Even the Iraqi prime minister wants us to leave

As Sen. Barack Obama visits the war fronts of Afghanistan and Iraq, it's becoming clear that even the Iraqi government wants us out.

The prime minister gave an interview to a French newspaper, in which he said U.S. troops should be out "as soon as possible." He also indicated that he thought Obama's 16-month timetable idea was a good plan. Imagine the moans and groans from the White House, from McCain's camp and the tiny remnant that still supports the war.

Even the people we're supposedly "liberating" have had enough. They want us out.

Hopefully, this will boost Obama's position, especially after too much time was wasted suggesting that he'd somehow changed his policy....he hasn't.

Tim Kaine might be Obama's best possible veep choice

It is commonly said that a presidential candidate's first real test of judgment is the choice of a vice presidential nominee. The candidate is in fact choosing someone that could very possibly succeed him in the Oval Office. It has to be shown that the person who would be president can pick someone who is every bit as qualified for that office as the candidate.

In 1960, the Kennedys (John and Joe Sr. anyway, not Bobby) picked Lyndon Johnson clearly as a purely political choice. They desperately needed Texas; Johnson gave the young Kennedy an impressive partner in the Democratic establishment, someone who had wanted to be president himself. Kennedy, of course, had no idea that he was actually choosing the next president....Nov. 22, 1963, was just a remote date on the calendar.

For all the importance said to be attached to the choice, the veep nominees themselves almost never win the election for the candidates. Bill Clinton and Al Gore had a synergy that was very effective for them in 1992; but I'd say that Ross Perot helped Clinton win more than Gore did....John Edwards didn't do much for John Kerry in 2004; the ticked carried no Southern state and the party's share of the Southern white vote didn't go up much (29 percent).

In 1972, George McGovern set the standard for how to really screw up a vice presidential choice, picking Tom Eagleton, declaring that he'd support him "1,000 percent" when a controversy over mental treatment broke out, then unceremoniously dumping him after that. McGovern looked like he was in over his head, and the impression stuck.

But in '88, George Bush picked the young idiot Dan Quayle, and proved that it is possible to survive even an obviously bad veep choice.....

Now, it looks as though our Tim Kaine - an early and highly enthusiastic supporter of Sen. Obama - might be moving up on the list, and I think many of us find that very promising. And it's not all about carrying Virginia, either, which I think Obama can do with whomever he picks for VP.

Such is the ascendancy of Democratic fortunes in this state that we had not one, not two, but three possible vice presidential candidates in Mark Warner, Jim Webb, and Kaine. Warner's running for Senate, and took his name out of contention, as Webb did recently (a good choice for several reasons: Webb is a bit of a loose cannon at times, and has some "paper trail" stuff that doesn't need to be brought up again ... also, he's turning out to be one hell of a senator and should stay right where he is.)

Even though he gave the Democratic response to a Bush State of the Union address, the nation still doesn't know Tim Kaine the way we do. If he's the choice, I think many voters across the country will like what they see....Kaine is progressive without being radical. His own commitment to religious and family values is something that he lives, and doesn't have to state over and over again. Mainstream voters will admire that. He's as smart and as capable as Warner or Webb. He would bring an energy and a passion to Obama's campaign that could only be positive.

Then, there are the political ramifications of the rest of his term here in Virginia. The summer special session of the legislature proved that Morgan Griffith and his anti-tax warriors aren't going to bend on new taxes for highway improvements. They'd rather see the roads turn to mush rather than have new taxes; so that fight is lost. Kaine might be better off politically and personally helping get Obama elected than having one last fight with the same old Virginia GOP crowd that - no surprise! - can't see the forest for the trees.

Obama/Kaine....it's a very compelling idea.

Obama fires back appropriately to Bush's "Nazi appeasement" nonsense

It's never a surprise when pro-war conservatives toss out the over-used, over-rated "Nazi appeasement" analogy to any situation that involves a war they either want to start or defend.

