As KO just reported on Countdown, CBS news' Katie Couric interviewed John McCain today in which he was asked about the Obama's view of the Surge and how it aided in establishing the Anbar awakening. Exchange below...

Couric: Senator McCain, Sen. Obama says, while the increased number of U.S. 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 (phonetic) 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. I mean, that's just a matter of history. Thanks to General Petraeus, our leadership, and the sacrifice of brave young Americans. I mean, to deny that their sacrifice didn't make possible the success of the surge in Iraq, I think, does a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed.

They were out there. They were protecting these sheiks. We had the Anbar awakening.

Let's IMPEACH them, NOW! I pray this to honor every Iraqi child who was blown into redness for absolutely nothing -- other than happening to be born on oil-soaked sand -- in order to satisfy a bunch of chicken-hawk draft-dodgers who are currently running our nation using this bizarre, filthy, far-out Neocon "quasi-fascist" Middle-Eastern colonization attempt, just to help their buddies at Exxon and Haliburton. I really hope there is a fair judging for heaven and hell because that's where the Bush war criminals are going!

Subtitle: How Hillary won the Primary

Right now it seems that the political atmosphere is ripe for a Democratic sweep in November.  I was among the conventional thinkers early on in this decade who wouldn't have predicted it so soon and certainly not this way:  Republican implosion mostly because of George Bush.   Yet the issues that seem to motivate the most fervent anti-bush sentiment here and on the 'net are almost universally supported by "national democrats".   Those are the people who perceive that they have a future as a party leader.  

For example, no serious person thinks Hillary would have voted against FISA had she been the Dem. nominee in waiting, but freed from "responsibility" she panders to the left.

The main issue that propelled Obama to being on the cusp of our next POTUS was that he "had the judgement" to be against the Iraq War when all of the seasonsed and experienced politicians got it wrong.   They enabled Bush, while Obama "took a bold stand".

I didn't believe it for one minute during the primaries.  Many on the Hillary side tried to show the flip-flops in 2004 and 2006 when it wasn't certain where the politics were on the issue.

But now the question for all democrats is:

Does anyone serious still believe Obama would have opposed the 2002 war resolution?

The evidence all points to a resounding NO!

Every instinct he has shown has been toward being a mainstream democrat.

There hasn't been 1 issue where he is willing to stand on his own and fight it out.

Take the "talk with Iran w/o preconditions" bit.   Once his aides and Obama finished explaining and "refining", it is hardly "change" or radically different from Bush or the bulk  of the Democratic Party.

same on FISA
same on Guns
same on every single major issue.

What we are left with is quite simple:

A mainstream left-leaning democrat who doesn't want the liberal label, whose biggest selling point is that he has black skin.

This in and of itself  represents real change from our nation's history.

For any real democrat like me, the bottom line is Obama is not only acceptable, he is great for the party.

He will maximize black turnout while disarming fears of wild-eyed liberals.

That is why any betting person would wager on an Obama-democratic surge in November once he turns the Speech machine back on.

No way to do that now and maintain it for months and months through the Olympics and the rest.

But I think at the least Obama Primary supporters should apologize to people like me who tried to tell you:

he's playing the race card
he's a typical politician

You still won.  Obama has brought me and must of us home to the Dem party.

But come on, admit it,

If I told you what the Dem. nominee would do for  the month after the primary in terms of positions on issues and "values" they wanted to project,

you'd get depress because you'd think

Hillary won!

Well  in a way she did.
and that is good  for the party and our nation.

This "shifting to the center" meme is a right-wing smear to define BO as a flip-flopper.  Barack Obama has always held these positions.  Check the records; Read Audacity of Hope; Please check your issues.  BO did not shift to the center as many right-wing pundits are claiming. The followings are positions that BO has held for as long as we've known him:

On NAFTA - No change, BO is and has been a free-trader all along but wanted trade-deals with labor standards to protect American workers.

On Guns - BO has always supported the right to bear arm as contained in 2nd Amendment (that's why he won Idaho, Colorado, etc. in the primary)

On Abortion - his current position has always been his position (that's why they EMILY's list attacked him in New Hampshire).

On Death Penalty - Go and check BO's Illinois record, where he led the reform there not to ban death penalty but to ensure a transparent and judicious death penalty system.

On Faith Based initiatives - Read Audacity of Hope.  This has been BO's position all along.

On Iraq -  BO has always had this "one or two brigade a month withdrawal" for a 16 months timeline in consultation with Commanders on the ground.

So in conclusion, I give it to the Republican for having succeeded in fooling the Democrats and the Press to embrace their talking point.   They wanted to define BO as a flip-flopper the way they did against John Kerry.  Ask yourself, why were the Press and McCain campaign so fast to twist BO's reiteration of his Iraq position?  And this is the same position he's held since the first day he came up with "one or two brigade a month withdrawal" for a 16 months timeline.  Same position from September of 2007

So wake up folks; read your copy of Audacity of Hope; check BO's records to see that he's a pragmatic left-of-the-center democrat.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080705/ap_o n_el_pr/obama

There has been a lot of media hoopla concerning Barack Obama's recent comments on Iraq. There are those that would like people to believe that Obama has somehow flip-flopped on the issue, and that he is no longer committed to ending the conflict and bringing our troops home safely. Nothing, in fact, could be further from the truth. In his own words Obama has now made his policy on Iraq very clear:

"I was a little puzzled by the frenzy that I set off by what I thought was a pretty innocuous statement," he said. "I am absolutely committed to ending the war."

On Thursday in North Dakota, Obama said that "I'll ... continue to refine my policy" on Iraq after an upcoming trip there. With a promise to end the war the central premise of his candidacy, the Obama campaign has struggled over the past two days to push back against Republicans and others who say his recent statement could be a softening or change in policy.

(Cross-posted at Clintonistas for Obama and DailyKos)

This diary is not a guilt trip, though some will perceive it as such. This is just a quick reminder, and it serves to demonstrate why this Clinton supporter will be voting for Barack Obama in November. There are numerous reasons, but these are the ones which are on my mind today:

     There is a story taking place in America that is being buried by the media, the armed forces, and the politicians. This story is so frightening that no one wants to address it or even talk about it. This story has the potential to bring more violence to the streets of America than any terrorist attack. The frightening tale that is being ignored is the fact that we have ticking time bombs within our midst. They do not belong to al Qaeda or any other shady terrorist cell, they will not be profiled because they don't have Mid-Eastern ancestry, nor are they Muslim extremists. These ticking time bombs are our own sons, daughters, fathers, and brothers. They are the returning soldiers from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Follow the Money: Who Profits?  

In the four years leading up the Iraq War Exxon averaged a yearly net profit of $11.95 Billion. In the years since George Bush, started the Iraq War Exxon has averaged a yearly net profit of $32.6 Billion, an increase of 273% over the pre Iraq War average profit.

Year     Exxon's Profit in
            Billions of Dollars