On the other hand, progressive blogger and activist, Markos Moulitsas, of DailyKos fame, is an actual veteran who has more credibility, speaking out against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This clip demonstrates that Tancredo is still a coward. Instead of fighting back and discussing the issues, he tucks his tail between his legs and runs away. Again.

This is yet another reason why Republicans are not to be listened to on foreign policy issues. They talk a mess of shit but can’t back it up. And when they try to back it up, they make a worse mess that they can’t clean up.

And finally, Ben Sargent’s take on the Texas Legislature:

Speaking on the Senate floor on Friday before the president’s speech, Mr. McCain credited the opportunity to pull troops out to the surge of troops that President George W. Bush ordered two years ago with Mr. McCain’s support and he cautioned that Iraq remains fragile so Mr. Obama should stay flexible and listen to military commanders.

“With these factors in mind, I believe the president’s withdrawal plan is a reasonable one,” Mr. McCain said. “Given the gains in Iraq and the requirements to send additional troops to Afghanistan, together with the significant number of troops that will remain in Iraq and the president’s willingness to reassess based on conditions on the ground, I am cautiously optimistic that the plan as laid out by the president can lead to success.”

via Obama Plans to End Combat Mission in Iraq by August 2010 – NYTimes.com.

From President Obama’s speech:

But let there be no doubt: Iraq is not yet secure, and there will be difficult days ahead. Violence will continue to be a part of life in Iraq. Too many fundamental political questions about Iraq’s future remain unresolved. Too many Iraqis are still displaced or destitute. Declining oil revenues will put an added strain on a government that has had difficulty delivering basic services. Not all of Iraq’s neighbors are contributing to its security. Some are working at times to undermine it. And even as Iraq’s government is on a surer footing, it is not yet a full partner – politically and economically – in the region, or with the international community.

I believe that Obama’s engagement with Republicans on this issue and their cautious support is also a victory of a sort, and I am hopeful that he continues to engage with them even as we move the country in a more leftward direction.

But ultimately it comes down to the idea that people should be allowed to govern themselves, and the Iraqi people, while having a very long difficult road ahead of them, are fully capable of doing that.

I am heartened by Secretary of State Clinton’s listening tour.  One of the best ways to show leadership is to listen to and engage with those with whom you wish to lead.  A collaborative view of diplomacy is long overdue.

More to the point, why are we, the world’s largest debtor nation, the world’s policeman? I despise the fact that we send our armed forces where they are both not needed, and not wanted, and that we cannot afford to do it.

This might sound selfish and Amerocentric, but let the United States take care of the United States, and let the rest of the world take care of itself. Be a good neighbor, lead by example, stop being aggressive, be more cooperative, help other nations when they are in humanitarian crisis, voice our opinion, and that’s it. The policy of the United States should be one of non-aggression and peaceful cooperation with other nations. Our military should be for defense of the nation’s borders.

Living within our means means scaling back our military power, and boosting spending on domestic services like universal healthcare, sophisticated and effective public education, including comprehensive sex education, civic education, strong arts and sciences education, and most of all, critical thinking skills. These are the things that create true wealth: cultural wealth, entrepreneurial innovation, and a passion for participatory governance.

I say, globalization has not resulted in a raised standard of commonweal; instead it has resulted in increased poverty, more environmental degradation, decreased civil rights, and a bankrupt global financial system. Globalization has increased the gap between rich and poor in this country.

The United States was such a wonderful and fertile imaginative landscape, and I believe it can be again if we contract our global ambitions and focus on rebuilding infrastructure, public education, respect for the sciences and arts, paying off our national debt, rebuilding our manufacturing sector, and fully restoring our civil rights.

