German authorities in Berlin are downplaying an incident earlier today in which a man drove his car through the security perimeter of the Siegessäule (Victory Column) where Barack Obama is scheduled to speak tomorrow. Reuters quotes police spokesman Bernhard Schodrowski as saying, “We don’t yet know what his motives were but it does not appear to have had anything to do with politics.” Really? Is the driver complaining about the price of paint? (The picture in today’s Der Tagesspiegel makes Schodrowski look like Sergeant Schultz.)

On MSNBC this morning, former Gen. Wesley Clark made some inaccurate statements about the application of the "surge" in Anbar province. "Actually, the surge was about Baghdad and it was not about Anbar province," he said. "They didn't bring more troops out to Anbar."

Actually, two Marine battalions were added to Anbar as part of the surge. But Clark's more glaring error is his contention that the "surge" amounted to nothing more than the deployment of more troops to Iraq. The "surge" strategy consisted not only of sending additional troop but also waging a counterinsurgency throughout Iraq.

Yet Clark grants more credit to the Saudis for buying off the Anbaris than the American troops for fighting a counterinsurgency.

Watch it:

Matthew Continetti and Ana-Marie Cox talk about Obama and the press, Iraq, and more.

1) From Swampland, “McCain Meltdown” by Joe Klein

Huge news! Joe Klein is scandalized. The following John McCain quote has made the longtime and battle hardened campaign coverer hie to his proverbial fainting couch:

“This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.”

Writes Klein in response:

This is the ninth presidential campaign I've covered. I can't remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. It smacks of desperation. It renews questions about whether McCain has the right temperament for the presidency. How sad… The reality is that neither Barack Obama nor Nouri al-Maliki nor most anybody else believes that the Iraq war can be "lost" at this point.

Odd. Until a mere week ago, the Obama website was declaring Iraq an unwinnable fiasco. Now, according to Joe Klein, it can’t be lost. Now that’s progress!

But back to the matter at hand. We all know, as the Allahpundit insightfully put it, “If the rest of the media is chest-deep in the tank for Obama, Klein’s already fully submerged.” So with all due respect to Joe Klein’s phony outrage, the issue of Barack Obama’s commitment to victory is a valid one. Obama only began speaking about winning in Iraq a couple of weeks ago, and even now he’s more hinting about winning in Iraq than actually talking about it. Obama’s hard left base will categorically reject the news that Iraq is anything other than a disaster.

What’s more, Obama’s evolving positions have always focused on one and only one goal – getting out of Iraq. Winning has never been a consideration. In 2007, Obama was willing to withdraw from Iraq even if doing so triggered a genocide. For Obama to say he now wants to withdraw only because it is the best means of achieving victory requires a heaping helping of that famous Obama audacity.

Once again, Obama really isn’t talking about victory, even though it’s now within reach. Obama has never mentioned what burdens he would have America bear in order to win in Iraq. Just yesterday, he told Katie Couric that he would feel free to ignore David Petraeus’ advice regarding what was necessary for victory in Iraq if he felt the money for such a venture could be better spent elsewhere.

Of course, none of these Obama positions necessarily add up to the McCain conclusion that Obama would lose a war to win an election. In order to get to that point, you also need to assume a certain amount of bad faith on Obama’s part. So we must ask, is such an assumption unreasonable? Most sensible people agree that winning in Iraq is critical. Most sensible people agree that Barack Obama is himself a sensible person. Yet yesterday, Obama said that he might decide as Commander-in-Chief to use the funds necessary for winning in Iraq to shore up the American economy (whatever that means). That kind of pathetic pander doesn’t sound like a guy who cares more about the war’s result than his own political fortunes.

Contra Joe Klein, the conclusion that Barack Obama is indifferent to victory in Iraq is not manifestly unreasonably. Indeed, it’s the logical place you finish if you weigh all the Obama statements over the years. Of course, Obama is far from indifferent regarding his own electoral fortunes. So would Obama be willing to break some Iraq war eggs in order to serve up the beautiful omelet that an Obama administration would be?

Know narcissism.

2) From the Wall Street Journal, “McCain’s Message Gets Makeover” by Laura Meckler and Elizabeth Holmes

This is an enormously entertaining and somewhat endearing profile of new McCain campaign jefe Steve Schmidt. Schmidt is renowned for his intensity as well as his relentless focus on day-to-day excellence. The following little nugget caught my eye:

Mr. Schmidt specializes in the combat that dominates today's political culture -- the minute-by-minute, talking point-vs.-talking point battles that fill a 24-hour news cycle. His formula: a tightly controlled message delivered repeatedly and with almost military-like precision.

This week presents just the latest in a string of challenges. With Sen. Obama on a high-profile trip that includes Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel and Europe, Mr. Schmidt had to devise counter-programming that would at least keep Sen. McCain in the mix.

In a word, oy. I understand Schmidt’s desire to fight for each inch of metaphorical battlefield terrain, but sometimes you have to know when to retire from the field. This week was going to be about Obama. The McCain campaign would have been better off dealing with that reality and trying to help shape the Obama coverage from behind the scenes rather than keeping their own guy in the mix. As if to prove my point, Obama's disastrous interview with Katie Couric has amply contributed to the impression many voters are forming that the fellow just isn’t up to the job. That’s a very favorable story for the McCain campaign, even though it doesn’t involve the campaign’s principal.

3) From the New York Times, “Congressman Pushes Staff Hard, or Out the Door” by David Chen

Meet Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner, maybe the worst boss in America:

WASHINGTON — It started as a routine conference call. But at some point during the call, Representative Anthony D. Weiner became furious, convinced that his scheduler had not given him a crucial piece of information.

His scheduler, John J. Graff, who was in the next room, suddenly heard the congressman yelling at him through the wall.

Then, Mr. Graff recalled, Mr. Weiner started pounding his fists on his desk, kicked a chair and unleashed a string of expletives… Mr. Weiner, who is running for New York City mayor next year, is without question one of the most intense and demanding( bosses on Capitol Hill), according to interviews with more than two dozen former employees, Congressional colleagues and lobbyists.

Mr. Weiner, a technology fiend who requires little sleep and rarely takes a day off, routinely instant messages his employees on weekends, often just one-word missives: “Teeth” (as in, your answer reminds me of pulling teeth) or “weeds” (as in, you are too much in the weeds). Never shy about belting out R-rated language, he enjoys challenging staff members on issues, even at parties.

And here I was, laboring under the delusion that liberals are nice and sensitive people!

