http://www.thejnotes.com/blog1/american-hunters-and-shooters-association-endorses-obama/ 

Barack Obama received the endorsement of the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA).
 
The President of the Association released this statement:

As a gun rights organization we have not come to this decision lightly. We were formed two years ago because our research shows that millions of gun owners wanted a change. They not only wanted an organization that would protect their gun rights but an organization that was also committed to the protection of their communities as well as the protection of our lands.We reached out to the Obama campaign several weeks ago to offer our support and approval as was reported by Paul Bedard of US News and World Report.
 
We believe recent attacks on Senator Obama's stand on the 2nd Amendment and his commitment to our hunting and shooting heritage are unfair and American Hunters and Shooters Association is stepping up to set the record straight.
Senator Obama has clearly demonstrated his commitment to the 2nd Amendment by his vote in support of the Vitter amendment to HR 5441, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill of 2007. This amendment prevents the Government from confiscating guns in a time of crisis or emergency.

Imagine how the citizens felt during Hurricane Katrina when government agents kicked in doors to confiscate law abiding citizens' guns at a time when they needed them the most.  We know Senator Obama "gets it."  To say that he is an elitist is patently ridiculous.
 
To hunters and shooters everywhere, Senator Obama's vote demonstrated a fundamental understanding of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment which means he recognizes the individual right of all citizens to keep and bear arms. Senator Clinton, on the hand, failed to grasp the importance of this critical issue to hunters and shooters and voted against this Amendment. She turned her back on America's gun owners.
 
In addition, Senator Obama's commitment to conservation and protection of our natural resources and access to public lands demonstrates to us his commitment to America's hunting and shooting heritage.
Senator Obama will be a strong and authentic voice for America's hunters and shooters and it is with great pleasure that we endorse his candidacy.

Senator Obama's statement on guns given during the Democratic Primary:

We need sensible gun laws. I just got back from Montana where just about everyone has guns. In that culture, fathers and sons bond over hunting. You can't take that away from rural America. But the inner city is different, and we should tighten the laws on gun purchases and close the loopholes in gun show sales to unscrupulous buyers. The gun control people and the right to bear arms people are talking past each other about disconnected topics.

Rob  [bob-pol]

It is known that the new energies are basic for high profit can be made, similar like oil, but all at home and without these bad effects for nature oil had at last.
Now why gold rush? Think about: everybody is living in a place with enough sunshine and / or wind can use it. Sun and wind is something is for all like we all live on this earth. If you can get or have some money and can get to your house a small power plants for sun energy or / and energy from wind and if government changes the law in a way you can be sure you can put the energy into power grid you don't need yourself so you have basic for your own little investment, then you can make money all your live and your kids can it still do. You are in a similar position like Bush family now with their oil, maybe your level is smaller but you are doing a better job for our earth in addition.

So we need a plan for all to make money and to get new voter want use this «New gold rush» for their own future and future of their own family – let's begin, the change had begun already this campaign was starting! The campaign has already a plan – now check if this is well enough for everbody!

The next blogs should come here about more details and so I am happy about each comment.
(To see image bigger click on it.)

Please, fell free in addition to look into the blog into my goggle account, I have still to do some job and is to continue too, because I want make it more public and so it is always better to get traffic for raiting but I cannot make a link to follow. http://changeforbetterworld.blogspot.com/2008/07/new-gold-rush.html

Maybe you can give some tips what could be well or better in addition to get publicity, in addition to this goggle blog too. I think we have all the same goal bring something can used from media against the machine of Republics is made since years.

Sincerely,
Dr. Steffen Seidel
(EU - German mother tongue)

BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN TO SECURE AMERICA AND RESTORE OUR STANDING

“When I am this party's nominee, my opponent will not be able to say that I voted for the war in Iraq; or that I gave George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran; or that I supported Bush-Cheney policies of not talking to leaders that we don't like. And he will not be able to say that I wavered on something as fundamental as whether or not it is ok for America to torture — because it is never ok… I will end the war in Iraq… I will close Guantanamo. I will restore habeas corpus. I will finish the fight against Al Qaeda. And I will lead the world to combat the common threats of the 21st century: nuclear weapons and terrorism; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. And I will send once more a message to those yearning faces beyond our shores that says, "You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now.”

