancing act for McCain, as Bush remains relatively popular with the Republican base. While only 28% of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing as president, a majority of Republicans (60%) still do. Bush's approval rating among current McCain supporters is slightly lower, at 55%."
Dive deeper into the poll and something else interesting emerges -- people aren't all that keen on change, either. Some 49% said they were concerned when asked whether "Obama would go too far in changing the policies that George W. Bush pursued." Of those polled, 30% said they were "very concerned."
So the advantage for the moment goes to change -- in moderation. Which might help explain Obama's embrace Tuesday of the concept behind the Bush administration's faith-based initiative program.
Further evidence that the economy is taking a severe beating: Starbucks is closing 600 outlets and could cut 12,000 jobs as customer visits have declined. True addicts see Starbucks coffee as their lifeblood but for most people it's a luxury, and with the economy moribund and a gallon of gas costing more than a latte, people are deciding it's a luxury they can do without.
Now we're sure there will be snarky comments posted here about Barack Obama supporters going into withdrawals, shaking behind the wheel of their Volvos. But 12,000 cut jobs is a big hit, and judging by the staffs you see at the stores, it will put a lot of college kids, or young adults in that general age group, out of work. Add them to the already unemployed construction workers, auto workers -- just fill in the blank ________.
Yes, the Iraq war is a crucial issue for the nation, and the world. But poll after poll shows that at least for now, four months away from election day, it's the economy that has people's attention. And news like this will keep it alive until the picture improves.
The question for Obama and John McCain is who can forge the better -- or at least more convincing -- policy proposals.
What sparked this dominance? The Unity, N.H., appearance by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. It's a bit surprising, though, that the role of Bill Clinton was so light compared to the other mentions, since the former president is the major subtext to the Clinton campaign and Democratic unity.
According to the Project for Excellence in Journalism, "The wide gap in coverage between Obama and McCain can be attributed to several factors. In addition to Obama's efforts to unite his party, other story lines continued to generate press attention. Last week, James Dobson's accusation that the Democratic hopeful's view of the Bible is distorted -- and Obama's response -- filled 6% of the news hole. Rumors about Obama's religion coupled with Karl Rove's charge that he is an elitist helped lift various controversies surrounding Obama and his campaign to 11% of the coverage last week."
And just to make it clear, an Obama spokesman sent out this brief statement as Obama was speaking: "As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and, of course, he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark."
Obama's speech focused on his own sense of patriotism, quoting Mark Twain (it's good to quote the locals when you can) and his definition: "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." And, he argued, "no party or political philosophy has a monopoly on patriotism."
But Obama, citing the political divide still lingering from the Vietnam War, said that he will not question the patriotism of others and would "not stand idly by" when his own patriotism is questioned. A little bit later, in a comment that seemed to have Clark in its sights, Obama said:
"Beyond a loyalty to America’s ideals, beyond a willingness to dissent on behalf of those ideals, I also believe that patriotism must, if it is to mean anything, involve the willingness to sacrifice -– to give up something we value on behalf of a larger cause. Now for those who have fought under the flag of this nation -– for the young veterans ... I meet when I visit Walter Reed; for those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country –- no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary. Let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters of both sides. We must always profess our profound gratitude for the service of our men and women in uniform, period."
Patriotism is the theme of the week, leading into the Fourth of July holiday.
UPDATE: Our colleague Robin Abcarian, who is traveling with the McCain campaign, reports that he was asked about Clark's comments a little while ago during a news conference after a
tour of a Harrisburg, Pa., company that manufactures aircraft turbine parts. Specifically, he was asked about Clark's assertion that getting shot down in a fighter plane is not a qualification for the presidency.
"I think that that kind of thing is unnecessary," said McCain. "I am proud of my record of service, and I have plenty of friends and leaders who will attest to that. But the important thing is if that’s the kind of campaign that Sen. Obama surrogates and supporters want to engage, I understand, but it does not reduce the price of gas by one penny...doesn’t help Americans stay in their homes...it certainly doesn’t do anything to address the challenges that Americans have in keeping their jobs, and their homes and supporting their families."
And: "Gen Clark is not an isolated incident. I don’t know how much Sen. Obama has to do with that issue. I’ll let the American people decide that."
With John McCainheading south, Barack Obama announced this morning he's heading east -- to Europe and the Middle East "to assess the situation in countries that are critical to American national security, and to consult with close friends and allies," as the campaign put it.
