From Barack Obama's major address today on Iraq and Afghanistan:

I opposed going to war in Iraq; Senator McCain was one of Washington's biggest supporters for war. I warned that the invasion of a country posing no imminent threat would fan the flames of extremism, and distract us from the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; Senator McCain claimed that we would be greeted as liberators, and that democracy would spread across the Middle East. Those were the judgments we made on the most important strategic question since the end of the Cold War.

Now, all of us recognize that we must do more than look back - we must make a judgment about how to move forward. What is needed? What can best be done? What must be done? Senator McCain wants to talk of our tactics in Iraq; I want to focus on a new strategy for Iraq and the wider world.
 ...
That's why I strongly stand by my plan to end this war. Now, Prime Minister Maliki's call for a timetable for the removal of U.S. forces presents a real opportunity. It comes at a time when the American general in charge of training Iraq's Security Forces has testified that Iraq's Army and Police will be ready to assume responsibility for Iraq's security in 2009. Now is the time for a responsible redeployment of our combat troops that pushes Iraq's leaders toward a political solution, rebuilds our military, and refocuses on Afghanistan and our broader security interests.

George Bush and John McCain don't have a strategy for success in Iraq - they have a strategy for staying in Iraq. They said we couldn't leave when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is down.  They refuse to press the Iraqis to make tough choices, and they label any timetable to redeploy our troops "surrender," even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government - not to a terrorist enemy. Theirs is an endless focus on tactics inside Iraq, with no consideration of our strategy to face threats beyond Iraq's borders.

At some point, a judgment must be made. Iraq is not going to be a perfect place, and we don't have unlimited resources to try to make it one. We are not going to kill every al Qaeda sympathizer, eliminate every trace of Iranian influence, or stand up a flawless democracy before we leave - General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker acknowledged this to me when they testified last April. That is why the accusation of surrender is false rhetoric used to justify a failed policy. In fact, true success in Iraq - victory in Iraq - will not take place in a surrender ceremony where an enemy lays down their arms. True success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future - a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge. That is an achievable goal if we pursue a comprehensive plan to press the Iraqis stand up.

To achieve that success, I will give our military a new mission on my first day in office: ending this war.

This is a great speech.

The Bush administration lead us down a black hole - an unnecessary war waged on false intelligence and questionable motivations. It was A Big Lie.

McCain backed The Lie all the way, and now almost cartoonishly stumps around the country to continue The Lie. No strategy. No explanation. It'll be like post-war Korea, he says, where American troops patrol peacefully and free from the threat of casualty. No one asks how.

Too much of the press lets McCain get away with it - even lending a hand when pesky skeptics question The Lie. Too much of the discourse about national security is bankrupt.

So leadership is natural contrast.

Obama delivers clear contrast with his opponent, assigning responsibility for this disaster where it belongs. But he also lays out a real, comprehensive national security strategy. I have doubts that our press is capable of communicating it in a substantive way, but I suppose it's important to hope.

Obama's full remarks after the jump. Worth the read.

The WSJ confirms:

While it is standard practice for such trips--known as CODELS, or congressional delegations--to be bipartisan, in this highly charged election year it is likely to raise eyebrows that the retiring Nebraskan senator--a prominent Iraq War critic--is the Republican expected to join the Democratic Party's presidential nominee on what is sure to be a closely watched visit to the region.

Adding to the intrigue is the fact that Sen. Hagel has not yet endorsed a candidate in the race, and he has offered kind words for both Obama and Republican rival Sen. John McCain, although the two Republicans differ greatly on the war.

Not only is it standard practice for CODELs to be bipartisan, it's actually required. So it's normal that at least one Republican would join Obama on the trip.

Hagel's a great choice. Like McCain, Hagel served in Vietnam. But as a decorated Sergeant in the Army infantry, he likely came away with a much different perspective on the war than John McCain.

Back in November of 2007, Hagel penned an op-ed in the Washington Post, laying out the tragic reality of our decision to invade Iraq:

The time for more U.S. troops in Iraq has passed. We do not have more troops to send and, even if we did, they would not bring a resolution to Iraq. Militaries are built to fight and win wars, not bind together failing nations. We are once again learning a very hard lesson in foreign affairs: America cannot impose a democracy on any nation -- regardless of our noble purpose.

