Conservatives, of course, were unlikely to praise Barack Obama’s speech before 200,000 in Berlin yesterday. But I found some of the criticism to be more misguided than usual. Here’s Ross Douthat, for example:

Yes, of course the Hitler comparisons are absurd, but I'd really like to know which genius on the Obama campaign thought it would be a good idea to have their candidate conduct a major campaign rally in Europe with three months to go till the election and their candidate, despite an incredibly favorable climate and a fumbling opponent, still clinging to a 2-4 point lead in the polls?

Overall, the overseas tour has been good to Obama, both for the obvious reasons and because making joint appearances with foreign leaders is a solid-enough way to build up his credibility as a potential Commander-in-Chief. But photo ops are one thing, Beatlemania-style rallies are quite another.... The Berlin rally probably won’t hurt Obama — voters aren’t really paying attention to anything election-related right about now, and it’ll be forgotten by the time the fall campaign begins in earnest. But it could do some minor damage, and it certainly won’t help him.

I think the photo-op point is largely backwards. When Obama shakes hands with Chancellor Merkel, U.S. voters get to see a candidate smiling alongside a world leader. It tells us that a German head of state is willing to politely greet a U.S. presidential candidate, which is to say, it doesn’t tell us much.

When Obama delivers a powerful speech about global cooperation on everything from counter-terrorism to climate change, and does so in front of 200,000 enthusiastic Germans, many of whom were waving American flags, it tells voters in the U.S. quite a bit. Specifically, that our allies are ready for the United States to lead again, and they’re captivated and inspired by one of the candidates seeking the job of leader of the free world.

Is it so hard to appreciate the notion that having an American president who enjoys respect and admiration abroad can help our standing in the world?

Recognizing the interest in Barack Obama’s speech in Germany today, the McCain campaign came up with a photo-op that would have captured at least some attention — John McCain would hop on a helicopter and give a speech from an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, off the Louisiana coast. The campaign knows how important oil prices are to voters, so McCain assumed he could fool a few of them into thinking coastal drilling would give them relief at the pump.

But just an hour after the photo-op was finalized and the media was alerted, the event was off. The campaign said the weather just wasn’t cooperating. Jonathan Martin noted, “The campaign declined to comment any further about the quick decision to spike the trip other than to cite the weather.”

Was the weather the real reason for the cancellation? Maybe, or perhaps the McCain gang didn’t want to visit the rig if the reporters on hand might notice the smell of diesel wafting through the French Quarter.

The Coast Guard closed 29 miles of the Mississippi River at New Orleans after a 600-foot tanker and a barge loaded with fuel oil collided Wednesday, breaking the barge in half.

Nobody was injured, but more than 419,000 gallons of heavy, almost tar-like fuel oil spilled from the barge, forming a slick 12 miles long, said Lt. Cdr. Cheri Ben-Iesau, a Coast Guard spokeswoman. […]

The double-hulled tanker Tintomara was loaded with about 4.2 million gallons of biodiesel and nearly 1.3 million gallons of styrene, but was not leaking, said Michael Wilson, president of ship management company Laurin Maritime (America) Inc. in Houston.

The collision occurred about 1:30 a.m. CDT just upriver from the Crescent City Connection, a pair of bridges between New Orleans’ east and west banks. A smell which many people thought was diesel was noticeable in the French Quarter and parts of New Orleans’ central business district.

Nothing says “drill safely now” like an oil spill that closes 29 miles of the Mississippi River near New Orleans.

It may only be July, and Election Day may still be 104 days away, but we’ve reached the point at which the McCain campaign is even willing to attack Barack Obama’s remembrance of the Nazi Holocaust.

Speaking today at Yad Vashem, Obama said, “Let our children come here and know this history so they can add their voices to proclaim ‘never again.’ And may we remember those who perished, not only as victims but also as individuals who hoped and loved and dreamed like us and who have become symbols of the human spirit.”

Soon after, the hopelessly tasteless McCain campaign alerted reporters to a news item from a year ago.

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.

In other words, the McCain campaign wants Americans to believe that Obama is weak on genocide. Asked for clarification, McCain aide Michael Goldfarb told the Huffington Post, “Today he says ‘never again.’ A year ago stopping genocide wasn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces in Iraq. Doesn’t that strike you as inconsistent?”

Not for those of us with cerebral cortexes.