4) From the Washington Post, “Behind Maliki’s Games” by Max Boot

The always excellent Boot deconstructs Nouri al-Maliki’s series of statements from the last week. Long story short? If the left wants to be intellectually honest, it might not want to make too much of this momentary propaganda coup:

In May 2006, shortly after becoming prime minister, he claimed, "Our forces are capable of taking over the security in all Iraqi provinces within a year and a half."

In October 2006, when violence was spinning out of control, Maliki declared that it would be "only a matter of months" before his security forces could "take over the security portfolio entirely and keep some multinational forces only in a supporting role."

President Bush wisely ignored Maliki. Instead of withdrawing U.S. troops, he sent more. The prime minister wasn't happy. On Dec. 15, 2006, the Wall Street Journal reported, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has flatly told Gen. George Casey, the top American military commander in Iraq, that he doesn't want more U.S. personnel deployed to the country, according to U.S. military officials." When the surge went ahead anyway, Maliki gave it an endorsement described in news accounts as "lukewarm."

In January 2007, with the surge just starting, Maliki predicted "that within three to six months our need for the American troops will dramatically go down." In April 2007, when most of Baghdad was still out of control, the prime minister said that Iraqi forces would assume control of security in every province by the end of the year.

Watching Anderson Cooper a couple of nights ago as he breathlessly reported on Maliki’s comments from Friday (and hilariously referred to them as “breaking news” more than 72 hours after they were uttered), I couldn’t help but be struck how Cooper and his reporters treated Maliki as some sort of omniscient figure who always knows best. That clearly hasn’t been the case.

That said, I feel the need to reiterate what I wrote yesterday. Victory in Iraq is within reach, and John McCain has to show an appropriate eagerness for seizing the victory that he midwifed. To date, McCain hasn’t done so, although on a conference call yesterday his surrogates did belatedly show a more appropriate enthusiasm for ending the war. The American public wants this war won, and then it wants the war ended. The public does not want it fought endlessly. McCain’s resolve is admirable – his resolve made victory possible. But the campaign has to focus on what lies ahead, specifically the road to victory and then the road home. Promising an indefinite slog doesn’t square with the facts on the ground, and the McCain campaign has to be cognizant of that fact.

5) From The Next Right, “Obama Campaign Prints German-language Flyers for Berlin Rally” by Patrick Ruffini

Personally, I think it’s a swell thing that Obama will soon be basking in the adulation of up to a million Germans. Obama obviously suffers from low self-regard, and such a display of public affection may well be salubrious for his emotional well-being. You know, just because we view political matters differently doesn’t mean I can’t wish him the best on the self-esteem front.

If journalism were a game of how many distortions you can pack into a single paragraph, Amy Wilentz's profile of Jimmy Carter in New York Magazine would win a Pulitzer.

It’s always been Carter’s nature to avoid the political fray. He likes to engage in intelligent conversation with powerful parties, he likes to resolve things in a mannerly, civilized way—but he doesn’t do politics, he doesn’t do down-dirty, he doesn’t do low-level horse-trading: no my-bowlegged-nag-for-your-glue-factory-gelding. Carter deals only in thoroughbreds. He insists on taking the high road, and he’s not about to change his plans—say, to cancel his visit to see Hamas—because it might somehow hurt the Democrats in 2008.

Despite Wilentz's curious assertion to the contrary, Jimmy Carter's conduct in the last 8 years has been more directed at entering "the political fray" than any former president in history. Never has a former president criticized a sitting president and vice president with such frequency and such vitriol. While most former presidents refrain from such judgments, Carter has shared his observations about the Bush administration as a matter of routine. He even threw a temper tantrum after Pope John Paul II died, claiming he wasn't invited to participate in the U.S. delegation -- despite the fact Andy Card twice invited him and he twice declined. And what to make also of Wilentz's characterization of Carter's meeting with Hamas? Since when did meeting with a ringleader of suicide bombers constitute the "high road"?

Joe Scarborough and Harold Ford agree that it's laughable to believe that the Anbar Awakening could have survived without the surge:

No wonder the Democrats don't support the gas tax holiday. They don't pay taxes like the rest of us on the fuel they're using.

Since March, staffers working on the Democratic National Convention have been using the city of Denver's tax-free gas pumps to fill up their cars — and using its carwashes. A dispute about this prompted city officials Tuesday to promise that the local host committee will reimburse the city at a market rate for gas — and pay state and federal taxes on the fuel. It was never the intent of the city not to properly charge the Democrats for the fuel or its taxes, said Katherine Archuleta, mayoral liaison to the convention.

Some Denver City Council members became angry when Denver public-works employee Christine Downs told them Tuesday that the host committee will reimburse the city for the carwashes and tax-free fuel it is using for its fleet of vehicles. Councilwoman Jeanne Faatz reacted sharply. She said she didn't think it was fair that local host-committee employees, as well as those with the Democratic National Convention Committee (DNCC) who use those cars, are driving around on tax-free fuel.

Given the DNC is $11 million short on its convention, the City Council might want to do a credit check before fronting any more fuel. Perhaps the DNC is using all the money it saves on taxes to buy offsets to reduce its carbon footprint without breaking the bank. Or maybe the money is going to the balloon budget.

Money matters when it comes to winning elections. And races for the U.S. House are no exception. That’s why Washington campaign strategists and the pundit community are abuzz about the recently released second quarter fundraising numbers posted for congressional races.

Jim Ellis, who runs an election monitoring and analysis service at www.prisminfo.net, combed through all the numbers and found a couple interesting developments.

First, a few wake-up calls. Any time a congressional challenger raises more money than an incumbent, it’s time to take stock. Ellis found 10 cases where this occurred (eight Democratic challengers and two Republican):

To date, ten challengers have raised more campaign money than their incumbent opponents – eight Democrats and two Republicans. Six, Walt Minnick (ID-1; Sali), Cedric Richmond (LA-2; Jefferson – Democratic primary), Mark Schauer (MI-7; Walberg), Eric Massa (NY-29; Kuhl), Michael Skelly (TX-7; Culberson), and Darcy Burner (WA-8; Reichert) also show more cash-on-hand than their Republican adversary. Two Democrats, Victoria Wuslin (OH-2; Schmidt) and Tom Perriello (VA-5; Goode) have raised more than their respective opponents, but have less money available to spend. The two Republicans who have outpaced their Democratic incumbent opponents on the money trail are also in the situation of having fewer dollars currently in the bank. Those GOP candidates are former Rep. Jim Ryun (KS-2; Boyda), and Chris Hackett (PA-10; Carney).