Sen. Barack Obama - who will be the Democratic nominee for president - was right to throw Bush's nonsense right back at him after Bush's remarks to the Israeli parliament. The lame duck president was apparently responding to Obama's long-stated intentions of actually negotiating with nations before attacking them. That, of course, is a radical and unacceptable notion to the swaggering little Texan, who has started two wars he can't finish, one (in Iraq) without any justification whatsoever, and against a people who hadn't attacked or threatened us.

Bush, you see, believes in shooting first and never asking questions (much less "asking questions later"). He also believes in attacking whether or not your information is right or wrong, and whether or not you have the backing of a majority of your people or people in the rest of the world. He just believes in war, period, although, personally, he didn't have the guts to fight in the one in Vietnam.

Obama has dared to suggest that it just might make sense to talk to nations and leaders with whom we disagree, and in his remarks yesterday he noted Kennedy's talks with Kruschev (I spelled it wrong.....) during the heart of the Cold War, and even Nixon's visits with Mao, at a time, Obama noted, when we knew the Chinese "Cultural Revolution" was going on and knew that Mao's followers had killed millions of people!

But Bush is nothing if not dense, and you can't expect him to understand the finer points of history. But I get a real kick out of those who use the "Nazi appeasement" thing when it's the only analogy they have that they think might work, despite how out of date and useless it has become. They're using a reference point from one of the few wars we've ever fought that was justified - yes, I said one of the few wars we've ever fought that was justified (emphasis on "few" and "justified") - and they fail to see how it just does not apply to the particular war they're supporting or getting ready to start.

If I remember correctly, Reagan dragged it out before he invaded Grenada, the first Bush used it before invading Panama (two worthless little crusades, to be sure) and, I believe, about the Gulf War, too. I'm sure it was in the Kitchen Sink collection of comments poor LBJ used to try and justify the tragedy in Vietnam.

Obama also pointed out that Bush's failures in Iraq really don't allow him the luxury of lecturing anyone else about war policy....and isn't that the truth? The senator noted Bush's utter failure to capture Osama bin Laden - the person who actually attacked us on 9/11, not Saddam or any Iraqis. Bin Laden went from "wanted dead or alive" to "I don't know where he is..." and "he's not relevant" once Bush knew he couldn't find him.

Obama also pointed out that if you're worried about Iran's ascendancy in the Persian Gulf, then you need to remember that it was the invasion of Iraq that elevated that country's status. Again, our current problems there all go back to Bush's tragic and wrong-headed decision to invade a country that hadn't attacked us.

It's Obama's utterly correct view of the war - from "day one," as Hillary would say, when he was against it from the start - that has attracted so many people to him and his candidacy. He's also right, of course, to suggest that since our gunboat diplomacy has so compromised and ruined us in the eyes of most of the rest of the world, it's pretty clear that we need to go back to asking questions first - talking first - before we invade again.

What the people want, and what we need - not to mention what the rest of the civilized world needs to see from us - is less chest-beating and more actual negotiations, a pull back from swaggering and "shock and awe" tactics, to the long-accepted notion of actually trying to solve a problem diplomatically before we toss away the lives of fresh-faced 19-year-olds, not to mention tossing away trillions of dollars from our troubled economy.

With his remarks, Obama has signaled that he'll battle the Bush-McCain ticket this fall on the war issue and all other issues related to it.

Go ahead, McCain. Campaign for another 100 years in Iraq, threaten Iran (even sing "Bomb, bomb Iran," if you want) and drag out that old Nazi appeasement thing if you want to....it didn't work for W. and it won't work for you.

Obama may be on the verge...

....after a big win tonight in North Carolina and - at this hour - getting closer in Indiana. It doesn't help Hillary Clinton to split states. She wasn't able to do what she needed to do - win them both easily.

Obama's speech from Raleigh (the area where my friend Dr. Garrett was proud to cast his vote for the Illinois senator) was basically a message to superdelegates: Here's how and why I win.

