USA Today

Consider the cases of Obama donors “Doodad Pro” of Nunda, N.Y., who gave $17,130, and “Good Will” of Austin, Texas, who gave more than $11,000—both in excess of the $2,300-per-person federal limit. In two recent letters to the Obama campaign, Federal Election Commission auditors flagged those (and other) donors and informed the campaign that the sums had to be returned. Neither name had ever been publicly reported because both individuals made online donations in $10 and $25 increments. “Good Will” listed his employer as “Loving” and his occupation as “You,” while supplying as his address 1015 Norwood Park Boulevard, which is shared by the Austin nonprofit Goodwill Industries. Suzanha Burmeister, marketing director for Goodwill, said the group had “no clue” who the donor was. She added, however, that the group had received five puzzling thank-you letters from the Obama campaign this year, prompting it to send the campaign an e-mail in September pointing out the apparent fraudulent use of its name.

The Pittsburgh Tribune Review and the Washington Post have more on the story.

He devoted at least half his speech to criticizing McCain. The Republican nominee has proposed to tax the health benefits that 156 million people get through the workplace as income. In exchange, McCain would give tax credits to help pay for insurance — $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families, paid directly to the insurer they choose.

The criticisms that Obama made here are echoed by his campaign in four new television ads, four separate mailers targeted to swing state voters, radio commercials and events in every battleground state.

“On health care, John McCain promises a tax credit,” an announcer says in one of Obama’s new ads, over images of families examining their bills. “But here’s what he won’t tell you: McCain would make you pay taxes on your health benefits, taxing your health care for the first time ever, raising costs for employers who offer health care so your coverage could be reduced or dropped completely. You won’t find one word about it on his Web site.”

From Politico:

“There’s been a lot of interest in what I read lately. Well, I was reading my copy of today’s New York Times and I was really interested to read about Barack’s friends from Chicago. Turns out, one of his earliest supporters is a man who, according to The New York Times, was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, ‘launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol,’” Palin said today, according to a transcript distributed by the campaign. “These are the same guys who think patriotism is paying higher taxes. This is not a man who sees America as you and I do — as the greatest force for good in the world.

The Obama campaign responded by saying:

Governor Palin’s comments, while offensive, are not surprising, given the McCain campaign’s statement this morning that they would be launching Swift boat-like attacks in hopes of deflecting attention from the nation’s economic ills. In fact, the very newspaper story Governor Palin cited in hurling her shameless attack made clear that Senator Obama is not close to Bill Ayers, much less “pals,” and that he has strongly condemned the despicable acts Ayers committed 40 years ago, when Obama was eight. What’s clear is that John McCain and Sarah Palin would rather spend their time tearing down Barack Obama than laying out a plan to build up our economy.

Senator John McCain’s campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations, current and former officials say.

But last week the McCain campaign stepped up a running battle of guilt by association when it began broadcasting commercials trying to link Obama directly to the government bailout of the mortgage giants this month by charging that he takes advice from Fannie Mae’s former chief executive, Franklin Raines, an assertion both Raines and the Obama campaign dispute.

Incensed by the advertisements, several current and former executives of the companies came forward to discuss the role that Rick Davis, McCain’s campaign manager and longtime adviser, played in helping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac beat back regulatory challenges when he served as president of their advocacy group, the Homeownership Alliance, formed in the summer of 2000. Some who came forward were Democrats, but Republicans, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed their descriptions.

In my opinion? Watching both parties and campaigns attempt to portray the other in a negative light on this issue is utterly ludicrous. I would be surprised if anyone could find a person in Washington that did not have their hand in the cookie jar in one way or another, who did not receive donations or whose staff does not include a person, current or former, that was employed or defended in some small way an entity connected with this mess.

It was dumb and short sighted of the McCain camp to launch such attacks.