Second, some races are already in hyper-speed when it comes to raising funds. And it looks like the most expensive race is shaping up in Connecticut, as a political consultant friend of mine likes to say, “both candidates are raising enough money to burn a wet mule.” Others are looking kind of cheap--at least by comparison. Ellis notes these patterns in Connecticut, Utah, Pennsylvania, and Illinois:

The most expensive race in the nation looks to be in CT-4, where eleven-term Rep. Chris Shays is projected to be in his third consecutive tough race. The Congressman currently posts $1.698 million cash-on-hand and his Democratic challenger, Greenwich Democratic chairman Jim Himes, has $1.444 million in the bank. The two cheapest campaigns: UT-3, where Jason Chaffetz -- who defeated Rep. Chris Cannon in the GOP primary last month -- and his Democratic opponent together have $20,000 cash-on-hand, and PA-5 (open John Peterson) where the two general election candidates have just over $91,000 combined in their political accounts. The two leading overall congressional fundraisers for the election cycle are Reps. Mark Kirk (R-IL-10; $3.8 million) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY-20; $3.7 million).

You're not the only one unhappy about the Olympic mascots, collectively known as the Fuwa.

If the Beijing Olympics' five cuddly mascots go down in history as a dud, their creator wants no part of the blame. After China's Olympics organizers gave him the assignment, folk artist Han Meilin initially sketched out five children representing the traditional Chinese elements of fire, wood, water, gold and earth. Then the bureaucrats got involved. "There had to be a panda, even though you'd think the public would have had enough of them," says the 72-year-old artist.

Alas, mankind will never get enough of the panda, but the problem with the Fuwa is much broader than anyone of them. Each of the five mascots is more annoying than the next. And why are there five of them anyway? Is this a statement about the diminutive role of individualism in the people's republic? As an official web site helpfully explains,

Each of [the] Fuwa has a rhyming two-syllable name -- a traditional way of expressing affection for children in China. Beibei is the Fish, Jingjing is the Panda, Huanhuan is the Olympic Flame, Yingying is the Tibetan Antelope and Nini is the Swallow. ... Like the Five Olympic Rings from which they draw their color and inspiration, Fuwa will serve as the Official Mascots of Beijing 2008 Olympic Games, carrying a message of friendship and peace -- and good wishes from China -- to children all over the world.

Don't talk about peace and friendship with Joe Bryant, a blogger at Footballguys.com. He asks, "Why do the Olympic mascots have to look like some mutant Pokemon / Telletubbie thing? What's wrong with a bull dog or a cougar or a sweat shop worker for a mascot?" That's the spirit!

As you know, Barack Obama is still trotting across the globe, sinking three pointers, ignoring military counsel and healing the occasional leper. Amidst all the hullabaloo, these Obama comments regarding Israel and terrorism have been sadly overlooked:

“Um, let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s.”

Hah! Truly eloquent, and still more evidence of what Marc Ambinder refers to as Obama’s “talented, incredible gift of a mind.” But that comment hasn’t been overlooked, and really isn’t important. But these comments have been overlooked and are a lot more important than the typical Obama gaffe:

“What I think can change is the ability of the United States government and a United States president to be actively engaged with the peace process and to be concerned and to recognize the legitimate difficulties that the Palestinian people are experiencing right now and recognize that it is not only in the interest of the Palestinian people that their situation improves - I believe that it is in the interest of the Israeli people…That’s why terrorism is so counterproductive as well as being immoral because it makes I believe the Israelis want to dig in and simply think about their own security regardless of what’s going on beyond their borders.”

This is the conventional lefty trope about Israel, and it is completely contrary to all the facts. Then again, we all know by now that Obama has the ugly habit of repeating lefty tropes, blithely unconcerned about their accuracy or lack thereof.

The Israel government has responded to the many terrorist provocations of the past 15 years by pursuing an increasingly desperate search for peace. Israel spent the Clinton years trying to broker a deal with the since-deceased mass murdering capo of the Palestinian regime. That misguided Israeli effort to give away the store mercifully failed when Yasser Arafat spurned Israel’s way-too-generous peace proposals.

Okay, that’s ancient history and took place when Obama was still consumed with trying to organize communities and teach a Con Law class at the University of Chicago. But more recently, just last week as a matter of fact, Israel exchanged a terrorist prisoner infamous for shattering the skull of a four year-old for the corpses of two Israeli soldiers. Israel made this deal with the decidedly non-peaceful terror organization, Hezbollah.

The point is that Israel, as recently as last week, has consistently scrambled for peace and has willingly engaged terrorist organizations to do so. Far from driving Israel into “digging in,” Hezbollah’s terrorist activities have often had their desired effect. And yet Barack Obama yesterday peddled the risible notion that Arab terrorism had somehow squelched the Israeli desire for peace and forced Israel into a protective shell.

How can Obama, he of the “talented, incredible gift of a mind,” be unaware of such basic facts? Then again, in Obama-world, perhaps such a deal would be called “tough and principled diplomacy.” Regardless, Obama’s assertion that terrorism has made Israel "dig in" is ludicrously counterfactual. I understand that on the Obama campaign bus they only watch ESPN, but it’s still surprising that the news of last week’s prisoner swap escaped the presumptive nominee’s notice.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with her North Korean counterpart today in Singapore as part of "informal" six-party talks, according to this report from Bloomberg. The face-to-face meeting, a first for a Bush administration that once considered North Korea part of the "Axis of Evil," comes within weeks of the State Department's announcement that President Bush intended to ease some sanctions on the rogue regime and, despite its proliferation of nuclear technology to Syria, remove North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terror.

Meanwhile, after years of the Bush administration refusing direct engagement with Iran, the State Department last week dispatched its No. 3 official, Bill Burns, for meetings with Iranian nuclear negotiators. Today comes word, via this story from the AFP, that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Iran will not
concede anything to the "oppressive powers" in the negotiations. "The Iranian people are steadfast and will not step back an inch against the oppressive powers," he said.

If there was any doubt that such face-to-face engagement gives undeserved legitimacy to terrorist-sponsoring states, Ahmadinejad put it to rest saying in a speech broadcast on Iranian television that he appreciated how "politely" Burns treated his Iranian counterpart and "respected the Iranian nation."

Context: Iran, which has been training, equipping and funding some of the terrorists in Iraq responsible for killing American soldiers, has refused to suspend its uranium enrichment program. Many of the world's leading intelligence agencies believe Iran is close to becoming a nuclear power. In October 2006, North Korea tested a nuclear weapon and earned the condemnation of the world and stern warnings from the Bush administration. Then, last spring, North Korea was caught proliferating nuclear technology to Syria, the world's second-leading state sponsor of terror (behind Iran), and the Bush administration, after keeping this information secret for months in order to protect its diplomatic efforts with Kim Jong Il, once again warned against proliferation and then offered further concessions.