We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam. Honorable intentions are not policies and plans. Iraq belongs to the 25 million Iraqis who live there. They will decide their fate and form of government.
...
It is not too late. The United States can still extricate itself honorably from an impending disaster in Iraq. The Baker-Hamilton commission gives the president a new opportunity to form a bipartisan consensus to get out of Iraq. If the president fails to build a bipartisan foundation for an exit strategy, America will pay a high price for this blunder -- one that we will have difficulty recovering from in the years ahead.

To squander this moment would be to squander future possibilities for the Middle East and the world. That is what is at stake over the next few months.

Obama and Hagel's trip to Iraq will present a tremendous opportunity not just for Obama's campaign specifically, but for the larger narrative about the reality in Iraq. As McCain stumps with Lieberman to perpetuate the original Iraq lie, two different Senators with a much firmer grasp on reality will see the conditions first-hand, and return to the States to a hungry audience. What they say and how they say it could bring us closer to finally ending this war.

Hagel is retiring after his current term expires - there are few Republicans like him left.

There are varying reports that Barack Obama's June wasn't a huge fundraising success. The campaign denies reports that their haul last month was only $30 million.

Nonetheless, there's a couple explanations floating around that feel slightly off-target to me.

Josh Marshall:

...small dollar giving seems highly dependent on the intensity of the moment and the spikes of the campaign cycle. During the heat of the Obama-Clinton battle, giving money was one of the most direct ways supporters around the country could participate in the fight -- except when the campaign trundled into their states. And that applies to both campaigns since, by any standard other than up against Obama, Clinton's 2008 monthly numbers were astounding too.

Yglesias:

The combination of Obama mostly focusing on showing his more centrist side while also maintaining a stable lead in the polls seems to me to discourage activists from giving to the campaign. People are thinking to themselves, why not save that money and by a G3 iPhone or give it to progressive Senate candidate?

(Let's assume Matt's kidding about the iPhone.)

The larger implication from both arguments is that if Obama's fundraising numbers are low, the reason is likely a political motivation on behalf of supporters: either lower enthusiasm or a feeling that any one small-dollar donation isn't needed. Both explanations sound at least partially valid.

But given yesterday's "nation of whiners" kerfuffle, aren't we missing a larger context? The economy is in terrible shape. And for the same reason that our country's economic problems aren't purely psychological, shouldn't we assume that political giving from middle and lower-income people might drop off their list of priorities?

Via Americablog:

John McCain is having a tele-townhall for VA residents at 7:00 PM . That means people can call into a toll-free number and ask him questions. It's very 80s. Keep in mind, we're told over and over and over how "Town Halls" are McCain's best venue so clearly he can handle any question. (Although, he may get a little testy.)

Now, the McCain camp did just kick out a librarian from one of his town hall meetings, so if you don't want them to know who you are, block caller ID by dialing *67.

The call-in info:

1-877-850-4146, Passcode 84831

There are so many questions to ask McCain, here are a couple of suggestions:

1. Iraqi leaders are now "openly demanding a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops" from their country. Why don't you agree with them?

2. Our Senator Jim Webb recently passed improvements to the GI Bill. You did not support him -- and didn't bother to vote. How can you say you support the troops when you fail to help them get an education?

3. One of you top economic advisors Phil Gramm said yesterday the economic problems we are having are "mental recession" and that we've become a "nation of whiners." Considering you in the past have said are economic problems are all psycological, do you agree with Senator Gramm? Do you think its appropriate to have someone who call our nation a "country of whiners" advising your campaign.

What else should we ask McCain?

Update [2008-7-10 19:34:3 by Todd Beeton]:Just jumped on the call and heard the tail end of McCain's opening remarks:

"America is sick and tired of the gridlock we have in congress...I know how to make Washington work, I know how to work across the aisle and get things done." blah blah blah.

Umm, Senator, you are in the very congress you claim is gridlocked, are you not? If you're so damn good at making Washington work, why the hell are people frustrated by the lack of progress from the congress of which you yourself are a member?

Update [2008-7-10 19:53:54 by Todd Beeton]:He mentioned congress's unpopularity again, citing their recent 9% approval rating. Dude, you're in the congress.

At DailyKos (UPDATE: and here at MyDD), recommended-list diarist HatchInBrooklyn tries to defend Obama's FISA stance:

We all know that in this day and age a serious Presidential candidate absolutely cannot vote "no" on a bill even loosely related to preventing terrorist attacks. If Obama were to oppose the bill as a whole, he would be handing McCain--who didn't even bother to show up and vote today--a huge opening to scare voters and paint Obama as weak on terrorism.

No. No no no no no. No.