The Obama campaign has made a number of changes to its “Science, Technology & Innovation” position page that now reflects the position of both the Senator and his running-mate Joe Biden. A Slashdot submitter summed up some of these changes by saying the following:

“Barack Obama has edited his official website on many issues, including a huge revision on the technology page. Strangely it seems net neutrality is no longer as important as it was a few months ago, and the swaths of detail have been removed and replaced with fairly vague rhetoric. Many technologists were alarmed with the choice of Joe Biden before, and now it appears their fears might have been well founded.”

You can see all the changes by viewing this link.

I am including a few of the things I found of note:

1) While the page still states “Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet. ” Now missing is the following firm explanation of what that means to the Senator:

Users must be free to access content, to use applications, and to attach personal devices. They have a right to receive accurate and honest information about service plans. But these guarantees are not enough to prevent network providers from discriminating in ways that limit the freedom of expression on the Internet. Because most Americans only have a choice of only one or two broadband carriers, carriers are tempted to impose a toll charge on content and services, discriminating against websites that are unwilling to pay for equal treatment. This could create a two-tier Internet in which websites with the best relationships with network providers can get the fastest access to consumers, while all competing websites remain in a slower lane. Such a result would threaten innovation, the open tradition and architecture of the Internet, and competition among content and backbone providers. It would also threaten the equality of speech through which the Internet has begun to transform American political and cultural discourse. Barack Obama supports the basic principle that network providers should not be allowed to charge fees to privilege the content or applications of some web sites and Internet applications over others. This principle will ensure that the new competitors, especially small or non-profit speakers, have the same opportunity as incumbents to innovate on the Internet and to reach large audiences. Obama will protect the Internet’s traditional openness to innovation and creativity and ensure that it remains a platform for free speech and innovation that will benefit consumers and our democracy.

2) In the section “Protecting children online” now missing from the Obama plan is the following:

An Obama administration will encourage the creation of Public Media 2.0., the next generation of public media that will create the Sesame Street of the Digital Age and other video and interactive programming that educates and informs. Obama will support the transition of existing public broadcasting entities and help renew their founding vision in the digital world.

Obama will work to give parents the tools to prevent reception of programming that they find offensive on television and on digital media. Obama will encourage improvements to the existing voluntary rating system, exploiting new technologies like tagging and filtering, so that parents can better understand what content their children will see, and have the tools to respond. Private entities like Common Sense Media are pursuing a “sanity not censorship” approach, which can serve as a model for how to use technology to empower parents without offending the First Amendment.

Obama will encourage industry not to show inappropriate adult-oriented commercial advertising during children’s programming.
On the Internet, Obama will require that parents have the option of receiving parental controls software that not only blocks objectionable Internet content but also prevents children from revealing personal information through their home computer.

Senator Obama has dropped his statement of support for “Public Media 2.0.” While the statement still says “An Obama administration will give parents the tools and information they need to control what their children see on television and the Internet in ways fully consistent with the First Amendment,” he no longer outlines what those tools might be or whether it will be the government supplying them. He has also dropped mention of stopping the showing of “adult-oriented” commercial advertising during children’s programming and requiring parents be given internet control software.

3) What was once a multi-bulleted position on safeguarding privacy, is now a two sentence statement that states Obama & Biden will give “privacy protections for the digital age and will harness the power of technology to hold government and business accountable for violations of personal privacy” but provides little information on what those protections will be, how they will be enforced or implemented.

For privacy watchers this sudden change, in the wake of Obama’s flip on FISA will no doubt be disheartening.

Finally, an addition was made to Obama’s “record” on these issues. What I find interesting is that there is no statement about Biden’s record on technology.

Michelle Obama says voters need to decide this election by examining the issues, not because they like a candidate or think “she’s cute.”

Obama spoke in Charlotte on Thursday morning at a women’s round-table on economic issues. The crowd roared at her remark disparaging voters who might cast a ballot because of a woman’s looks, a clear jab at Republican vice presidential pick Sarah Palin.