All of this from the administration run by a president who once said: "The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."

John McCain is drawing criticism for the following exchange with Katie Couric:

COURIC: Sen. McCain, Sen. Obama says, while the increased number of US troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that?

MCCAIN: I don't know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarlane was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening.

As Frederick Kagan wrote in September 2007: “Anbari tribal leaders did begin to turn against AQI in their areas last year before the surge began, but not before Colonel Sean MacFarland began to apply in Ramadi the tactics and techniques that are the basis of the current strategy in Baghdad.”

If McCain was saying that Col. McFarland's counterinsurgency approach "began the Anbar Awakening" then that's pretty much on the mark. The "surge" after all is often shorthand for both the addition of U.S. troops as well as the adoption of a counterinsurgency strategy.

Of course, the official "surge" was ordered by President Bush in January 2007--four months after the Awakening began. Some are pointing to this statement as proof that McCain gets "his facts all wrong", as Matthew Yglesias writes.

But Yglesias's colleague Marc Ambinder writes that a charitable reading of McCain's statement is "that the surge helped the Anbar Awakening to succeed because the shieks could actually be protected."

Indeed, the surge did not midwife the Anbar Awakening--it kept the Awakening from being strangled in the crib. Here's how the Washington Post characterized a November 2006 Marine intelligence report on Anbar:

The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda's rising popularity there [...]

Moreover, most Sunnis now believe it would be unwise to count on or help U.S. forces because they are seen as likely to leave the country before imposing stability.

So two months after the Awakening began, Anbar looked hopeless. Yet Yglesias contends that the surge was not largely responsible for the progress in that province:

This specific timing issue aside, we can see here the larger point that McCain doesn't actually seem to know what the surge was. But the surge troops were overwhelmingly sent to increase the level of manpower in Baghdad (i.e., not where the Anbar Awakening happened)

But Fallujah--in Anbar--is about 30 miles west of Baghdad. That's the distance between Washington D.C. and Dulles airport. Might not U.S. forces killing terrorists in Baghdad have reduced the level of violence in Fallujah as well as 30 miles farther west in Ramadi?

Furthermore, two additional Marine battalions were sent to Anbar, and it wasn't until they were deployed and the counterinsurgency implemented that the Anbar Awakening flourished.

The Awakening, Kagan wrote,

proceeded slowly and fitfully for most of 2006 and, indeed, into 2007. But when Colonel John Charlton’s brigade relieved MacFarland’s in Ramadi and was joined by two additional Marine battalions (part of the surge) elsewhere in Anbar, the “awakening” began to accelerate very rapidly. At the start of 2007 there were only a handful of Anbaris in the local security forces. By the summer there were over 14,000. [...] The fact is that neither the surge nor the turn of the tribal leaders would in itself have been enough to turn Anbar around — both were necessary, and will remain so for some time.

Jon Stewart had a segment last night on the media's love affair with Obama:

HT: Hot Air

Via the McCain campaign, the Rocky Mountain News reports:

The committee hosting the Democratic National Convention is using the city's gas pumps to fill up on fuel, avoiding state and federal highway taxes, officials said today.

"There's something there that just doesn't seem right to me because, in a sense, you're saying then that the officials who pass the laws are not willing to live by them, and that concerns me," Councilwoman Jeanne Faatz said.

Denver's mayor John Hickenlooper says that the RNC is getting the same break from the city of St. Paul, but how does this square with Hickenlooper's pledge to "make this the greenest convention in the history of the planet"?

In the past, I’ve noted how elites in the Bos/Wash/NY/Hyde Park corridor have shown a benign indifference to soaring gas prices. Mind you, I’m a self-confessed arugula-munching/latte swilling Boston-based elitist myself who visits his local filling station on average a bit more than once a month. Thus, I’m well positioned to explain how the pain that high gas prices have visited on some parts of the country hasn’t been felt universally.

Well, worry no more you rural types who have become wage slaves to the gas pump. The environmental do-gooders have arrived on the scene, and they’re here to help:

Average motorists in Mississippi spent nearly 8 percent of their incomes on gasoline in 2007 and drivers in South Carolina and Georgia spent more than 7 percent, according to the report released on Tuesday by environmental group the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Meanwhile, drivers in the Northeast spent the least amount of their incomes on fuel with Connecticut motorists paying just over 3 percent. Drivers in New York spent about 3.3 percent and motorists in Massachusetts spent about 3.5 percent…

The report, called "Fighting Oil Addiction: Ranking States' Oil Vulnerability and Solutions for Change," ranked the states for their setting of fuel conservation measures like incentives for buying fuel-efficient hybrid vehicles, slowing suburban sprawl, and targets for reducing driving.

I hope this is crystal clear to all you backwards Mississippians who are burning fossil fuels like you’re Al Gore or something. Stop all of your suburban sprawling.

Boy, the NRDC sure has it figured out. If only Georgia had more incentives for buying hybrids! And for those of you who feel the pain at the pump, have you considered stopping your complaining and just moving to Washington DC and becoming a blogger for a living? You could bike to work!

One wonders it it’s ever occurred to the National Resource Defense Council that people in Mississippi aren’t burning so much gas because they engage in a lot of hot-rodding in their vintage Sedan Devilles. Then again, an appealing sort of myopia has always been the environmental lobby’s most appealing characteristic.

On PBS last night the Center for American Progress's Lawrence Korb argued that the Democrats' taking power in the 2006 congressional elections led to the Anbar Awakening, which was a more important factor than the surge in reducing violence in Iraq.

Thankfully Max Boot was on the show to smack down Korb's nonsense.

Here's Korb:

what began to turn things around in Iraq was, in 2006, after the Democrats won control of the Congress, the -- what they called the Sunni insurgents became known as the Sons of Iraq -- you had the Al Anbar awakening -- said that they would team up with us to go after al-Qaida in Iraq, because al-Qaida in Iraq had been so violent, the things they had done. And they realized that we were not going to be there forever.

This is the deal, that that has gotten the violence down in Al Anbar Province, which is where it was the heaviest. And then, even before the surge was completed, in February 2007, Sadr, Muqtada al-Sadr, told his militia to lay down their arms.

MARGARET WARNER: But are you saying that the surge, the 20,000 additional combat forces, aren't a significant factor in why things are more peaceful?