— Barack Obama, Des Moines, Iowa, November 10, 2007

At a Glance * Ending the War in Iraq * Iran * Renewing American Diplomacy * Nuclear Weapons * Bipartisanship and Openness * On Israel * On Africa

* Learn More About Barack's Plan 

*The Problem: Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust. But Obama believes that we have not exhausted our non-military options in confronting this threat; in many ways, we have yet to try them. That's why Obama stood up to the Bush administration's warnings of war, just like he stood up to the war in Iraq.

* Opposed Bush-Cheney Saber Rattling: Obama opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which says we should use our military presence in Iraq to counter the threat from Iran. Obama believes that it was reckless for Congress to give George Bush any justification to extend the Iraq War or to attack Iran. Obama also introduced a resolution in the Senate declaring that no act of Congress – including Kyl-Lieberman – gives the Bush administration authorization to attack Iran.

* Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress. Renewing American Diplomacy

* The Problem: The United States is trapped by the Bush-Cheney approach to diplomacy that refuses to talk to leaders we don't like. Not talking doesn't make us look tough – it makes us look arrogant, it denies us opportunities to make progress, and it makes it harder for America to rally international support for our leadership. On challenges ranging from terrorism to disease, nuclear weapons to climate change, we cannot make progress unless we can draw on strong international support.

* Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs.

* Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Obama will make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a key diplomatic priority. He will make a sustained push – working with Israelis and Palestinians – to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security.

* Expand our Diplomatic Presence: To make diplomacy a priority, Obama will stop shuttering consulates and start opening them in the tough and hopeless corners of the world – particularly in Africa. He will expand our foreign service, and develop the capacity of our civilian aid workers to work alongside the military.

* Fight Global Poverty: Obama will embrace the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015, and he will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal. He will help the world's weakest states to build healthy and educated communities, reduce poverty, develop markets, and generate wealth.

* Strengthen NATO: Obama will rally NATO members to contribute troops to collective security operations, urging them to invest more in reconstruction and stabilization operations, streamlining the decision-making processes, and giving NATO commanders in the field more flexibility.

* Seek New Partnerships in Asia: Obama will forge a more effective framework in Asia that goes beyond bilateral agreements, occasional summits, and ad hoc arrangements, such as the six-party talks on North Korea. He will maintain strong ties with allies like Japan, South Korea and Australia; work to build an infrastructure with countries in East Asia that can promote stability and prosperity; and work to ensure that China plays by international rules. Nuclear Weapons

* A Record of Results: The gravest danger to the American people is the threat of a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon and the spread of nuclear weapons to dangerous regimes. Obama has taken bipartisan action to secure nuclear weapons and materials: 1. He joined Senator Dick Lugar in passing a law to help the United States and our allies detect and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world. 2. He joined Senator Chuck Hagel to introduce a bill that seeks to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, and stop the spread of nuclear weapons. 3. And while other candidates have insisted that we should threaten to drop nuclear bombs on terrorist training camps, Obama believes that we must talk openly about nuclear weapons – because the best way to keep America safe is not to threaten terrorists with nuclear weapons, it's to keep nuclear weapons away from terrorists.

* Secure Loose Nuclear Materials from Terrorists: Obama will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years. While we work to secure existing stockpiles of nuclear material, Obama will negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material. This will deny terrorists the ability to steal or buy loose nuclear materials.

* Strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: Obama will crack down on nuclear proliferation by strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions.

* Toward a Nuclear Free World: Obama will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But he will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. He will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate- range missiles so that the agreement is global. Bipartisanship and Openness

* The Problem: Under the Bush administration, foreign policy has been used as a political wedge issue to divide us – not as a cause to bring America together. And it is no coincidence that one of the most secretive administrations in history has pursued policies that have been disastrous for the American people. Obama strongly believes that our foreign policy is stronger when Americans are united, and the government is open and candid with the American people.