The release didn't specify a date for the trip, but spokesman Bill Burton said it will be "later this summer." So the timing seems to have
been designed to take a little thunder from McCain's planned trip this week to Colombia and Mexico.
Obama's agenda on his trip, the campaign said, will include "common challenges like terrorism, nuclear proliferation and climate change." And Obama sent a special nod to Israel. "Israel is a strong and close friend of the United States, and is confronting grave threats from Gaza to Tehran," Obama said in the statement. "Jordan has been a close partner in the peace process and a host of other issues of common concern. France, Germany, and the United Kingdom are key anchors of the transatlantic alliance and have contributed to the mission in Afghanistan, and I look forward to discussing how we can strengthen our partnership in the years to come. This will be an important opportunity to have an exchange of views with leaders in these countries about these and other issues that are critical to American national security -- and global security -- in the 21st century."
McCain has already gone international. Just days after sealing the Republican nomination in early March, he went to Europe and the Middle East as part of a congressional delegation, though as his party's presumptive nominee he was certainly more than just another legislator on that trip. He nipped up to Canada earlier this month and next week, as we noted, he's off to Colombia and Mexico.
Of course, with the exception of a few expats, there are no voters to woo on such trips. The idea is to show interest in, and command of, foreign relations. And maybe steal some of the spotlight from the other guy.
-- Scott Martelle
Photo credits: Francine Orr/Los Angeles Times; Mark Boster/Los Angeles Times
Republican Sen. John McCain, a retired Naval aviator, Naval Academy graduate, war veteran and son and grandson of admirals, draws a very high level of confidence among American voters in his ability to serve as commander in chief -- fully 80% of those surveyed say McCain could handle the top job.
Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, who never has served in the military and is a graduate of Harvard Law, barely passes the 50% mark on this question -- with 55% of those surveyed telling the Gallup Poll they think Obama can handle the top job.
At a time when other polls are starting to portray growing advantages for Obama in his Nov. 4 contest with McCain for the White House, the Gallup Poll's daily tracking survey has returned to a dead-even matchup between the two: Obama 45%, McCain 45%.
""McCain clearly enjoys a more broad-based positive reputation with Americans for military matters than does Obama," says Gallup's Lydia Saad. "But it's unclear how this will benefit him in the election,."
This is the seventh and second to last chapter in our video conversation with former Times writer, Matt Welch, who's written a new examination of the personal and political personnas of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
In this episode Welch discusses what he calls "McCain's Ron Paul problem," a smallish but very dedicated splinter group of libertarian Republicans who back the 10-term congressman from Texas. Paul captured about 1.1 million GOP primary votes this season while collecting nearly $35 million, more than McCain had for a while.
Welch sees McCain's policies of a strong federal government, though with curbed spending, combined with McCain's enduring support for the Iraq war and Paul's antipathy to what he sees as empire-building as prohibiting any kind of real rapprochement between the two camps for the Nov. 4 election.
Also McCain could risk loss of support among independents and moderates if he was to taxi too far to the right to accommodate Paulites. In a close election the Paul group's votes or their absence could make the difference between a McCain or Barack Obama presidency, as some of them are likely to drift over to Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party, although that too is split.
From troop levels in Iraq to the long-term role of the military in U.S. foreign policy, the differences between John McCain and Barack Obama appear stark.
As a result, few are likely to have their jobs more directly affected by the outcome of November's election than Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
But Mullen knows he cannot tip his hand in the face-off. And on Monday, he sent out word to all under his command: neither should they.
The Times' Julian Barnes reports that at a meeting of officials who work on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Pentagon's planning arm, Mullen was direct and to the point.
“It is a highly political time right now,” he said. “I am anxious to make sure everyone in uniform stays out of the politics.”
In an effort to appear apolitical, some military officers, such as Gen. David Petraeus, choose not to vote. Mullen, however, stressed that he did not want troops to follow that example.
His message, he said, "doesn’t mean don’t vote; please do vote. But understanding what the rules are and not being pulled in is critical.”
Mullen, who assumed his position in October, also said that his planning team for the presidential transition had begun its work. His goal is for the group to serve as “the very solid underpinnings, from a national security perspective, in a time of change for our country.”
This is Part III of The Ticket's new series of video chats with people in or around politics. We're talking with Matt Welch, a former Times writer whose previous Times work can be read here.
His new book is on Sen. John McCain, the presumptive presidential nominee of the Republican Party. It's not a biography so much as an exploration of the independent persona we've all come to know.