Obama tried to clarify her remark with a smile, saying she was talking about herself.

Full Transcript

Found via CBS

In the past few weeks, Wall Street’s been rocked as banks closed and markets tumbled. But for many of you – the people I’ve met in town halls, backyards and diners across America – our troubled economy isn’t news. 600,000 Americans have lost their jobs since January. Paychecks are flat and home values are falling. It’s hard to pay for gas and groceries and if you put it on a credit card they’ve probably raised your rates.

You’re paying more than ever for health insurance that covers less and less. This isn’t just a string of bad luck. The truth is that while you’ve been living up to your responsibilities Washington has not. That’s why we need change. Real change. This is no ordinary time and it shouldn’t be an ordinary election. But much of this campaign has been consumed by petty attacks and distractions that have nothing to do with you or how we get America back on track.

Here’s what I believe we need to do. Reform our tax system to give a $1000 tax break to the middle class instead of showering more on oil companies and corporations that outsource our jobs. End the “anything goes” culture on Wall Street with real regulation that protects your investments and pensions.

Fast track a plan for energy ‘made-in-America’ that will free us from our dependence on mid-east oil in 10 years and put millions of Americans to work. Crack down on lobbyists, once and for all, so their back-room deal-making no longer drowns out the voices of the middle class and undermines our common interests as Americans. And yes, bring a responsible end to this war in Iraq so we stop spending billions each month rebuilding their country when we should be rebuilding ours.

Doing these things won’t be easy. But we’re Americans. We’ve met tough challenges before. And we can again. I’m Barack Obama. I hope you’ll read my economic plan. I approved this message because bitter, partisan fights and outworn ideas of the left and the right won’t solve the problems we face today. But a new spirit of unity and shared responsibility will.

Just like they did with Hillary Clinton though the Obama campaign now hopes to turn Sarah Palin’s tax returns into a major campaign issue. Today Joe Biden released ten years of his own (Oh great, there goes my weekend… nah forget that I am not going to bother) and the Obama camp is already putting out the “when will Sarah Palin release them, when will Sarah Palin release them) game.

Earlier in the year the hype surrounded Hillary Clinton’s tax returns. Her failure to release them on the Obama timetable gave journalists lots to write about and bloggers lots to speculate over. “There must be some kind of conspiracy, they must show Clinton is lying about something, she must be on someones take!” But just like Obama’s birth certificate, they revealed absolutely nothing of interest when we finally got our grubby little hands on them. All we found out was that Clinton, like Obama and everyone else who runs for president, makes more money than most of us do or ever will. Wow, shocker!

I can just see the blog posts questioning if some crazy Alaskan cessationist cult bent on banning books and feeding babbies mind control juice and gives dentists molar probe listening devices pays her bills. In reality they undoubtedly contain the same boring information all of our taxe returns contain. Still, I am sure MSNBC and CNN right now are talking about it and precious space will be devoted to it in the New York Times this weekend.

Cannot wait.

First is this piece entitled McCain Poll Surge, Fundraising Give Democrats Election Jitters which includes the statement that the Obama camp’s “novelty has worn off,” from Representative Bill Pascrell of New Jersey. Also the statement that this has been the Republicans “best week” Representative Artur Davis. The positives and reassurances come from Democratic “strategists” in the piece. Why is this important? Let me explain.

Democratic strategists are basically paid PR people, the sky could be falling and they would find a way to tell you why it is good for land owners, “now your land comes with sky!” Representatives will give you the opposite, constantly looking at the potential turnout for their Party in a Presidential election for fear that it will be low. Why do they fear it? Because the higher the party turnout in a general on their side and the lower the turnout on the other side, the better their chances at election.

Most people pay attention to the top of the ticket and not their Congressional races. So if they go in loving Democrats, they are more likely to vote down the line. So in signs of trouble, they are the first and most effected. They are also the most willing to jump ship and separate themselves from a candidate they see as a dud.