* A Record of Bringing People Together: In the Senate, Obama has worked with Republicans and Democrats to advance important policy initiatives on securing weapons of mass destruction and conventional weapons, increasing funding for nonproliferation, and countering instability in Congo.

* Consultative Group: Obama will convene a bipartisan Consultative Group of leading members of Congress to foster better executive-legislative relations and bipartisan unity on foreign policy. This group will be comprised of the congressional leadership of both political parties, and the chair and ranking members of the Armed Services, Foreign Relations, Intelligence, and Appropriations Committees. This group will meet with the president once a month to review foreign policy priorities, and will be consulted in advance of military action.

* Getting Politics out of Intelligence: Obama would insulate the Director of National Intelligence from political pressure by giving the DNI a fixed term, like the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Obama will seek consistency and integrity at the top of our intelligence community – not just a political ally.

* Change the Culture of Secrecy: Obama will reverse President Bush's policy of secrecy. He will institute a National Declassification Center to make declassification secure but routine, efficient, and cost-effective.

* Engaging the American People on Foreign Policy: Obama will bring foreign policy decisions directly to the people by requiring his national security officials to have periodic national broadband town hall meetings to discuss foreign policy. He will personally deliver occasional fireside chats via webcast. On Israel

* Ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership: Barack Obama strongly supports the U.S.-Israel relationship, believes that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the Middle East. Obama supports this closeness, stating that that the United States would never distance itself from Israel.

* Support Israel's Right to Self Defense: During the July 2006 Lebanon war, Barack Obama stood up strongly for Israel's right to defend itself from Hezbollah raids and rocket attacks, cosponsoring a Senate resolution against Iran and Syria's involvement in the war, and insisting that Israel should not be pressured into a ceasefire that did not deal with the threat of Hezbollah missiles. He believes strongly in Israel's right to protect its citizens.

* Support Foreign Assistance to Israel: Barack Obama has consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel. He defends and supports the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic assistance to Israel and has advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. He has called for continuing U.S. cooperation with Israel in the development of missile defense systems. 

* Stop the Genocide in Darfur: Barack Obama has been a leading voice urging the Bush Administration to take stronger steps to end the genocide in Sudan. He worked with Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) to pass the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act. Obama has traveled to the United Nations to meet with Sudanese officials and visited refugee camps on the Chad-Sudan border to raise international awareness of the ongoing humanitarian disaster there. He also worked with Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) to secure $20 million for the African Union peacekeeping mission. Obama believes the United States needs to lead the world in ending this genocide, including by imposing much tougher sanctions that target Sudan oil revenue, implementing and helping to enforce a no-fly zone, and engaging in more intense, effective diplomacy to develop a political roadmap to peace. The international community must, over the Sudanese regime protests, deploy a large, capable UN-led and UN-funded force with a robust enforcement mandate to stop the killings.

* End the Conflict in Congo: An estimated 3.9 million people have died from war-related causes since the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo began. Barack Obama wrote and passed legislation to promote stability in the Congo. Obama revamped U.S. policy in the Congo to include a commitment to help rebuild the country, develop lasting political structures, hold accountable destabilizing foreign governments, crack down on corrupt politicians, and professionalize the military. The bill also authorizes $52 million in U.S. assistance for the Congo.

* Bring a Brutal Warlord to Justice: Former Liberian President Charles Taylor has been accused of committing war crimes by international prosecutors. After taking the presidency following a brutal civil war that decimated Liberia's population, Taylor created a rebel group that fought in neighboring Sierra Leone's civil war. These rebels committed a range of atrocities including rape, murder and the use of child soldiers. On July 19, 2005, Obama passed a bipartisan amendment, along with Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Judd Gregg (R-NH) to provide $13 million for the Special Court for Sierra Leone. Signed into law in November 2005, the Obama amendment provides critical funding to keep the Court up and running and dramatically enhances efforts to bring Charles Taylor to justice. Taylor was arrested in 2006. His trial began in June 2007 and was postponed until January 2008.