Today, Welch describes how he discovered the inner McCain and his almost imperialistic views of American foreign policy, which grew from his family's long involvement in the Navy and his own world view, once it had taken many years to heal from the trauma of the Vietnam War and McCain's nearly six-year incarceration and torture.
Part I of our conversation is available here. Part II is available here. The other five remaining segments will appear on The Ticket in coming days.
A new Diageo/The Hotline poll today again reinforces just how closely divided the national electorate is between John McCain and Barack Obama -- it has Obama up by 2 points -- but also has a couple of other nuggets to digest on a Friday morning.
First is the favorable/unfavorable rating. Obama tops McCain 57% to 52% in the favorable ratings, and similarly has lower unfavorable ratings, 33% to 37% for McCain. Both gaps are within the margin of error, yet suggest what we're likely to see as the campaign evolves -- efforts by the Republicans to whittle away at the gap and by Democrats to widen it.
Also, the poll found unity in at least one area among voters -- concerns about the economy, jobs and unemployment, with 31% of Democrats and Republicans both saying it should be the top priority for whoever wins in the fall. Independents? A little higher at 35% -- and those are the folks both sides need to woo. Curiously, though, Democrats and Republicans split when asked what they thought was the most serious issue facing the country, with with 41% of Democrats saying the "economy in general," but only 27% of Republicans saying so. Second place for both was gas/fuel/oil prices, but with 21% of Republicans and 13% of Democrats. Add 'em together: 54% of Democrats said the economy and fuel prices, and 48% of Republicans.
But those crucial independents? The economy got 32% and fuel prices 21% for a combined 53%. And that's why you see both campaigns hammering away at those issues, with Obama trying to tie McCain to the Bush administration policies and McCain trying paint Obama as pushing higher taxes on people already feeling pinched.
The war in Iraq? Only 5% of Republicans listed it as the nation's most pressing issue, compared with 15% among the Democrats. But only 3% of the independents placed it highest. So as James Carville once famously said, "It's the economy, stupid." At least for right now.
On this, the first anniversary of our Top of the Ticket blog, we are reminded of the mercurial, unpredictable nature of U.S. politics -- part of what makes what we do so fascinating.
Our goal -- one of us on the East Coast and the other on the far more important or at least less humid West Coast -- was to write about Campaign '08 virtually around the clock.
Our second-ever posting, 12 months ago today, previewed an upcoming L.A. Times/Bloomberg Poll; later in the day, we detailed the results of the nationwide survey. The findings were in line with other polls of the time.
In the Republican presidential race, which then seemed the most likely to last deep into the primary season, Rudy Giuliani was perched in first place. His lead wasn't overwhelming, but it was strong enough that he appeared certain to remain a major contender.
His liberal record on social issues loomed as an obvious liability within his party, but his tough-on-terrorism message was attracting substantial support from moderates and GOP-leaning independents.
His major headache among rivals last June was an as-yet-undeclared candidate who was riding a wave as the great conservative hope -- Fred Thompson. He ran a strong second in the poll.
Lagging far behind were John McCain and Mitt Romney, each barely with double-digit support. In our preview posting, we were especially scornful of McCain, noting sarcastically (and foolishly, as it turned out) that in the poll, he found himself "in heated competition with the 'Don't Know' category."
Meriting no mention from us was Mike Huckabee, one of several back-of-the-pack candidates barely earning any support across the country.
The Democratic race, at that point, seemed so much more cut-and-dried.
If politics were a baseball game, then John McCain just lobbed a pitch that he may wish he could have back.
In a TV interview this morning on NBC's "Today" show, McCain was asked whether he could estimate when U.S. troops could leave post-surge Iraq. "No, but that's not too important," McCain said. "What's important is casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany. That's all fine. American casualties, and the ability to withdraw. We will be able to withdraw. ... But the key to it is we don't want any more Americans in harm's way."
Democratic leaders lined up to take swings, conveniently ignoring the backing context McCain offered that he is more concerned with casualties than length of deployment.
Harry Reid, Senate majority leader: "McCain’s statement today that withdrawing troops doesn’t matter is a crystal-clear indicator that he just doesn’t get the grave national-security consequences of staying the course -– Osama bin Laden is freely plotting attacks, our efforts in Afghanistan are undermanned, and our military readiness has been dangerously diminished. We need a smart change in strategy to make America more secure, not a commitment to indefinitely keep our troops in an intractable civil war."
Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations: "I think many of our brave soldiers and their families would disagree that it's 'not too important' when they come home. Knowing when our troops can come home from Iraq is vitally important, because the costs of staying with 140,000 or more troops are getting steeper every day. ... It is long past time to refocus our foreign policy on the many challenges we face, not just Iraq. Like President Bush, Sen. McCain cannot tell the American people when, or even if, Iraqis will come together politically -- which was [the] purpose of the surge in the first place. He can't tell us when, or even if, we will draw down below pre-surge levels. He can't tell us when, or even if, Iraq will be able to stand on its own two feet. He can't tell us when, or even if, this war will end."
Rahm Emanuel, House Democratic Caucus chair: "Once again, John McCain has displayed a fundamental misunderstanding about the situation in Iraq, our strained military, and American troops and their families. ... With each passing day, the more John McCain talks about Iraq, the more the American people are reminded of how much we need change in Washington -- not more of the same from Sen. McCain."
For the first time since he was elected to the Senate 24 years ago, John Kerry, who voted for the use of military force in Iraq before he opposed the conflict, will face a primary challenger for his Massachusetts seat.
Attorney and former Gloucester City Councilman Ed O'Reilly, a onetime commercial lobsterman, won 22.5% of the delegates Saturday at the Democratic state convention in Lowell, Mass., to secure a place on the state primary ballot in September.
O'Reilly has been endorsed by Progressive Democrats of America, the antiwar group that helped activist Donna Edwards unseat eight-term incumbent Democratic Rep. Albert R. Wynn in Maryland earlier this year.
Just four years ago Kerry was the losing Democratic nominee for president. He won the state party's endorsement today by capturing a majority of the convention delegates. He's expected to turn back the challenge.
"I'm here with humility to ask for your support," Kerry said.. "We have literally so much unfinished business ... My friends, I have more energy, I feel more focused, I'm more ready for the fight than ever before."
The last serious challenge Kerry faced for the Senate seat was in 1996, when he beat Republican Massachusetts Gov. William Weld in what was seen as a contest between potential presidential contenders. He's not faced a Democratic challenger since winning a three-way primary in 1984 to succeed Sen. Paul Tsongas.
The winner of the Sept. 16 primary will face Republican candidate Jeff Beatty in the general election. Matthew Hay Brown has the full story here.
Most everyone in the field of politics and those of us watching from the grandstands have focused on the Democratic family soap opera in recent days and weeks. And we've anticipated the compelling season finale that will unfold before our televised eyes in Washington this morning.
There, Sen. Hillary Clinton will officially admit defeat -- well, maybe she won't go quite that far.
But she will, as promised, appear to graciously and heartily endorse this upstart freshman senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, whose eloquence, quick learning and charisma prevented her from gaining her rightful White House political inheritance -- this time.
And if, God forbid or at least look the other way, Obama should not win the White House Nov. 4, her dutiful campaigning for the party ticket starting today won't hurt her chances come 2012. God help us, we're typing that date already.
Many of us have been debating Clinton's Tuesday night non-concession speech that was nearly downright defiant and if, when or how she'd accept the No. 2 spot or if it will even be offered (of course not).
Meanwhile, that wily old-timer from Arizona, who last summer said he'd "out-campaign" all his better-funded Republican rivals and then did just that, has been very busy.
Campaign sources tell The Times' political finance expert Dan Morain that Sen. John McCain had the best fundraising ...
John McCain hardly could have been surprised that the road trip recently suggested by one of his allies received a rude reception from Barack Obama's camp.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton, responding to the idea floated by Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and quickly embraced by McCain that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and Obama visit Iraq together, dismissed it as "nothing more than a political stunt."
That reaction, as it turns out, may be exactly what McCain was hoping for. It gave him the opportunity, which he jumped on today at a campaign stop in Reno, to personalize his unrelenting criticism of Obama's pledge that as president, he would be willing to meet with anti-American leaders with a raft of preconditions.
How is it, McCain exclaimed with relish, that Obama "wants to sit down" with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but has yet to have a one on one with Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. troops in Iraq?
It's a line we suspect will become a perennial in McCain's rhetorical arsenal. Indeed, to reinforce the point, the Republican National Committee today announced the start of an "online clock" marking the days since Obama's sole trip to Iraq (871 and counting).
Technically, Memorial Day is not a political holiday. It actually began at the grass-roots level by post-Civil War moms who began marking the shallow graves of the fallen on both sides.