LAWRENCE KORB: It was a factor, but was not nearly as big a factor as the Sunni insurgents laying down their arms, because the -- we now call them the Sons of Iraq. We are paying them. We are training them. It was about 100,000 of them. But this is a deal we could have had in 2004. We didn't take it. We took it in 2006, because -- after the election.

Here's Boot:

First, let me, if I could just very quickly, correct a misapprehension that Larry Korb is perpetrating here, the same one that Barack Obama has perpetrated before, which is to say that the success that we are seeing in Iraq as a result of the Democratic victory in the November 2006 election.

Now, that is just bizarre, because anybody who has been to Iraq knows that the Al Anbar awakening...

LAWRENCE KORB: If you want to correct me, then I'm going to come back, OK? She asked you a question. Answer that one.

MAX BOOT: Larry, let me finish my sentence, please.

Anybody who has been to Iraq knows that the Al Anbar awakening began in September of 2006, months before the Democrats took office in the United States. And anybody who has been to Iraq recently also knows that there is no way that these brave Sunnis or the Sons of Iraq would be risking their lives if they saw that American troops were on their way out.

The only reason they are willing to stand and fight against al-Qaida is because they know that the commitment of the United States remains secure and that we will stand with them.

You can find a transcript and video of the entire exchange here.

So the media blasted the Hillary campaign when reports surfaced that it spent $1,200 in a single month at Dunkin' Donuts. That's a lot of coffee for the campaign, or a lot of doughnuts for Bill Clinton. At the time, Gerard Baker wrote a brilliant article about what coffee preferences revealed about the Democratic primary:

Among voters whose voting choice is not based on identity politics, Mr Obama's supporters are the latte liberals. These are the people for whom Starbucks, with its $5 cups of coffee and fancy bakeries, is not just a consumer choice but a lifestyle. They not only have the money. They share the values.

They live by all those little quotes on the side of Starbucks cups about community service and global warming. They embrace the Obama candidacy because to them he transcends traditional class and economic divides. He is a transformative political figure -- potentially the first black man to be president - and is seen as the one to revive America's faith in itself and restore America's status in the world. For these voters the defining emotion is hope.

Mrs Clinton is the candidate of what might be called Dunkin' Donut Democrats. They do not have money to waste on multiple-hyphenated coffee drinks -- double-top, no-foam, non-fat lattes and the like. Not for them the bran muffins or the biscotti. They are the 75-cent coffee and doughnut crowd. For them caffeine choice doesn't correlate with their values but simply represents a means of keeping them going through their challenging day.

No one has taken the Obama campaign to task for its coffee expenditures, but in absolute terms it is certainly in excess of the Hillary campaign's. Given all the wasteful spending by the Obama campaign, it is hardly a surprise that its coffee expenditures are, shall we say, lofty. Before its June report was filed, the Obama campaign had spent about $1,800 at Starbucks and $1,400 at Dunkin Donuts. The McCain campaign, on the other hand, has spent a mere $498 at Starbucks and $970 at Dunkin' Donuts. It is also well known the Straight Talk Express is stocked with Dunkin' Donuts coffee.

If coffee is a heuristic for the presidential election, the McCain campaign is in good shape. While Starbucks is in the process of closing 600 locations, Dunkin' Donuts is opening dozens. Because Americans are pessimistic about the economy, they're more likely to spend only a buck or two on a cup of coffee than they are to splurge on the mocha chip frappuccino. There is also some dignity in being able to say small, medium, or large as opposed to tall, grande, or venti. Customer surveys also show that Dunkin' Donuts is out pacing Starbucks for the first time in years.

But if everything is so bad for Starbucks, how did Obama manage to win the primary? Well, fortunately liberal elitists who have money to burn compose a smaller percentage of the overall population than the Democratic Party. Petite vanilla scones are to Obama what the bear claw is to McCain, and Americans are going to choose the latter.

1) From the Los Angeles Times, “For McCain, the Surge is a Losing Strategy” by Jonah Goldberg
A couple of week ago, I mentioned my depression over the way the McCain campaign was functioning. My sad mental state had driven me to beat myself over the head with a baseball bat. After a jot of relatively smooth sailing, the McCain campaign has forced me to turn to my trusty Louisville Slugger once more.

The McCain campaign has been caught completely flat-footed by the Maliki pronouncement that he would like to see American troops leave a secure Iraq as rapidly as possible. Of course, the McCain camp and other surge proponents should want the identical thing. Our major beef with the Obama withdrawal plan is that Iraq’s well-being and a consolidation of our victory don’t seem to be any sort of Obama priorities. They never have been in the past.

More unforgivably, the McCain campaign also has been caught flat-footed by the ongoing success of the surge. Right now, we have a bizarre dynamic in which John McCain seems to be refusing victory. Instead, as that victory’s primary architect, he should be embracing it. But with the progress of the surge having surpassed the prognostications of even its most optimistic proponents, McCain’s adherence to an endless slog seems oddly ill-fitting with the fresh facts on the ground.

Senator McCain and I aren’t exactly email pals, so I’m not quite privy to his innermost thoughts. Still, I think I understand what’s going on in McCain land. McCain was the hero of the surge. Without his efforts in the Senate, it wouldn’t have happened. What’s more, he was an early not to mention lonely Republican critic of the Bush administration’s conduct of the war. McCain can make an honest claim to being the Winston Churchill of the Iraq War. And Winston Churchill lost in 1945 to a historical non-entity named Clement Atlee.

For McCain and his minions, it’s probably unnerving to see Iraq fade as an issue. He was right on the surge. Obama was wrong. Yet the public will look forwards, not backwards. Still, all things considered, it’s not so bad. If someone told me six months ago that Iraq as an issue would be a wash come November, I would have taken it.

Here’s Jonah Goldberg’s cogent take on things:

Within months of the invasion, McCain was calling for more troops and the head of then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Later, when the Iraqi civil war erupted, Al Qaeda in Iraq metastasized and the Iranians mounted a clandestine surge all their own, McCain doubled-down; he argued that we couldn't afford to lose and proposed a revised counterinsurgency strategy for victory. That was the same very month that Obama introduced the "Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007."

That's all great stuff for McCain's biographers. But the tragic Catch-22 for the Arizona senator is that the more the surge succeeds, the more politically advantageous it is for Obama.

Voters don't care about the surge; they care about the war. Americans want it to be over -- and in a way they can be proud of.

Richard Nixon didn't win in 1968 by second-guessing LBJ about the mess in Vietnam; he ran on getting us out with honor. McCain is great talking about honor, but the getting-us-out part is where he gets tongue-tied.