Dear <name>:

In your email or posting, <forward email or link to web posting>, you incorrectly stated that <erroneous/biased statement - the exact quote>. These misstatements frustrate and even anger those of us who, like me, value accurate, factual and unbiased campaigning.

Perhaps we can help. Here are links to references specifying the facts we hope you use to correct your statements. Again, should you decide to ignore our strongly-felt but reasonable request, we'd be obligated to discontinue this conversation and immediately inform our friends and associates, as well as the web community at large, about your divisive tactics.

<links>

Best regards,

<name>

<city, state>

THERE IS A REASON WHY THIS BUFFOON WAS NOT RE-ELECTED!  I SUBSCRIBE TO HUMAN EVENTS JUST TO SEE WHAT ANN COULTER AND THE GANG ARE UP TO.  I USUALLY DELETE THEIR E-MAILS BEFORE READING THEM BECAUSE IT'S USUALLY THE SAME OL' SAME OL'.  BUT THIS ONE REALLY CAUGHT MY EYE...

DOES THIS GUY EVEN MATTER ANYMORE?

We're all too familiar with Republican efforts to win votes by flaming ignorance into hysteria.  A great recent example is Mike Meehan's 14' x 48' electronic billboard that attempts to pin the destruction of the Twin Towers on Democrats with the help of a moronic "Republican song." Of course, his illogic flies in the face of literally thousands of facts (NORAD failed under Cheney's direct command, Giuliani knew the firemen's cell phones weren't going to work — hey, don't get me started.)

We could do a contrasting "Hope, not Chaos: Obama 08" electronic billboard that contains actual reasons to "please don't vote Republican."  The display could rotate through hundreds of reasons at a rate of about one per minute from now until the National election without ever failing to be new!

Here's a sample billboard display and a template for making more.  Suggestions and critiques regarding both the template and the sample billboard are welcome.

The details behind the display are as follows:  Both American oil production and known oil reserves peaked in 1970 and are now rapidly declining [Wikepedia].  Over this same period, there have been sharp rises in both oil prices (to around $134/bbl [WTRG]) and American oil imports (now in excess of 12.4 million bbl/day [EIA]), to the point where we're now importing around 60% of the oil we use.  As as result, our national oil budget is hemorrhaging at a rate in excess of $4.5 trillion a year — do the math!

Exercise (warning: contains math).  Suppose the billboard repeatedly cycles through N reasons, displaying each for one minute.  If N is relatively prime to the number of minutes in a day, then a person who glanced at the billboard once each day at exactly the same time (e.g., 7:43 am on the way to work) would see a different reason every day for N days in a row.

Dear Members and Friends,

You're the best! Thanks so much to everyone who's signed our petition to invite Barack Obama and his family to adopt a dog.

When the Obamas said they'd promised their kids they'd get a family dog after the election, the American Kennel Club started a campaign to encourage the family to get a "pure" breed from a pet store or commercial breeder.

How much better it would be if they were to adopt one from a shelter or rescue group.

In just over a day, 27,000 of you signed our petition at www.obamafamilydog. com, asking them to do just that.

It's a great start, but we still need lots more signatures. So please forward this e-mail to friends and family and ask them to sign it, too. (And if you haven't signed it yourself, please go ahead and do it now.)

This is not about politics, by the way, it's about saving homeless pets. So let's get all of America talking about why adopting a pet is a winning choice.

One other thing: You can also send a Letter to the Editor to your hometown newspaper. I've put an example of one at the end of this e-mail. Use it, or adapt it, or write your own.

Best Friends members have made a big difference already. Wouldn't it be great to see homeless pets find their way onto the agenda of this year's election news!