But the weekend set-to over veterans benefits between Sens. John McCainand Barack Obama, and the ongoing Iraq war and stark differences between parties over that issue indicate the military will be front and center in the national debate this political season. President Bush added his comments at an Arlington National Cemetery service today too.
With a hat tip to Politico's Mike Allen, we also note the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, is warning the military's entire officer corps to stay out of politics this year, as always.
But the main point of this item is to call to everyone's attention the compelling Memorial Day special project elsewhere on this site. A special team has been working long hours for weeks to assemble this interactive collection of all 492 of California's war dead from Iraq and Afghanistan, searchable by hometown, high school, age, etc...
There's a specially produced video. And the familiar comment board for readers to share their thoughts and messages.
Even if you're not from California -- and despite the appearance of traffic there, most Americans aren't -- you'll find the individual stories and lives revealing and compelling. The Ticket recommends it highly.
Election Day is still more than five months away, and Barack Obama has yet to obtain the "presumptive nominee" tag in the Democratic presidential race. But if the verbal brickbats John McCain hurled at him today are any indication, a prospective general election matchup between the two will bear little resemblance to the reasoned, civil campaign both have said they will strive for.
It's been fairly obvious for some time that McCain not only has less respect for Obama than Hillary Clinton, but that it's easier for the senator from Illinois to get his goat. McCain's reaction today to a barb Obama directed at him removed all doubts on those fronts.
Obama, taking to the Senate floor in the morning before returning to the campaign trail later in the afternoon, personalized an impending vote on a veterans benefits bill by noting McCain was against it. After making a nod -- as he almost always does when mentioning him -- to McCain's military record, Obama said, "I can't understand why he would line up behind" President Bush in opposing the measure.
A release from McCain, who was campaigning in California, followed quickly, notable for the unconcealed contempt expressed toward Obama.
It begins with a bold-faced quote from McCain:
"Perhaps, if Senator Obama would take the time and trouble to understand this issue he would learn to debate an honest disagreement respectfully. But, as he always does, he prefers impugning the motives of his opponent, and exploiting a thoughtful difference of opinion to advance his own ambitions. If that is how he would behave as President, the country would regret his election."
So much for the Senate's tradition of collegiality.
Then, in the longer statement that follows, McCain has this to say about his potential White House rival:
"And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did."
Now, we know that Paul puts his personal money where his personal mouth, and public policy, are -- in precious metals.
Paul complied with federal law by filing his personal public financial disclosure statement with the Federal Election Commission by the deadline the other day. The Times' conscientious Dan Morain pored over it.
Turns out, the old doctor (he's even older than Sen. John McCain) is a millionaire, a few times over.
An Air Force veteran and ob-gyn who often champions the cause of the little guy, Paul disclosed 41 separate financial holdings that have a combined value of between $2.29 million and $5.3 million. The disclosure statements require officeholders and candidates to disclose a range of values for their holdings.
The 72-year-old Texas Republican, who leans libertarian, wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and issues warnings about....
Signaling he's not about to let the "appeasement" issue die, Barack Obama moments ago scored President Bush and John McCain on foreign policy. Speaking at a forum on agricultural issues in Watertown, S.D., Obama slammed the Republicans for contending that he was willing to negotiate with terrorists.
"They're trying to scare you and trying to keep you from seeing the truth," Obama told a cheering crowd packed into an agricultural arena. "And the reason is, they can't win a foreign policy argument on the merits."
Our colleague, Nicholas Riccardi, was in the arena, and reports the crowd booed as Obama described how Bush criticized him during his speech to Israel's Knesset. "That's the sort of appalling attack that divides our country and alienates us from the world," Obama said.
The audience booed again as Obama said that McCain, after a morning speech pledging bipartisanship and civility, "jumped on a call with a bunch of bloggers and said I wasn't fit to protect this country that I love.... So much for civility."
Tough talk won't be enough to push Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions, Obama said, adding that "tough" negotiations could make a difference. "I'm running for president to change course," Obama said, "not to continue George Bush's course."
Obama put the war front and center, arguing that it has left the nation at greater risk, and jabbed McCain for projecting a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq by 2013. Obama recalled an offhand remark by McCain in New Hampshire that he'd be happy to have troops in Iraq for 100 years, a line Democrats have used against him ever since.
"I think he noticed it wasn't polling well," Obama said.