Time and opportunity is running out for Clinton, and that's fine with me. We need to resolve this and move on with a nominee.

Shame on the mainstream media for non-stop "stories" about Jeremiah Wright

I'm to the point of simply switching off CNN, MSNBC, or any other news network that says anything at all about Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's "former pastor." The problem with that is, of course, it's all they seem to want to talk about - yet again.

Why? It is not a legitimate story anymore. Not that it ever really was; Mr. Wright is not a candidate for office, and holds no position with Obama's campaign. Yes, he has made "controversial" remarks deemed to be anti-American. Fine. But by now, it's been "reported" to death, and it shouldn't matter anymore. Obama has long since weighed in on how he "feels" about the remarks.

Who else, but operatives for Hillary Clinton or John McCain, would want this to go on when there's nothing reasonable left to be said? (No, I'm not blaming either of those campaigns, but they conceivably do benefit from this continued "controversy.") This is why so many have contempt for the lame "coverage" of presidential candidates and campaigns that comes out of the so-called liberal media.

And what the hell was Bill Moyers thinking when he put Wright on the air again and brought this all back up again just when it was beginning to die down? As for Wright himself, well, I wish somebody would get to him and say, "Sit down, and shut the hell up."

But it's the media - the MSM, as it's called on the 'net - that deserves the lion's share of the blame here for yet again diverting the serious issues of a presidential campaign to something that, in the end, just doesn't matter at all.

Good job, you hacks.

Is it really race that prevents some Dems from supporting Obama?

Evidently, it's still not possible in America for a black person to run for president and not have to confront, in some way, the question of race.

But what ought to be disturbing is when that question rises too many times in the Democratic Party, the historic party of civil rights and utter opposition to racism in all its forms.

Today's Washington Post has a story that highlights the worries many black politicians - James Clyburn, perhaps most notably - are feeling. If the Clinton camp works this angle about "white, working-class voters" too much, it's going to increasingly look and sound racist. Clinton's supporters, from Ed Rendell to Geraldine Ferraro, have already made border-line racist remarks or appeals (Ferraro's words were especially egregious), and black political leaders are getting tired of it.

But what fascinates me is the degree to which Democrats themselves (primary voters and caucus-goers, not just office holders) may be voting against Obama on the basis of race. On NPR, after the primary, it was said that "one in five voters felt that race was a factor" in their decisions. One in three, the network said, voted for Hillary.

It's bad enough that, yes, there's still very much a racist feeling in this country among certain people, and to some degree, that will hurt Obama in the fall (I still think, though, that the failures of Bush, his war, and his party have made it almost an irreversible Democratic year, and that our nominee will win). But it's truly depressing that some Democrats out there may be supporting Hillary mainly because, or chiefly because, she's white and he's black.

If that's true, we have a lot of work to do, even in our own party.

Getting close will be "victory" enough for Barack Obama

Hopefully Tuesday's presidential primary in Pennsylvania will at least put an end (temporarily, anyway) to the "silly season" in presidential politics we've had to endure lately.

It's time to get away from the media-driven nonsense about Obama's preacher, the word "bitter," and Hillary's beer and a shot in Pennsylvania. The lack of a primary or caucus in recent weeks has been what's diverted the media to this kind of stuff....

NBC's Tim Russert was trumpeting a poll Sunday morning that shows Hillary Clinton with a 48-43 lead. This, in a state where she has long been expected to win.

Obama has poured in the TV advertising dollars, in an attempt to get the upset. But remembering James Carville's infamous description of Pa. - Pittsburgh on one end, Philadelphia on the other, and Alabama in the middle - means it's tailor-made for Hillary. But if Obama can make it close, that will be all he'll pratically need to do.....a narrow win for Hillary won't alter the delegate math in any significant way.

Then, hopefully, Obama goes on to wrap this thing up in the coming weeks, and we can turn our attention to fighting the Bush/McCain ticket.