Thanks again, and good wishes from all of us,

Michael Mountain
Best Friends

P.S. Here's the draft of a letter you could send to your local newspaper or post on a blog:

Dear Editor,

Senator Obama and his family have said that, win or lose, they're going to add a dog to their family after the election this November.

That's a great idea. But I hope they decide to adopt one from their local shelter. Why? Because as long as people still buy their pets from pet stores and commercial breeders, millions of abandoned pets are killed in shelters across the country every year.

So here's one issue that's truly bi-partisan - one that we can all agree on. Let's ask our national leaders always to adopt their pets from shelters, rather than buying them from pet stores.

Members of Best Friends Animal Society have started a petition to invite the Obama family to do just that. Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, left-wing, right-wing or any other wing, you can make a bipartisan difference by signing our petition at ObamaFamilyDog. com, and encouraging all your friends and family to sign it, too.

Thanks for thinking about the nation's homeless pets!

Sincerely,

Your Name
Your Address
Your E-mail

Anger; Civility; Purpose - written by Herschel Sessions

Obama supporters are passionate people period. Yesterday the reaction against The New Yorker cover was over whelming. Every group’s email list was clogged. We responded with determination, force and passion. From the stand point of a campaign it could have been classified as a wasted day. Informational posts, phone calls, and positive person to person communication were most likely down. We took the day off to vent.

This morning Peggy Noonan was on Morning Joe. She, Nina, Joe, and Mike Barney were talking about the emails from some internet supporters of Senator Obama.  ALL agreed some emails were “over the line.”  Some emails wanted Peggy to reside in the ninth circle of Dante’s hell for making a suggestion that Senator of Obama had changed a position. Mike pointed out the internet give anonymity. Just the name Enforcer99 gives power to the writer. One can go to the dark side and writer anything from a position of power. In college I had a favorite English professor that used this line; “They have constipation of the mind and diarrhea of the mouth.” When some on Morning Joe speak, they might foul my world, but the ninth circle too much; Purgatory maybe but the ninth circle?

I am noticing a too often high level of anger in some group communication. This goes back a few days. The disagreements over FISA resulted in Headquarter warnings about the use of certain language. People were being called body parts; idiots; animals.  Just pick an idea most likely it was used. Too often lately, I am reading someone attacking ANOTHER OBAMA supporter in most unflattering terms. The next exchange often has someone dropping out of a group. We need to RESPECT and be CIVIL to others be they of different races, religions, sexual orientation, or OPINIONS. This is an inclusive campaign. ALL ARE NEEDED.

Another Senator from Illinois, Republican Everett Dirksen, often talked of Politics as the Art of the Possible. I may want an outright ban on plastic water bottles; but when someone suggests a system of deposits, I don’t have the moral authority to condemn them to hell: neither do I have the personal right call them an idiot. WE ARE ALL WORKING TOGETHER TO FIND SOLUTIONS.

The points of this ramble:

We are going to have different ideas to about what are solutions to problems.
We can moderate emotions. We don’t always need to go over the top.
We need to be civil to each other; BOTH Obama Supporters and NON Obama Supporters.
We need to focus our efforts on the positive points of getting Senator Obama ELECTED.

Make Phone Calls
Raise Money
Write an Obama Friend
Register a Voter
Hold an Event
Donate: Oh! I just happen to have a link to Herschel’s Help:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/HerschelCallCampaign


YES YOU CAN!!!

YES WE CAN!!!

    Check out the website - this guy definitely has the right idea and political party aside

    we should support him to help decrease our dependency on foriegn and domestic oil

    for Political purposes as well as environmental.....at least read about it and watch his

    next TV appearance

     http://push.pickensplan.com/

Based on the Media Matters guidelines for communicating with journalists, I've written a template that might be helpful - especially when the writer is really incensed about a media misstatement.

Everyone's comments are actively encouraged!

Stuart Mason Dambrot

Only Obama!