I believe that people have to shed their own blood to earn their own freedom – that is the only true way to value that freedom. Our way is the way that works for us, and can serve as an example of one particular path to freedom, but each nation needs to find its own path that works for them. We can talk about our way of life and why it works for us, but that’s all we should do. To do otherwise isn’t being a good neighbor. Our best example of leadership is to live our nation’s life and let the strength of our ideas be demonstrated by how successful we are as a nation, and how we treat the most vulnerable among us. Our American ancestors paid their blood and lives so that future generations of Americans could live in freedom and prosperity. Let the people of the world do the same.

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, ‘Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous?’ Actually, who are you not to be? … Your playing small doesn’t serve the world. Thee’s nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine as children do… It’s not just in some of us, it’s in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we’re liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.

-Marianne Williamson

As we focus our energies on making manifest the success and prosperous light within the American nature, we can give other nations the courage and inspiration to do the same.

But that leads back to the question of how do we increase the light of the American cultural soul? The only way to do that is to increase freedom. This country was founded on the principal of individual freedom, but also freedom that is responsible for each other as a nation, and species. And freedom is only increased through a liberal dose of education and participatory civic action by the populace. The power of the government is derived by the will of the governed. We must always remember that, and not just at election time. The voices of the citizenry must be louder than the voices of the corporate lobbyists.

Heck, I wonder why do we allow corporate lobbyists? Corporations cannot vote in elections, they cannot be citizens. Only individual human beings can be citizens be reason of birth or naturalization. So it seems to me that a major problem is the existence of corporate personhood. The abolition of corporate personhood would put corporations back on the other side of the government/person line, and “We the People” would actually be people again, and a huge return of power back to the population.

The return of corporations to the side of being in the public interest is crucial to regaining full civil rights. Noninterventionism and the abolition of corporate personhood. Neighborliness and helping others. Huge investment in infrastructure, education, healthcare, and a tremendous reduction in military spending. These are the things that liberals need to be fighting for.

Albert Einstein said, “You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.” The only way forward is through peaceful work and democratic action. Let your light shine forth, people.

Watch how President Bush doesn’t offer his hand to anyone, and how none of the G-20 leaders offer theirs. This is just sad. The fall of American prestige in the world, thanks to George W. Bush. Heckuva job, Georgie.

Do we share a common philosophy of the Republican Party? Of course.

John McCain voted with George W. Bush’s philosophy “90 percent of the time.”   He said so himself.  Isn’t a maverick supposed to go his own way?

Do we need more commonality with the last 8 years?

As MSNBC reported, Joe Biden taunts McCain’s inability to bring up the supposed Obama-Ayers connection to his face at last Tuesday’s debate:

“All of the things they said about Barack Obama in the TV, on the TV, at their rallies, and now on YouTube … John McCain could not bring himself to look Barack Obama in the eye and say the same things to him,” Biden said this morning. “In my neighborhood, when you’ve got something to say to a guy, you look him in the eye and you say it to him.”

Of course, this just goes to show exactly how weak McCain’s argument is.  He and his lame-brained running mate can say all this surrounded by their supporters, but McCain was too weak in character to say it to Obama when they stood on the same stage.  If he cannot bring up such a supposedly important character issue to his political opponent, how can he bring up the important issues when he has to talk to America’s international opponents?

John McCain is too weak to be President of the United States.  His moral fiber has left him consipated.

The opening of the debate focused the first 25 minutes on economic policy, especially regarding the bail out of the banking industry. When pressed by moderator Lehrer on what specific programs or spending initiatives would be needed to be cut in light of the bail out package, both candidates largely dodged the question, although Obama did acknowledge that perhaps certain items of particular policy initiatives might go unfulfilled. McCain kept harping on earmarks, but Obama countered that they were relatively a small amount of federal spending.

When they moved to foreign policy, one would have thought Obama would have been trounced by McCain, but the Senator from Illinois more than held his own, and even correctly pronounced the names of the foreign leaders correctly, something McCain didn’t do. I’ll paraphrase Dale Carnegie – the sweetest sound to a man is the sound of his own name. IF you want to annoy or irritate someone, get their name wrong. More than once.