Then there is the article Autumn Angst: Dems fret about Obama. In this article you will find, “It’s more than an increased anxiety,” from Bill Clinton strategist “It’s a palpable frustration. Deep-seated unease in the sense that the message has gotten away from them.”

Former Dean/Edwards strategist Joe Trippi said of the Obama teams reaction to Sarah Palin, “They were set up to run ‘experience versus change,’ what they had run [against Hillary] Clinton… and I think Palin clearly moved that to be change or reform, versus change. They are adjusting to that and that threw them off balance a little bit.”

Meanwhile someone described as a “major Democratic fundraiser” had a bleaker assessment, “I’m so depressed. It’s happening again. It’s a nightmare.”

So what should we take from this?

Not much for the moment. If there is one story “journalists” like writing more than a persons demise it is their comeback, their ability to rise from the ashes. Still, watching the decline of the Obama love machine in the press has been an interesting and unsettling phenomenon. Interesting because it shows a potential sense of unease, unsettling because for so long the media have been so adamant about electing Obama. This is all very strange and I am just waiting for things to return to normal.

The nationalization of both companies is expected to cost taxpayers billions and Senator Obama announced today that economic problems in association with the bailout could “delay” his plans to rescind the Bush tax cuts. Obama had planned on using the money generated from the removal of those tax cuts to fund large portions of his domestic programs.

He said it was doomed to fail. But just last night, Sen. Obama finally broke and brought himself to admit what all of us have known for quite some time, and that’s that thanks to the skill and valor of our troops, the surge in Iraq has succeeded,” Palin said.

“I guess when you turn out to be profoundly wrong on a vital national security issue, maybe it’s comforting to pretend that everyone else was wrong, too.”

As I noted earlier, Obama has a serious problem on his hands. Taking Palin on directly is a step down for him, he should be fighting off McCain instead. He risks igniting the Republican base even further if he takes on their newest star and risks falling into their trap too. This should be a job for Joe Biden, Obama’s much heralded running mate. As I also noted earlier though Biden has a continual problem of saying the wrong thing, especially about minorities, immigrants and women. His opening opinion on Palin was to make notice of her looks, not a great observation about an opponent who made her opening by leveling the playing field and brutally attacking the top of the ticket. Looks to kill?

So today the Obama campaign moved forward with its only real shot, announcing it would send Hillary Clinton and other top female contenders out on the trail. The irony of course is easy to see, if Obama had simply put Clinton on the ticket he wouldn’t be in this mess.

Regardless of their inability to have a peaceful relationship it seems ludicrous in retrospect to have simply tossed the Clinton’s to the side. McCain made a brilliant move in Palin, not because she would instantly take Clinton women, that seems unlikely, but because the avalanche of interest, the historic nature of the race is now on his side. Palin is even more of a vicious attack dog than Hillary; Joe Biden on the other hand is the lofty and long winded type that reminds us all of the worst in Washington. The media was quick to demand Palin wouldn’t be ready until she had hit shows like Meet the Press to prove their muscle. Biden never seems to miss an appearance on one of these gab festivals. Who do you see coming out on top in this?

Palin has a personal story that is as compelling as John McCain’s. Obama’s Hawaiian upbringing, travels outside of the country, Princeton education and Rev. Wright conversion to Christianity aren’t the kind of story most of America can associate with.

The Obama campaign, befuddled by the comparisons between Plain’s experience and that of their candidate during the convention, were quick to point out that Palin had completely ignored Obama’s time as a constitutional law professor when belittling the rest of his resume. If community organizer and lawyer are distant enough from the working world’s list of attainable and identifiable jobs, do they really think working people in this country would be wowed by an Ivy League accolade? ” *Anything* professor,” doesn’t mean much outside of the journal-writing-conference-attending-sabbatical-seeking crowd. Especially when you look back over the history of the Presidency.