Continue reading »

It seems hard to imagine a presidential candidate, running in the midst of two wars, openly speculate about cutting back on veterans’ healthcare. And yet, here we are.

Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain appeared Tuesday to suggest rationing of veterans’ health care may be needed so combat veterans can receive the care they deserve.

At a town hall meeting in Dover, N.H., McCain talked about the need to “concentrate” veterans’ health care on people with injuries that “are a direct result of combat.”

“Right now, there are people who drive a long way and they stand in line to stand in line to get an appointment to get an appointment,” McCain said.

McCain’s campaign press office did not return a telephone call asking for clarification of the remarks.

Well, that’s not good at all.

The Washington Monthly ran a terrific cover story a couple of years ago, heralding the success of the VA system, and the quality of the medical care veterans receive. McCain may hold some kind of ideological grudge against the VA system — it is, after all, a form of socialized medicine — but even raising the prospect of rationing veterans’ health care seems like a remarkably bad idea. It’s not good policy, and it’s certainly not good politics.

Continue reading »

When Joe Lieberman agreed to headline John Hagee’s Christians United For Israel Washington Summit, it was some months ago, before the political controversy over Hagee’s radical worldview, and before even John McCain decided Hagee is a little too nutty to be associated with. I thought it was at least possible that Lieberman, citing his loyalty to McCain, would back out of the event.

No such luck.

Mr. Lieberman was greeted by a boisterous standing ovation in a room decked out with United States and Israeli flags. “I am your brother Joseph,” he said.

Asserting that Mr. Hagee had worked hard to fight anti-Semitism, Mr. Lieberman said: “I don’t agree with everything Pastor Hagee has said, and I can safely say that the pastor doesn’t agree with everything that I’ve said. But there’s so much more than that that we agree on.”

Mr. Lieberman added, “I will tell you tonight the bond that I feel with Pastor Hagee and each and every one of you is much stronger than that and I am proud to stand with you tonight.”

I argued a while back that Lieberman either a) has no idea what Hagee believes, but stands by him anyway; or b) knows what Hagee believes, but doesn’t care. Given Lieberman’s speech last night, it’s clearly the latter.

Indeed, Lieberman acknowledged the controversy surrounding Hagee, and proceeded to compare the radical evangelical to Moses. Seriously.

Continue reading »

Matt Yglesias had a very good item this week, noting the “debacle” for the Republican approach to foreign policy.

[McCain had] spent, several weeks with the main theme of his campaign being, quite literally, to criticize Barack Obama for not having been physically present in Iraq recently. This (of course) got Obama to go to Iraq, thus setting up a dilemma. Either Obama would survey the “progress” in Iraq and change his position, thus making him a flip-flopper, or else he would refuse to change his position, thus making him obstinate and out of touch with reality.

But instead of either of those things happening, Obama went to Iraq and Iraqi leaders said he’d been right all along! That’s about as close to “game, set, match” as you get in terms of real world events influencing your political campaign. What’s more, given the domestic situation and John McCain’s inability to talk about domestic issues persuasively, he can’t afford to play for a draw on Iraq.

Quite right. David Kurtz added how surprised he is to see “just how complete the Republican collapse on foreign policy has been in the short span of just a few weeks.” Kurtz noted that it’s “hard to think of any recent historical parallels.”

I’d just add that it goes beyond just Iraq. Over the last couple of months, the entire GOP foreign policy — the strategy, the worldview, the assumptions, the tactics — has crumbled to the point of destruction. The Bush administration bucked the McCain approach and adopted the Clinton policy to reach an accord with North Korea. McCain endorsed Obama’s policy on Afghanistan. Bush established the most direct diplomatic efforts with Iran since 1979. Just today, the administration sounded very Obama-esque in reaching out to Syria, which would have been unthinkable a year ago. Hell, the Bush administration is even distributing memoranda, telling officials to stop using language such as “jihadists,” “mujahedeen,” and “Islamo-fascism.”

And what’s left? To hear McCain tell it, the surge.

Continue reading »

George W. Bush has been exceedingly stingy when it comes to presidential pardons and commutations, issuing fewer than any modern president. But as Bush’s presidency winds down, there’s some talk about the president using his powers to help conceal some of the administration’s own transgressions.

As the administration wrestles with the cascade of petitions, some lawyers and law professors are raising a related question: Will Mr. Bush grant pre-emptive pardons to officials involved in controversial counterterrorism programs?