If Iraq recedes as an issue and the positions of the two candidates effectively blur, what does McCain do? The temptation will be to run a campaign based on biography, honor and being right about the surge. This is a temptation McCain will have to resist. You don’t get elected president as some kind of lifetime achievement award. The presidency is not a metaphorical gold watch that the electorate bestows upon its most worthy citizen. This is the part of presidential politicking that John Kerry never got.

McCain will have to talk about the future. He’ll have to talk about his plans for the economy, his plans for $4 gas, and why the kind of resolve he showed in Iraq will be necessary to deal with the developing messes we have in Iran and perhaps Pakistan. Much of this stuff lies outside McCain’s comfort zone. He was so uneasy with economic matters, he outsourced them to political klutz extraordinaire Phil Gramm. And discussing grand strategy has never been a McCain forte.

But as the Goldberg column points out, every election is about the future. This one will be no different.

2) From The Fix, “McCain to Meet With Jindal” by Chris Cillizza

I’m glad I didn’t put my Louisville Slugger away – I need it again.

Speculation has swept the intertubes that McCain will name his running mate this week, the better to steal some headlines from his globetrotting opponent. I have nothing against the possibility of Bobby Jindal being on the ticket. I am, however, appalled that Team McCain thinks it needs to go to such desperate measures to win a news cycle in July. For better or for worse, this is Obama’s week. But it’s a long way to Election Day.

I can’t decide which is a more depressing prospect – whether the McCain camp will really name its running mate this week or whether this is an elaborate head fake to make sure McCain’s name stays in the papers for the next few days. What’s especially baffling is why Team McCain can’t pay attention to its own internal analyses. The McCain campaign is obviously concerned that Iraq and other issues of war and peace are receding/disappearing. If that is indeed the case (which to some extent it almost surely is), why has the McCain campaign convinced itself that an Obama trip abroad in July presents a threat that must be thwarted?

The McCain campaign is blustering about making a major strategic move in response to the other guy’s day-to-day tactics. It’s undisciplined campaigning. It fairly reeks of panic.

3) From the Bourbon Room, “Obama, Reed, Hagel Note Iraq Progress, Credit More Than Surge” by Major Garret

Remember back in 2004 when the left relentlessly hounded George W. Bush, demanding that he recount a time when he made an error? It looks like we on the right may have similar sport with Barack Obama, who seems congenitally unable to admit occasions when his superhuman judgment failed him. Major Garret calls our attention to this exchange Obama had with Nightline’s Terry Moran:

Q: If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?

Obama: No. Because, keep in mind that —

Q: You wouldn’t?

Obama: Keep in mind, these kind of hypotheticals are very difficult. You know hindsight is 20/20. But I think that what I am absolutely convinced of is at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one I just disagreed with.

One thing about Obama – he just hates looking back. Unless you’re talking about looking back to the run up to the Iraq war and his righteous opposition to said war. He loves looking back at that.

4) From the Wall Street Journal, “Afghanistan Doesn’t Need a Surge” by Ann Marlowe

What with the presumptive Democratic nominee showing all sorts of manliness regarding Afghanistan, longtime Afghanistan-based war correspondent Marlowe offers some contrarian counsel. And the counsel is contrarian to both nominees:

Barack Obama said: "We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there." Mr. Obama should have supported the surge in Iraq, but that doesn't mean that advocating one in Afghanistan makes sense.

Afghanistan's problems are not the same as Iraq's. Its people aren't recovering from a brutal, all-controlling tyranny, but from decades of chaos and centuries of bad government. Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, is largely illiterate and has a relatively undeveloped civil society. Afghan society still centers around the family and, for men, the mosque. Its society and traditions are still largely intact, in contrast to Iraq's fractured, urbanized and half-modernized population.

Regarding Iraq, it’s been gratifying that the Democrats have at last become cognizant of the salubrious effects that more aggressive strategies can have when it comes to warfare. Still, Obama and his surrogates seem relatively unaware of the COIN doctrine that made such a huge difference in Iraq. The extra resources helped dramatically. But the sea-change in tactics, shifting the focus from force protection to battling the enemy and protecting the population, helped even more.

It shouldn’t be surprising that Obama now supports mindlessly throwing more resources at Afghanistan. Since time immemorial, that’s been the liberal solution to just about every problem. But Afghanistan gives Obama an ideal chance to use that big brain of his (or what Marc Ambinder today refers to as "a talented, incredible gift of a mind") – the situation is a lot more nuanced than Team Barry has to date cared to acknowledge.

5) From the Boston Globe, “Is Alcohol Par For the Course?” by Richard Thompson

If you want to know what it’s like to live in a state that Michael Dukakis molded in his image, take a look at this article. In Massachusetts, there is actually a law on the books that bans the sale of alcohol on golf courses. Yes, this law applies to private golf courses as well as public ones.

And no, this law is not common across the land. The only other state with a similar statute is Alaska. Alaska, as you may have guessed, is not exactly a golf paradise.

Mind you, consuming alcohol while on the golf course is unforgivably vulgar. One should focus on one’s game. Besides, golf is hard enough to play when sober. But why would such a matter possibly have been the concern of the Bay State legislators who crafted this idiotic law? If some hacker wants to steel his nerves with a Rum and Coke before playing the challenging 16th hole and his country club allows him to do so, what interest does the state have in preventing him from imbibing?

Then again, with Al Gore plotting to take away our fossil fuels, perhaps modern liberals pose still graver threats.

It's official: The media are consumed by the fire of their love for Barack Obama:

And the public is catching on. As I noted earlier today, a new Rasmussen report shows that "49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help the Democrat with their coverage." And 45 percent think that "most reporters would hide information if it hurt the candidate they wanted to win." How could the public possibly come to that conclusion?

At the McCain website, you can vote for the media's Obama love anthem. Frankie Valli's "Can't Take My Eyes Off You" is winning. Where is John Cusack with the boombox when you need him?

On a conference call with reporters this morning, McCain surrogate Congresswoman Heather Wilson said that John McCain would "like troops to come home earlier than 16 months if the conditions allow it. Senator Obama has said it's a 16-month timeline no matter what."

In response to a follow-up question asking if it was "conceivable" that conditions could improve enough to allow the troops to come home in 16 months, Wilson said that Obama's withdrawal plan is "based on a calendar, and John McCain believes that withdrawal must be based on conditions on the ground. Whether that happens in in 12 months, 16 months, or 24 months, the important thing is our troops come home with victory and America's vital national interests secured."