Senator Clinton’s job resume, while still unattainable and distant for most American’s, includes an eight year stay in the White House and a long documented history of taking on fights. The perfect Democratic juxtaposition to Palin’s conservative spirit, Senator Clinton is an icon ready for political war. The problem? Clinton isn’t on the ticket; rejected by the candidate and reportedly not even considered for the short list, Clinton’s use now is a powerless attempt to keep women in their court. Just as liberals shouted “nominating Palin is a gimmick that won’t work” so should they yell about sending Hillary on the trail. It is a recognition that Biden cannot do the job.

There are always surrogates who surround candidates but with sixty days left it is becoming clear that Joe Biden doesn’t have the goods to keep the Republican number two down; so team Obama is sending in the woman they didn’t want to take on the fight. Is that cynical? Yes. Is it pandering? Yes. The only question left is, will it work?

As Sarah Palin transforms herself from obscure Alaska governor to
the Republican Party’s newest rising star and most effective attack dog, Barack Obama’s campaign will largely sit back, watch her rise and hope she falls.

The Obama campaign has no silver bullet to use against the Palin. Instead, Obama has decided to largely avoid directly engaging her and will instead keep his focus largely on John McCain and on linking the Republican ticket to President George W. Bush. The Obama campaign will leave Palin to navigate the same cycle of celebrity that Obama has weathered, and the same peril that her nascent image will be defined by questions and contradictions from her Alaska past.

The problem Obama faces is that every attack on experience only reminds people of his. My guess is that Palin will truly be an attack dog and a rising star doing everything possible to keep the Obama clan on the defensive. The problem is, attacking her only distracts the Obama team from the main target, McCain.

Today marks the first time a poll has shown his rival, Senator John McCain, leading the race. Polls will undoubtedly change from this day until November with some showing Obama ahead, some behind. What is important to remember is Democrats entered this political season believing there was no way they could lose. Just weeks ago Democrat and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi avoided talk of domestic drilling by espousing the logic that a Dem Congress and president would soon be in power, negating the need for a vote today. Hubris is more often than not the downfall of most politicians and as a simple matter of physics the higher things rise, the further they must fall.

Senator Obama has inherited a Party that is divided. We know he will walk into the Convention Hall next week amid protestors yelling he is too conservative and ignoring the flight of a thousand different things. He will face a party half of which supported another candidate and a percentage of which supported a similar “new politics” dreamer who was just caught in an adulterous affair. He will inherit a Party that was supposed to be united as anti-War but that too has its internal divisions. A Party that has found no compromise on gay rights or marriage, no compromise on the environment, no compromise on military authority, international trade or any other issue between those who argue on the far left and those blue collar workers and business types who want something different than Republicanism but not something too extreme.

Just as it was in 2000 and 2004 the Democrats lack a platform to stand on. Their only cause is to not be Republicans, their countless failures as leaders of the House and Senate have all but erased the notion that they are. Elected to end a War in 2006 they now face the realization that they may have been wrong in going against the Iraq “surge”. Facing widespread strife around the globe they face the possibility that “sitting down to talk” may not be a foreign policy that will resonate with most Americans or truly lead to revolutionary change.

Senator Obama has inherited a Party that is largely disconnected from the needs and wants of the American people. For a short time in 2006, the nation and the Party banded together. Republicans who were not ready to switch sides for the vote simply stayed home knowing what the result would be. Today it looks more likely than not we will see an electoral map very similar to the one we saw in the previous two elections. A united nation of blue, as Democrats were envisioning a few months ago, most likely will not occur.

To win Barack Obama must unite his Party and the nation at the same time. As he has moved to the center he has proven himself to be just like those before him to liberals and disingenuous to Republicans. As he has shied away from fighting back attacks from Senator McCain, he has reminded the country of the weakness of Kerry & Gore. Obama must unite a nation that is still scarred over race relations, still battling over abortion, still divided over gay unions, fearful of economic destruction and World War.