Such a pardon would reduce the risk that a future administration might undertake a criminal investigation of operatives or policy makers involved in programs that administration lawyers have said were legal but that critics say violated laws regarding torture and surveillance.

Some legal analysts said Mr. Bush might be reluctant to issue such pardons because they could be construed as an implicit admission of guilt. But several members of the conservative legal community in Washington said in interviews that they hoped Mr. Bush would issue such pardons — whether or not anyone made a specific request for one. They said people who carried out the president’s orders should not be exposed even to the risk of an investigation and expensive legal bills.

There are two angles to consider here: whether the White House would do this and whether the White House could do this.

On the prior, the Bush gang isn’t saying much. The NYT asked the White House about whether “pre-emptive pardons” — clearing people of legal responsibility before they even face charges — are on the table. The Times reported, “Emily Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman, would not say whether the administration was considering pre-emptive pardons, nor whether it would rule them out.”

On the latter, is this even a legal option? Does the president even have the authority to pardon someone who isn’t even facing criminal charges? Apparently, he can.

Well, I’ve finally seen everything. John McCain, who enjoys more media affection than any political figure in recent memory, has taken to complaining that reporters are overly fond of Barack Obama.

Honestly, hearing the McCain campaign whine about someone getting fawning media coverage is a bit like hearing Barry Bonds accuse someone getting an unfair advantage by abusing steroids.

For crying out loud, a detailed book was recently published chronicling the astoundingly biased coverage McCain has enjoyed for years.

Continue reading »

When Americans were asked in 1993 about whether U.S. troops should be able to serve, even if they’re gay, a majority (55%) were opposed to the idea. About eight years later, in 2001, public opinion had already shifted a great deal — 62% of Americans supported gays serving openly in the Armed Forces, while 35% did not.

And now, as hearings on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" are poised to begin on the Hill, public opinion on the issue is practically one-sided -- in a progressive direction.

Seventy-five percent of Americans in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll said gay people who are open about their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military, up from 62 percent in early 2001 and 44 percent in 1993.

Majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike now believe it is acceptable for openly gay people to serve in the U.S. armed forces. Shortly after he took office in 1993, Clinton faced strong resistance to his campaign pledge to lift the military’s ban on allowing gay people to enlist. At that time, 67 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of conservatives opposed the idea. A majority of independents, 56 percent, and 45 percent of Democrats also opposed changing the policy.

Today, Americans have become more supportive of allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the armed forces. Support from Republicans has doubled over the past 15 years, from 32 to 64 percent. More than eight in 10 Democrats and more than three-quarters of independents now support the idea, as did nearly two-thirds of self-described conservatives.

That’s really quite extraordinary. Get this: even 57% of evangelical Protestants support gays serving openly in the military.

On the one hand, it’s a very encouraging development. It’s hard to know what prompted the reversal, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it had something to do with the need for well-trained, physically-fit, patriotic Americans volunteering for duty during two wars, regardless of those Americans’ sexual orientation.

And on the other hand, we have John McCain and the Republican Party establishment.

Continue reading »

John Amato: McCain was trying to filibuster Meredith Vieira throughout the segment, but she hung in there pretty good. He tried to say that since he wasn't in charge of all the Senate Armed Services committee hearings (6) he missed on Afghanistan---it didn't count because he knows better and he went there and I'm right and you're wrong. And of course he knows everything about the economy even though he said to America that the economy is not his bag, man---because he's John McCain. She brought up Phil Gramm's "American Whiner," remark and he said he's for off shore drilling...

Steve Benen: Given reality, the fact that the Maliki government wants a U.S. withdrawal timetable and has endorsed Barack Obama’s Iraq policy by name would seem to be bad news for John McCain and his presidential campaign. But the presumptive Republican nominee has a trump card to get himself out of inconvenient jams like these: “I’m John McCain.”

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

Take this morning’s appearance on NBC’s “Today” show, for example.

Got that? The prime minister of Iraq and the Iraqi people may seem to want U.S. troops out of their country, but John McCain has been to Iraq and he “knows what they want.”

Jason Zengerle noted, “So, basically, the new McCain position on withdrawal seems to be: we shouldn’t listen to what the Iraqi government says it wants, we should listen to what McCain says it wants.”

Keep in mind, of course, McCain was asked this question before — in 2004.

Continue reading »