--------------------------

Dear <name>:

On your <data and time> broadcast, you incorrectly stated / allowed <guest> to state that <erroneous/biased statement - the exact quote>. These misstatements frustrate and even anger those of your viewers who, like me, value accurate, factual and unbiased reporting - often to the point of deciding to no longer watch your program, as well as to tell our friends, your program's producer, and your station's advertisers how we feel and what we're doing about it.

Perhaps we can help. Here are links to references specifying the facts we hope you use to correct your statements. Again, should you decide to ignore our strongly-felt but reasonable request, we'd be obligated to contact your network and producer about that as well.

<links>

Best regards,

<name>

<city, state>

-------------------- 

      Tell your Representative to oppose the Ackerman Iran resolution:   

http://act.truemajority.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=yGbZlHenxoEplWiVguA%2BB69OT0omqdOr

   What would a blockade of Iran look like? The Bush administration sending American warships and military equipment into the most combustible region in the world. Their mission? Board and inspect cargo entering and leaving Iran by any means necessary.1 This would be a clear provocation and the first step on the path to all out war. Unfortunately, that's exactly what Democrats who want to look tough on national security are demanding. Right now there is a resolution working its way through the House of Representatives which would require a naval blockade of Iran and bring us closer to war.1 This resolution already has 247 co-sponsors and it must be stopped.

The New York Times reviewed the canidates ethanol policy.  See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/politics/23ethanol.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

McCain is right on dropping the Brazil tax on ethanol and dropping subsidized corn ethanol. The real problem is that when McCain thinks he is right, it becomes a crusade, and farmers and ADM be dammed. If McCain gets his ways and things are done all at once, destruction will be every where. A wiser policy is to let change happen over time with with Obama's carbon rights auctions. Sugar cane ethanol will have far more carbon offsets to sell, while corn ethanol will at best, get a little. That will give Obama time to have a gradual predictable phase out of the Brazil tax and corn ethanol subsidies, so our farmers and corporations can more easily shift to sugar cane ethanol. I know an engineer that saw sugar cane growing in Ohio when he was a kid and our planet was colder. So, even Ohio could play in the sugar cane ethanol game, until we have something better. Very Respectfully, Michael @ http://RecoveryByDiscovery.com

Just listened to video and read the text of Obama's speech...

This is s-o-o-o awesome!

Clear, practical vision of foreign policy.

One thing that impressed me is the definition of success, something that became noticeably apparent thatit was missing in the original strategic plan of war. Success that involves comprehensive plan for Iraq and its relationship to World Community. Success that is achievable.  

For everyone who may have doubts concerning Obama's strength in foreign policy matters...For everyone who may have doubts concerning Obama's ability to deal with domestic policy matters... There is no more doubt now! This speech outlines clearly the direction United States must take at this pivotal time in history. The speech clearly describes the relationship between domestic and foreign policies; offering practical solutions.

Now, there's no doubt that Obama has the understanding, vision, principles, and yes, the judgement to lead United States of America in the World Community.

************

My mother is an independent voter (and proud of it too) and a McCain supporter who has expressed lingering doubts about Obama's ability to conduct foreign policy effectively. (She is an informed voter and has been very hard to convince thus far, however this speech may actually convince her...I'm printing it out now for her ...(hey, she has no internet at home)... and I'll keep you posted!  :) 

Thank you Obama for being consistent and setting the record straight on Iraq.  Your recent comments on Larry King are much appreciated, and show you have a clearer understanding of the true costs than McCain.  This is a big relief after two months of mistaken policies and being on the defensive.

While acknowledging you must consult with military commanders, you've said "the buck stops with me".  That's exactly what a Commander-In-Chief needs to understand - that it's the President and not the military that decides our policy in Iraq.  The military is always entitled to advise otherwise or suggest changes, but the decision is the President's.  He's the one who sets the mission and make the goals clear.  This is something which the Bush administration has done very poorly - even among some of his strongest supporters on Iraq.  Even Bush himself has recognized these failings and has since stopped challenging the notion that Iraq was badly managed.