The nation is not post racial or post partisan, just hungry for leadership that is more than empty promises and marketing slogans. Obama has not proven himself to be consistent, strong or capable of delivering his promises and until now many of those on the right were so divided over their own party they were not paying much attention to the opposition. Now, they have begun and if I am right the battle between McCain & Obama has just begun and won’t be the landslide Democrats had hoped for.

Democrats have been out of touch with working and religious people for many years now and just as Republicans were able to do to John Kerry and Al Gore, so too are they doing with Barack Obama. Make no mistake about it though, Obama hasn’t helped himself in fighting off attacks that he is “arrogant”, elitist, ivy league and disconnected.

Next week the Convention will return the Democratic Party to the living rooms of the American people. They may be given a glimpse of a Party reformed, one that understands and is ready to lead. They may also see a pack of wolves eating away at their chances. Michael Moore, Arianna Huffington, Barbara Streisand, Al Sharpton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Jimmy Carter and the caravan of usual suspects may beam themselves into the lives of those around America, reminding them why they oppose this party and don’t want to see it take power.

The greatest miscalculation the Democrats have made in the last two years was in thinking Republicans had abandoned conservatism, they haven’t and they never will. They are no ready to embrace a liberal Senator, abortion rights, gay marriage, extreme environmentalism or anything close. They have simply become disenchanted with a party that wasn’t conservative enough.

Obama has a fight on his hands and a race much different than what MSNBC or Newsweek has foretold.

Obama voted for a 2005 energy bill backed by President Bush that included billions in subsidies for oil and natural gas production, a measure for which Vice President Dick Cheney played a major role. McCain opposed the bill, saying at the time that it included billions in unnecessary tax breaks for the oil industry.

The Obama campaign has said the Illinois senator supported the legislation because it included huge investments in renewable energy. Yet Democrats long have characterized the 2005 energy bill as being written by Cheney. One of them, Democratic primary rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, criticized Obama earlier this year for backing the “Dick Cheney lobbyist energy bill.”

“I have said in the past – and I’ll repeat again – that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed,” the Illinois Democrat said recently.

In addition Obama characterized the Houses vote this week to apologize for slavery as “appropriate” but “not particularly helpful” in improving the lives of African Americans.

“My interest is in making sure we’ve got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,” Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

“If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage – I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done.”

Despite his suggestion of support Obama said he still remains skeptical:

“I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact,” he said.

Senator Obama skipped a meeting with wounded troops in Germany saying it would be “inappropriate” to do so during the campaign portion of the trip “out of respect” for the troops. In response:

John McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said, “Barack Obama is wrong. It is never inappropriate to visit our men and women in the military.”

McCain’s Senate colleague Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., also took a shot at Obama.

“I noticed that Obama had plenty of time to shoot hoops … but he didn’t have the time to stop by (the Ramstein base),” he told FOX News.

How would it be any more inappropriate than meeting with government leaders while openly bashing the current administrations foreign policy and hinting that they would be better off working with him than the sitting President of the United States?

As Obama landed in Afghanistan only to announce, after his short stay, that the nation needed more troops, the media began its onslaught of hype and I began tuning out. With no clear reflection on how he would secure those NATO forces to maintain the operation in Afghanistan, he simply echoed statements made by Bush and McCain many moons before and gave little in the way of insight or innovation. Still the press swooned.

There is little that is actually newsworthy about Obama’s visit to the Middle East or Europe. All we have is a media moment, finely crafted by a campaign that holds the media so effortlessly in its tight grasp. So far there is little in the news of policy, little insight, little more than tightly controlled press events that are nice theater but have little substance. There is nothing that addresses the reality on the ground in either battlefield and nothing that addresses our problems here at home.

Instead we are treated to the media swooning over a candidate who has purposely done everything he can do to foster the images of Kennedy and Reagan, to tee up the imagery for the press so they can write hyperbole while filling in the miles of blanks that separate history from hype.