Wilson, as well as McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann did not directly say whether conditions could improve enough to withdraw in 16 months. Scheunemann emphasized that Obama favored "rigid date-driven unconditional timetable", while McCain's withdrawal would be based on two factors: "advice of the commanders on the ground" and the "security situation on the ground".

Commanders in Iraq have said that there's "no way" to withdraw all combat troops within 16 months, as Obama has proposed. But it wasn't clear whether Wilson was saying that "all combat troops" could be withdrawn in less than 16 months or if she was simply emphasizing the difference between McCain's conditions-based withdrawal versus Obama's time-based withdrawal.

Update: McCain's deputy communications director Michael Goldfarb calls to say that Wilson was simply making a rhetorical point:

John McCain would like to be out of Iraq tomorrow, but any withdrawal is going to have to be based on conditions on the ground and the simple fact is that our commanders have made fairly clear that they do not believe that 16 months, even under ideal conditions, would allow for a safe and responsible withdrawal of all American troops and their equipment.

I'd also note that Barack Obama also does not intend to pull all our forces out of Iraq in 16 months, but has committed to maintaining a "residual force" of unspecified size in Iraq for an undetermined length of time.

"It’s always a bad practice to say 'always' or 'never'"--Senator Barack Obama

Today's catch phrase is "media bias." Yesterday--the same day Drudge revealed that the New York Times rejected John McCain's op-ed rebutting Barack Obama's op-ed in the same paper--Rasmussen released a timely report:

The idea that reporters are trying to help Obama win in November has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey, taken just before the new controversy involving the Times erupted, found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help the Democrat with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.

Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help McCain win, little changed from 13% a month ago. Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.

At Pajamas Media, Rick Moran asks, "With half the country able to see through the gushing idolatry of the press and their shameless promotion of Obama’s candidacy, where does that leave journalistic standards like objectivity and fairness?" Redstate's Pejman Yousefzadeh adds, "We need to ensure that an informed decision is made, and the more the media shows that it is in the tank for Barack Obama, the less confidence people will have that the appropriate information to make that decision is being afforded to the voting public." But Power Line's John Hinderaker finds the "silver lining": "I suspect that by November, lots of people will be in rebellion against the media's effort to make them vote for Obama."

Speaking of bias, it seems that the Obama campaign plays favorites, too--or rather, punishes journalists who make the campaign mad. Remember last week's controversial New Yorker cover? The Politico reported yesterday that the Obama campaign just couldn't find room for New Yorker reporter Ryan Lizza on the press plane.

Coincidence? The Moderate Voice's Joe Gandelman says, "If it was no coincidence, then it shows the Obama campaign is going to throw down the gauntlet to news organizations that run items that create big political problems." The Huffington Post's Rachel Sklar remarks, "Whatever one thinks of the New Yorker cover--that it was clear satire that clearly lampooned ridiculous rumors, that it went way overboard, that it was a comedic misfire--a robust press can't operate under threat of reprisal for unwelcome items." And Megan McArdle adds, "If you excuse petty punishments of reporters on the grounds that all that really matters is the policy, you'll soon find that you've lost not only the reporters, but the good policy."

As the Los Angeles Times's Andrew Malcolm says, "Now, that's Chicago politics."

Despite the rumors, Obama will not hold any fundraisers during his Euro Trip. That means that six days out of the month, or about 20 percent of the month, will be spent without any such events. Obama's online efforts could make up the difference, but reports suggest they won't: "Several said in interviews that the campaign is no longer seeing the kind of online bonanza that occurred during Obama's long battle with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, when more than $1 million was flowing in each day." Indeed, this is why the number of Obama's traditional fundraisers Obama spiked last month.

Some scoffed when I suggested here and here that Obama was spending nearly as much as he was presently taking in. As an aside, the Boston Globe wrote a whole piece about Obama having the largest paid staff in the history of presidential elections. No surprise that it neglected to explain the cost associated with having 900 staffers. And that was in May! It also failed to note that Obama has paid staffers in Utah and is running ads in Alaska. What possible purpose could there be for such expenditures? And will they come back to haunt the Obama campaign in August, when it runs a giant deficit?

Faruk Sen, the Turkish-born founding Director of the Center for Studies on Turkey in Essen / Germany, has come under sharp political criticism over recent comments comparing the situation of Turkish migrants living in Europe to the plight and discrimination previously suffered by European Jews. Here is an excerpt:

“Although our people, who have lived in central and western Europe for 47 years, have produced 125,000 entrepreneurs with a total turnover of 45 billion euros, they are discriminated against and marginalized like the Jews, albeit to differing degrees and in different ways.”

Faruk Sen’s remarks, first published by the Turkish business paper Referans a few weeks ago, prompted the conservative-led government of the state of North-Rhine Westphalia (which has been providing major funding for the Turkish Studies Center since its founding in 1985) to push for Sen’s immediate dismissal. The Center’s Board sharply criticized Faruk Sen over the “irresponsible comparison between Turks and Jews” and accused him of having done “severe damage” to German-Turkish relations and Germany’s integration policies in general. Sen later apologized for his statement.

Unfortunately, despite his outrageous remarks, Mr. Sen was able to extract a rather favorable exit package from the state government following his threat to retaliate with a lawsuit. The 60-year old self-styled political activist masquerading as an academic has been put on leave until the end of this year, when he will formally resign as the Center’s Director.

Barack Obama made a major gaffe yesterday in an interview with ABC's Terry Moran, saying that despite the obvious success of the surge he still would not support it if he were able to cast his vote again. Why? Obama told Moran that he wanted to change "the political debate."

Here is the exchange:

Obama: No, because -- keep in mind that, that … ABC: You wouldn't? Obama: Well, no, keep in mind -- these kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult. You know, hindsight is 20/20. But I think that what I am absolutely convinced of is that at that time, we had to change the political debate, because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with.

It's a moment that will provide a real test for the mainstream media covering his campaign. He should have to answer some version of these obvious follow-ups:

Would the U.S. be in better strategic position today if there had been no surge and if troops had pulled out in early 2007 as Obama had argued?

And what about the U.S. troops who would have fallen in the absence of the surge?

Isn't the fact that Prime Minister Maliki can now talk openly about a timeline for withdrawal itself evidence of the surge's importance?

Which candidate wins the debate over Iraq has everything to do with how that debate is framed. Obama wants the debate to be one of timing, McCain wants to talk about outcomes. Obama: Do we leave soon or stay indefinitely? McCain: do we fight to win or choose to lose?