UPDATE: Tucker Bounds, McCain's spokesman, responds. "It was remarkable to see Barack Obama’s hysterical diatribe in response to a speech in which his name wasn’t even mentioned. These are serious issues that deserve a serious debate, not the same tired partisan rants we heard today from Senator Obama. Sen. Obama has pledged to unconditionally meet with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- who pledges to wipe Israel off the map, denies the Holocaust, sponsors terrorists, arms America’s enemies in Iraq and pursues nuclear weapons. What would Sen. Obama talk about with such a man? It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don’t have enemies. But that is not the world we live in, and until Sen. Obama understands that, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe."
(UPDATE: Sen. McCain did give the speech indicated here. A complete text of his prepared remarks has been added at the end of this item, as has a photo correction below.)
In a speech he's about to give shortly at the Greater Columbus Convention Center in Ohio, Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, will for the first time talk about a specific date for when he envisions direct American military involvement to be over in Iraq.
It's January 2013. By then, he says, American combat involvement will be over and most U.S. troops back home.
A staunch defender of the war in Iraq and an ardent advocate for last year's military surge, even before the Bush administration decided on it, McCain's surprising remarks this morning are an early indicator of a significant shift in the former fighter pilot and POW's stance on the controversial and unpopular war.
And it's a theme he's likely to hit hard, and perhaps even modify further, as the general election campaign unfolds, contrasting it with the Democrat's sharper plan for withdrawal.
Maybe you remember during their most heated debate exchange of the Republican primary season, McCain going right after former Gov. Mitt Romney for even hinting at a vague timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals because the Arizona senator alleged it would be taken by the enemy as a sign of surrender and a date they need only await.
How times change, now that McCain has the GOP nomination sewed up and confronts an unpopular war, an unpopular president of his own unpopular party, a string of Democratic successes in....
Of everything that's been debated and discussed in this 16-month-and-rolling presidential marathon, perhaps there's nothing smaller than a flag lapel pin that has generated such a large number of words.
About Barack Obama. When he wears one, why? When he doesn't wear one, why? And what's the big deal anyway, since neither Hillary Rodham Clinton nor John McCain consistently wear one. One reason it hasn't come up with them is that neither one made a comment last fall about the wearing of the little patriotic doodad making a statement about the war.
Tonight, Obama walked to the back of his chartered airplane on the return flight from Grand Rapids, Mich., to Chicago. He talked with reporters, including The Times' Michael Finnegan, about a number of topics.
Among them was today's endorsement by John Edwards. (Obama is pleased, called Edwards a senior voice in the party, hopes the endorsement causes Edwards supporters to take a look at him, could see the ex-senator in a cabinet and hopes Edwards will campaign soon with him, though no details have been discussed.)
But Obama also addressed the issue of the flag lapel pin, which has caused some emotional and satirical debate. After not wearing one for months, Obama has recently taken to wearing one more often.
Here from the campaign's own transcript is the Illinois senator's complete explanation:
"You know, I started wearing it again at that veterans event, because once again I had been handed the flag by a veteran who said it was important.
"This is an issue that is a phony issue, because I have never been opposed to a flag pin. I have worn flag pins in the past. When I was asked about it, I had worn flag pins after 9/11, and I have chosen not to wear one because I didn’t want to be perceived as wearing my patriotism on my chest but not promoting or advocating on behalf of veterans in a patriotic way.
"Some people took that as a slight against people who wore flag pins, but it couldn’t be further from the truth. It was a commentary on politicians and folks in Washington who sometimes are pretty good about saluting our soldiers when they come home but then don’t follow up with budgets that make sure they're getting treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder.
"So it’s a commentary about our politics, not about individuals who wear the flag with pride."
Virtually all the nation's political attention in recent weeks has focused on the compelling state-by-state presidential nomination struggle between two Democrats and the potential for party-splitting strife over there.
But in the meantime, quietly, largely under the radar of most people, the forces of Rep. Ron Paul have been organizing across the country to stage an embarrassing public revolt against Sen. John McCain when Republicans gather for their national convention in Minnesota at the beginning of September.
Paul's presidential candidacy has been correctly dismissed all along in terms of winning the nomination. He was even excluded as irrelevant by Fox News from a nationally-televised GOP debate in New Hampshire.
But what's been largely overlooked is Paul's candidacy as a reflection of a powerful lingering dissatisfaction with the Arizona senator among the party's most conservative conservatives. As
trip and announce the results of his findings in advance of the actual fact-finding junket to the Middle East and Europe.
ck star event Chicago HQ wants. Of course, if he does another one of those "Thank you, Sioux City" things and it gets reported, that might be another thing.