I don’t mean to disparage Obama personally. It is the job of a campaign to manipulate the press, to control the image and do everything it can to push its point of view. It is not, however, the job of the media to give in and simply sit back to broadcast the show. It is the job of the fourth estate to ask questions, to demand more of politicians than a few staged shows. It was clear weeks ago that wasn’t going to happen on this trip. Instead we would just get the pretty pictures, the cute stories and the campaign credo.

If and when news breaks on this trip, I will note it here. Increasingly though I have come to the conclusion that it is not the job of this site or any of the media to simply tow the line of either party or campaign or to just sit back and report on the bickering, the soundbytes and the fake outrage. It didn’t work for this nation in getting us into Iraq and it won’t work for us in winning the War. We need to do better, to think harder and to tear down the nice imagery in order to get to the gritty truth.

So, maybe we should get started on that…

Official Statement:

“The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.”

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said: “We completely agree with the Obama campaign.”

Huffington Post has more on the image by Barry Blitt called ‘the Politics of Fear’

1) Neither candidate is willing to come out on a firm position on almost anything.
2) Neither candidate has an economic plan that adds up to solving our problems.
3) This election looks and sounds almost exactly like every other one for the past few cycles.

Call me a curmudgeon but for over a year I have been skeptical about this tidal wave of “change” and “reform” that has been touted by both of these candidates but especially Obama. Through the sheer for of their wills is how we are told they will change the system. Yet here we are in what is obviously the general election campaign, forget waiting until the conventions, and I see two candidates and their surrogates who look, sound and feel just like any other.

Marc Ambinder shed some light saying that last week reporting that Webb communicated his intentions after Obama’s VP search committee asked for information to begin the vetting process. Sources reportedly say Webb did not want to relive the process so soon after getting elected.

Ambinder maintains that Webb must have been seriously considered by Obama himself as the time consuming vetting process is only undertaken on those who are actually being considered. Meanwhile Mark Halperin notes “Some keen observers believe Webb was not actually being seriously considered.”

Full Statement from Senator Webb

“Last week I communicated to Senator Obama and his presidential campaign my firm intention to remain in the United States Senate, where I believe I am best equipped to serve the people of Virginia and this country. Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for Vice President.”

“A year and a half ago, the people of Virginia honored me with election to the U.S. Senate. I entered elective politics because of my commitment to strengthen America’s national security posture, to promote economic fairness, and to increase government accountability. I have worked hard to deliver upon that commitment, and I am convinced that my efforts and talents toward those ends are best served in the Senate.

“In this regard, the bipartisan legislative template we were able to put into effect through 18 months of work in order to enact the new, landmark GI Bill will serve as a prototype for my future endeavors in government. This process, wherein we brought 58 Senators from both parties to the table as co-sponsors, along with more than 300 members of the House, gives me renewed confidence that the Congress can indeed work effectively across party lines and address the concerns of our citizens.

“At this time I am also renewing my commitment to work hard to make sure that Senator Obama wins both Virginia and the presidency this November. He is a man who speaks eloquently about our national goals and calls for the practical solutions that must be put into place to obtain them. I will proudly campaign for him.”

July 2, 2008

Senator Barack Obama arrived at Peterson Air Force Base outside of Colorado Springs, where he spent nearly two hours on a private afternoon tour of the facility and briefings from military leaders.

Your pool was escorted to a separate building at Air Force Space Command and did not see him for the entirety of his visit. It was billed as an official Senate visit, with one member of his Senate staff on hand to participate in the briefings.

General Victor E. Renuart, the commander of NORAD and the United States Northern Command, greeted Mr. Obama and led him on the tour and briefing, which included how the command has assisted with floods, California wildfires, hurricanes as well as their role abroad.

Your pool was given no additional information.