McCain's team is hammering Obama on the gaffe. McCain should talk about nothing else today. The question is whether even a mistake of this significance will be enough to break Obama's good-luck streak or loosen the loving embrace of the mainstream media. There's reason to be skeptical.

In July 2007 when he was still frantically courting the far left, Barack Obama flatly declared that genocide wouldn’t be a good enough reason to keep American troops in Iraq:

SUNAPEE, N.H. - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

“Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done,” Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

“We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven’t done. Those of us who care about Darfur don’t think it would be a good idea,” he said.

With all the scrubbing and airbrushing that’s been going on at the Obama campaign and its website, the fact that he has flip-flopped on genocide has been sadly overlooked. That’s right - the presumptive Democratic nominee now opposes genocide! According to his website’s new and improved 16 month withdrawal plan:

“Obama would also work with Iraqi authorities and the international community to hold the perpetrators of potential war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide accountable. He would reserve the right to intervene militarily, with our international partners, to suppress potential genocidal violence within Iraq.”

I for one applaud this flip-flop, although I lament the ongoing straddle. Note carefully how the longtime community organizer is still trying to occupy both sides of the issue. He reserves the right to intervene militarily to interrupt a genocide, but he doesn’t say he will intervene militarily. Which way would President Obama decide? Candidate Obama is unwilling to say.

So maybe calling the latest Obama incarnation “anti-genocide” represents a premature celebration. And I’m sure Obama’s not-quite muscular phrasing of “reserving the right to intervene” (with our international partners!) provides little comfort to any nervous Sunnis in Iraq. Still, Obama’s new position is far more responsible than his old one.

Which raises an interesting exit question – was he really as indifferent to genocide as he made it seem a year ago?

Ed Morrissey writes that John McCain’s "statement, that Obama's voting record is ‘more to the left than the announced socialist in the United States Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont,’ is unfortunately not terribly accurate."

Morrissey contends that McCain’s statement is inaccurate because National Journal's Senate scorecard in 2007 only includes 99 votes while a more “comprehensive” index compiled by UC-San Diego political scientist Keith Poole includes 388 votes—every vote that wasn’t unanimous.

But it’s not clear that the Poole’s rating system is better than National Journal’s. Morrissey writes that “The [Poole] index shows how often each member votes with their own party as a measure of partisan and ideological leaning.” In other words, Poole is measuring partisanship, not ideology. National Journal, on the other hand, ranks each vote as conservative or liberal.

Poole’s index ranked John McCain as the second most conservative senator in 2005-2006. That doesn't seem terribly accurate to me.

In discussing the portion of Barack Obama’s road show that will soon stumble across Germany, Kristol avoids any pettiness regarding the campaign’s choice of venue for Obama’s benediction/mass leper healing session. Instead, he optimistically focuses on what Obama could say:

I’m choosing to take the location of Obama’s speech as a hopeful sign.

I’m hoping it means that Obama in Berlin will go beyond the anodyne message his campaign advertised Sunday — a discussion of the “historic U.S.-German partnership” and strengthening trans-Atlantic relations. I’m wondering if Obama chose the Victory Column as his speech venue because he intends to make the case for ... victory.

Perhaps Obama — with the Victory Column at his back — will also challenge those who think it impossible to imagine victory today. Perhaps Obama will also warn of the temptation of assuming we can somehow avoid confronting the terrorists and jihadists, and those who support them.

One thing you have to understand about the Boss – he is by nature an optimist. So when presented with the question of whether Obama will be able to turn his back on the irresponsibility he has shown on the campaign trail regarding the war, the Boss will of course answer with an emphatic “Yes He Can!”

But I’m sure Kristol would agree that to date, “victory” hasn’t exactly been an Obama preoccupation. Take the ludicrous “16 Months to Victory Plan” Obama has been aggressively peddling regarding Iraq. Eagle-eyed observers will note that Obama was also proposing a 16 month withdrawal plan when the war was at its nadir back in early 2007. It would be a helluva coincidence if two such wildly divergent sets of circumstances such as the grim facts we confronted 18 months ago and the much more promising scenario we face today demanded identical American tactics and strategy.

For Obama, “victory” has never been anything more than a shorthand for ending American involvement in Iraq. His indifference to what actually might happen in Iraq has at times been almost astonishing. In July 2007, the then second place Democratic candidate stated preventing genocide wasn’t a good enough reason for America to stay in Iraq. As remains the case today, Obama’s sole strategic concern was comprehensively removing all American troops within 16 months.

It would be nice on a variety of levels if Obama commits to victory when he heals the Germans. It would indeed be a swell thing if the world realized that America won’t potentially be tossing out its leadership resolve next January.

2) From Political Diary, “Just Another Pol” by John Fund

More polls! The latest shows Obama leading McCain by three which is pretty much in line with what everyone else is getting. But as Fund notes, there’s still big news to report. The swooning has ended.

The good news for Mr. Obama is that he narrowly leads among independents and white women, key demographic groups he must add to his overwhelming support among Democrats and African-Americans. But his Achilles heel could prove to be young people, who provided much of the enthusiastic support he used to win the Democratic primaries. The ABC poll found that in March, 66% of voters under the age of 30 said they would vote in November no matter what. Today, that number is down to 46% -- a far more typical measurement of the engagement of young people in politics.

ABC's George Stephanopoulos says enthusiasm for the Democratic candidate among young voters "has been dampened" and "all of the questions in recent weeks on whether or not Barack Obama is shifting positions, becoming 'a typical politician,' is turning some of them off."

What’s most amazing about this scenario is that Obama’s wounds have all been self-inflicted. And as he thrashes about, returning to his silly original positions like the audacious 14 Month Surrender Plan, he only further compromises his campaign.

3) From the Wall Street Journal, “Let’s Have Some Love for Nuclear Power” by William Tucker

Many of you reading this are probably too young to remember the No Nukes movement. Thank your lucky stars. In the dark days of the late 1970s/early 1980s, Hollywood-types and flat-earthers were able to use their combined muscle to damage our energy situation for decades. At least the current energy crisis will cause us to revisit and likely redress such past foolishness:

And just last month John McCain called for the construction of 45 new reactors by 2030. Barack Obama is less enthusiastic about nuclear energy, but he seems to be moving toward tacit approval.

In the U.S. at present, 104 nuclear plants generate about 21% of our electric power. Last November, NRG Energy, of Princeton, N.J., became the first company to file for a license to build a new nuclear plant since the 1970s. Almost a dozen more applications have now also been filed.

While we may be at a turning point, one enormous question still hangs over this revival of nuclear power in the U.S.: Who is going to pay for it? The const