In the interview you hit the nail in the head - Bush and McCain both failed to ask "Was it wise to go in there?" in the first place.  They failed to look at the bigger picture, at the cost in lives and the economy, and ironically our commitment against terrorism, Al Qaeda, and 911.  Iraq has undermined our international policy, made us less effective against terrorism and its proponents in Afghanistan, and set us back in every meaningful regard.  Bush and McCain's only legitimate defense is that they're not blundering hard as they were at first - that we've thrown enough years, money, and bodies at the problem that we maybe might be halfway done.  I won't dispute that.

By calling for a superior course of action in Iraq, you've forced McCain to play "me too" and moderate his positions towards you.  This is making it look like he never understood Iraq and has merely been saying anything to win.  As he tries to explain his flip flops, he'll only be exposed as a fool without excuses.  You may remember, this is same pitfall many feel you fell in when you capitulated on FISA.  It was also evident in your previous knee jerk obedience to McCain's demands in the form of attacking Clark and visiting Iraq on his timeline.  I hope your continued stance on Iraq is a sign that you're taking the offensive now, and will challenge McCain on his mistaken policies.  McCain's aimless wandering should dispel notions that McCain actually understands what he's been saying, or has some secret plan for victory.

You can see many examples of McCain's slide on Iraq.  McCain's "100 year" talk has already transformed into "come home with victory", which is so vague it's arguably be no different than your own policy or Bush's!  After all, victory could certainly be defined as 16 months after you enter Presidency.  Or it could be the carrot on a fishing pole "just around the corner" that Bush has promised since day one of Iraq.  This vague Iraq policy gaurantees McCain can claim to be right either way, without actually having said anything at all.  "Eventual victory" is not a plan, it is not a mission, and it's exactly the same failed policy Bush has pursued on Iraq.

Do remember that nobody's free from bias, Republican or Democrat alike.  This is why to an unconditional Republican, any Democratic withdrawl = defeat but any Republican withdrawl = victory.  So rather than battle over labels of what to call "cleaning up Bush's mess", focus on what we agree on.  That's your best appeal.  First, we agree that Iraq was badly managed with no clear plan or mission, and that it took years to do what should have been done from day one.  And that the decision itself to invade was questionable at best and counterproductive at worst .  That Bush and McCain never asked the most important questions before jumping to their decisions.  "Is war the best solution?"  "Is war in America's longterm interests?"  "Will war strengthen or harm our ability to fight terror?" "Is war in Iraq more important than all other domestic and international policies including real terrorism, military and diplomatic readiness, and the economy?"

This is why your recent interview was a relief to me - you covered enough of these points to show deeper understanding than before.  All I ask is that you follow through with your commitment, and do not capitulate to misguided bandwagons no matter how tempting.  The only thing slowing withdrawl should be legitimate facts, not wishful paranoia.  That's been my biggest concern on Iraq, and your biggest strength as a candidate right now.  Frankly, I strongly disagree with you on most other issues and this is your saving grace to a degree.

Lastly, your current policies on Iraq make good strategy and put McCain on the untenable defensive.  In the same way that McCain's forced you to slide on your commitments to FISA and Constitutional issues, you're now forcing McCain to slide on his explanation of his Iraq policy.  His plan is still basically the same as Bush's - stay in Iraq indefinitely and wait it out.  This has the underlying tone of "We'll stay in Iraq all 4 or 8 years of my President, and I'll leave the solutions to the next guy".  Which is exactly what Bush has done!

You're here to make sure you are the "next guy" who will solve Iraq, and not pass it on for 4 more years.  Although it's not clear, both sides have been arguing that actions must be dictated by reality.  Bush and McCain claim reality is why they're taking a "wait and see" approach.  Whereas the real solution is to realize that reality dictated we never invaded in the first place, and that we withdrew expeditiously assuming an invasion was a given.

On Larry King you said, "Perpetuating the strategy we have in Iraq is costing us elsewhere, not only in Afghanistan but also investments that we could be making here at home."  This is definitely the case, and I want to add that Iraq has cost us internationally both in military and diplomatic terms but also ironically in the fight against Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Bin Ladin.  Iraq has been and continues to be counterproductive - selling the cow to buy milk.