Democrats must always stand against Republicans on national security - because Republicans have proven miserable failures on national security, and yet still try to politically intimidate Democrats by painting them as weaklings yearning to surrender. It's precisely why Barack Obama deserves credit for opposing the war in Iraq. It's why Feingold deserves credit for casting the sole vote against the PATRIOT Act in the Senate. And, because the American people don't like to be fooled twice, it's why most of our fellow citizens no longer fear a terrorist attack and favor ending the war in Iraq.

There is more than one possible justification for voting the way Obama did on FISA, but this is quite possibly the worst.

At a Monday townhall, expert economist John McCain on the most successful government program in the history of our country (via Steve Bennen):

"Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace, and it's got to be fixed."

This could ruin him. As most everyone who earns a paycheck knows, young workers pay into the program, and retirees collect the benefit. McCain is saying that Social Security is a disgrace because it works the way it's supposed to.

And as Steve points out:

Keep in mind, however, that McCain made his "total disgrace" comment in a town-hall meeting, with a phalanx of reporters in tow, and not one of them reported on his comments in any way. Literally, zero.

McCain, like Obama, travels everywhere with reporters. All the time. But yet I haven't heard a single cable news anchor mention this story - that McCain called Social Security an "absolute disgrace," have you?

Update [2008-7-9 11:31:32 by Josh Orton]: Here's the video:

The AP breaks some huge news:

From George Washington's foxhound "Drunkard" to George W. Bush's terriers "Barney" and "Miss Beazley," pets are a longtime presidential tradition for which the presumed Republican nominee seems well prepared, with more than a dozen.

The apparent Democratic nominee Barack Obama, on the other hand, doesn't have a pet at home.

The pet-owning public seems to have noticed the difference.

An AP-Yahoo! News poll found that pet owners favor McCain over Obama 42 percent to 37 percent, with dog owners particularly in McCain's corner.

"I think a person who owns a pet is a more compassionate person -- caring, giving, trustworthy. I like pet owners," said Janet Taylor of Plymouth, Mass.

Bleeding Heartland goes to the trouble of actually breaking down this ridiculousness.

Onlyfourmoremonthsonlyfourmoremonths...

Over at OpenLeft, Chris looks at Rasmussen poll numbers showing a decrease in perception of Obama as liberal. From Rass:

During the Primary campaign season, Obama was viewed as politically liberal by an ever-increasing number of voters that grew to 67% by early June. However, since clinching the nomination, he has reversed that trend and is now seen as liberal by only 56%.

Twenty-two percent (22%) characterize the Democrat as Very Liberal, down from 36% early last month.

Says Chris:

So, now that Obama is perceived as moving to the center, while McCain is still perceived as conservative, Obama's poll numbers should improve, right? Wrong. According to the daily tracking poll from the same polling firm, Rasmussen, the campaign has not changed at all as a result of Obama being perceived as less liberal:

    * Obama has been at 49% every single day since June 22nd
    * Obama has been at 48%, 49% or 50% every single day since June 8th
    * Obama has led by between 4-6% every day since June 23rd   and in all but three days since June 11th. In the other three days, he twice led by 3%, and once led by 7%.
...
This is very strong proof, even scientific, that Obama's move to the center has not won him any votes, and that the perceived change in the ideological gap between Obama and McCain did not impact their relative vote share.

As much as I'd like to believe that Obama's recent triangulation hasn't been effective, I'm just not sure these numbers prove it. As we've looked at before, the strategy for Obama is a multi-state/multi-path tour to the nomination. Exactly which blocs of voters are we talking about? In which states?

I could just as easily argue (I won't) that since he's clinched the nomination, Obama's "tack to the center" has preserved his "bump" in the very same Rasmussen tracking poll, even when many expected it to be temporary.

Or I could just question the overall conventional wisdom about Obama "moving to the center" by pointing to his trip to Georgia today where he proposed revamping the terrible bankruptcy bill from 2005.

Point being, I guarantee that the Obama campaign doesn't gauge the success or failure of messaging by the rise and fall of top-line national tracking polls - this is a state-by-state, constituency-by-constituency race. And beyond that, I'm not sure the "left vs. Obama" storyline was one the campaign intentionally engineered to be national - the MyBo FISA group fed a lot of that narrative, for example.

As Poblano says:

(iii) Finally, as I argued last week, I don't think this is necessarily a strategy designed to maximize one's number of electoral votes, but rather one's chances of winning the majority of them. This is a risk-averse maneuver, designed to blockade McCain from certain tactical options that he might have wished to take later on.