Then, Mr. Obama headed to the Air Force Academy for more private meetings. He is scheduled to speak at a campaign fundraiser at 7:30 p.m. Mountain Daylight Time. A pool report with his remarks will be expedited after that event.

Obama’s transformation from opponent to champion of welfare reform is the latest in a series of moves to the center. Since capturing the Democratic nomination, Obama has altered his stances on Social Security taxes, meeting with rogue leaders without preconditions, and the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.’s, sweeping gun ban.

The shift in Obama’s rhetoric on welfare reform has proceeded in stages. When Clinton was poised to sign welfare reform while running for re-election in 1996, Obama called it “disturbing.” A decade later, as an underdog running for president against Clinton’s wife, he spent 2007 avoiding the subject. By the time Obama emerged as the Democratic frontrunner in the spring of 2008, he began leaving the impression that he was for it all along.

During a 1996 interview with the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Obama could not conceal his disappointment in his fellow Democrat. “Bill Clinton? Well, his campaign’s fascinating to a student of politics. It’s disturbing to someone who cares about certain issues. But politically, it seems to be working,” said Obama.

The shift is not surprising as the article notes “Obama has altered his stances on Social Security taxes, meeting with rogue leaders without preconditions, and the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.’s, sweeping gun ban” since winning the nomination. As is typical of a presidential contender Obama is moving to the middle, abandoning positions he held to win more liberal votes in the nomination. The article also notes Obama has on several occasions during the campaign to specifically address the position, waiting until now to unveil his support.

It does stand in stark contrast to Obama’s calls for an end of “Politics as usual” in Washington and the contention of his supporters that their candidate was not one to waver or play politics with the problems facing our nation.

The Obama ad entitled “Dignity”

No dates have been given for security reasons.

Potential that this trip will be combined with plans to visit Afghanistan and Iraq.

The 5-4 decision fell along ideological lines with Antonin Scalia writing the majority opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

Dick Anthony Heller is an armed security guard who sued the District after rejecting his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection. The U.S. Court of Appeals had ruled in Hellar’s favor stating that an individual’s right to own arms was obstructed by a total ban on handguns.

In addition to striking down D.C.’s handgun ban the ruling also lifted the restriction that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled. Scalia did say in his opinion that the ruling should not “cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.”

Similar gun laws will now be challenged across the country and it is unlikely that this will be the final say between those debating the interpretation of the Second Amendment and the extent to which gun control can be carried out by cities, states and the federal government.

“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.”

Meanwhile in light of the decision the Obama campaign is attempting to reverse course on a statement given to the Chicago Tribune last year which suggested he supported the ban. The campaign now says those comments were “inartful”.

But the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he “believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.”

From ABC News:

The Chicago Tribune clip from Nov. 20, 2007, is an inaccurate representation of Obama’s views, according to Burton, because the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has refrained from developing a position on whether the D.C. gun law runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

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.

Today the Obama campaign has released the following statement on the Court’s decision:

I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today’s decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

In a teleconference with his top fundraisers Tuesday afternoon, Obama asked them to do what they could to help Clinton, according to two Democrats familiar with the call. A campaign spokesman confirmed that Obama had asked them to help the former first lady.

Clinton and Obama will appear together for the first time this Friday at a campaign event in Unity, New Hampshire. Concerns had previously been raised over the idea that Obama donors would alleviate Clinton’s debt because of the large sums still owed by Mark Penn whose business ties and connections to lobbyists and entrenched special interests Obama’s campaign stands in opposition to.

“We’ve been brainstorming in the Congressional Black Caucus. Former Senator Sam Nunn’s name has come up, as well as John Edwards’ name has come up among our CBC members. I reported that to them and they had both of those names on their list,” Kilpatrick said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Kilpatrick said she made several suggestions during the 45-minute meeting, including former Vice President Al Gore, Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha and Ohio Governor Ted Strickland. Gore endorsed Obama on Monday.