Give us victory on International and Domestic policies - not this wait and see "eventual victory" that McCain promises.

Thank you Obama for getting this right.

After more than a year of Obama calling for this to happen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpW3ylxXA7Q

If you haven't heard Obama will be on Larry King Live.  I'm sure he'll be asked by larry about The cover of the New Yorker.

I think those who try to brush this off as mere satire are either fools or to arrogant to realize this cover crossed the line from satire into smear tactics. 

What if Obama's Kids saw it?  How would you feel if that was your parents?

Also Michelle Obama has no business being treated as harshly as she is since she is merely the presumptive nominee's wife not a politician.

Where's the satirical cartoon of Cindy Rodeo Queen stealing drugs from sick kids in Africa from her own charity as her husband calls her a overly madeup trollip and a c**t and they board Cindy's private jet which is a loophole Mccain created for himself in the McCain-Finegold so-called campaign finance reform bill?  Now I think that would be funny or at least it would be the truth  and that's what satire is about making fun of the truth.  But nothing in this cartoon is true or funny.

The so-called intellectuals ought to think twice about dismissing this cover so easily.  I'd like to know who is really behind it and where is the Jr. Senator from New York's comment about said cover?

Attention all Obama Supporters! Please read the following email recently rec'd...

"I am sending you this comment on the controversial New Yorker Cover from my son, a young man, and a New Yorker who is politically concerned with the present state of our country .  I could not said it more eloquently and would like to share his comments with you."  

His Comments: 

"This is being taken over by the larger media.. which the NYer should have known... but as a New Yorker reader (had a subscription for last 4 years), I know where the magazine is coming from... which is not really stance of the popular media.  The cover IS captioned (all the 'journaists' reporting on the cover seem to leave this out: 'THE POLITICS OF FEAR.'  Like every issue you turn the page and it has the caption.  Enough said.  People are accusing the New Yorker of trying to sell magazines... if you know the New Yorker you know that's not the case... the TV stations need to be real and explain that it's THEM who are trying to sell airtime.  They leave out that there is an eighteen-page article that is very good that goes into Obama's history as a politician, and the stances he's taken over time, etc.  To show the depth that everyone keeps saying is missing because he's 'ne w' to politics and to uncover some of the nuances of his intelligence relative to consensus-building and political work in Chicago's political machine that would help explain away some of this 'flip-flop' business the republicans (and far left liberals) are already starting to throw around.  But of course people don't READ anymore.
 
I'm pretty sure people who think Barack is a Muslim in West Virginia or whatever, don't read the New Yorker... and weren't going to vote for him anyway.  But CNN and FOX sure did a great job of making a big mess out of nothing.  The people on the center/left need to straighten up and not get distracted or we are going to lose this one. . .  again!
 
The day before the NYer article came out, Barack put out an editorial in the Times on his stance on Iraq - essentially the articulation of his platform as opposed to McCain's.  Instead of paying attention to the man, the TV, and as a result everyone is talking about what the 'fist bump' means, and how wrong the New Yorker is for you actually doing REAL journalism with depth and intelligence instead of what to do about Iraq.  Apparently that was yesterday's news even though people still die every day and we continue to pump billions over there while our economy and prosperity choke on broken banks, defaulted mortgages and $5 gas!"  
 
anyway, you should check out these articles from INSIDE the magazine:
 
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2008/07/21/080721sh_shouts_brenner/ (new yorker humor)
 
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all (obama article)
 
sorry.. not yelling at you all, just the situation."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He makes good points and probably has a more worldly view of the media than most people.  I agree that this airtime media hoopla is directed at the "Midwest - Southern Bigot mentality" in order to generate mindless, rhetoric and to keep people occupied with worthless news and gossip, so the real issues get lost in the mix.  Shame on them . . .  and shame on us for creating an environment so this can happen so frequently!    Let's demand it STOP!

KC