McCain tried to criticize Obama for his “naive” view that he would hold talks “without preconditions” with leaders of antagonistic countries. Obama countered that even Mccain’s own adviser, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, agreed with that view. McCain tried to deny that, but as Juan Cole pointed out, Kissinger agreed with Obama’s viewpoint, more than once.

Obama stayed cool and collected, rarely stammered, and looked directly into the camera as if looking at the American people.  McCain barely even looked at Obama, never looked into the camera, and maintained some strange body language, especially with the incessantly blinking eyes, frozen mask of anger, that manic smile a few times, and his lifted up shoulders.  He kind of creeped me out a few times.

So even though no one in particular scored a knock-out punch, and there weren’t really any good zingers or litle sound bites, Obama’s presidential demeanout and command of the issues compared to McCain’s supposedly vastly greater knowledge combined with his creepy body language, I give this debate to Obama.

And it looks like most of the polls agree with me.

Sweet Merciful Pie, what a maroon!

It’s arrogant to think you can be president when you display such shocking ignorance of the world.  When asked if being the Command-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard and being next door neighbors with Russia were sufficient experience, she dodged the question and went back to her reform of goverment statement; besides Canada and Mexico, she had never travelled outside the country before that trip to Germany and Kuwait recently.  She’s never met another head of state.

In the intense world we are in right now, not having travelled or having seen a teensy fraction of the world is not a good reason to be the replacement President.   Especially when your way of dealing with people with whom you don’t agree is to try to fire them.  And that it’s a good thing to have never met a head of state.  But it gets better.

Then Gibson asked her about Russia.  She’s hysterically funny here.  I love how she thinks that it’s an insight to be able to see Russian land from some land in Alaska.  As if that superficial viewing is enough.  She says we have to keep an eye on Putin, and with a stutter says “Perhaps so…” to warring with Russia if they were to invade Georgia.  It’s as if she thinks war is the first option.   No thought of diplomacy here, just the waste of human blood and American treasure.  I always thought that violence should be the last resort, not the first.  Or even better to turn the other cheek.

What I want to know is what does she actually know about the Russian people because “They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.”  Yeah, so what insight does that give you into Russian politics when Moscow is thousands of miles away?

And by the way, I’ve been to Wasilla back in 1998 for a week visiting a friend, and the one of the things I noticed then (besides the stunning beauty of the place) was how many pickup trucks had shotgun pellet holes in the sides or tailgates of them.  That was somewhat shocking to me, but also made me a little sad.  And weren’t you the Mayor of Wasilla back then, Sarah Palin?  What sort of law and order were you keeping?

And yes, if one is a member of NATO, there’s an obligation to mutual defense, but if you’re a member of NATO, you also know how to exert yourself diplomatically to avoid such necessity.  Being able to discuss one’s problems with one’s neighbors is a a wondrous thing.  It means understand and getting to know each other, and learning to respect each other’s similarities and differences.

And by the way, Mrs. Palin, it’s Ahmadinejad, not Achmedinejad.  Yes, I know it’s not a simple name like Palin or Brown, but it’s still his name.  Even if he’s not our friend, getting his name right is just simple courtesy. But it was deliberate, wasn’t it?  After all she got Saakashvili’s name right.  That’s just childish and chicken. I suppose we could give her the benefit of the doubt, but going by her petty behavior in the past, i’ll say not.

And speaking of Iran and Israel, “we cannot second-guess [Israel]…”  Three times she repeated this catch-phrase when asked by Gibson if the United States should just stand by and allow Israel to attack Iran if they felt threatened.  We don’t need more violence in the Middle East, but less.  The presidency of Iran is a largely domestic role.  He doesn’t have any role in foreign policy or military affairs.  Thus, he can say whatever he wants, but real power in Iran lies with the Supreme Leader, Ali Khameni.

She says the only thing for them (the islamic extremists) is to become a suicide bomber.  Why is it that that’s the only option? She wants to instill them with hope, but she proposed to instill them with hope by bombing them?  That’s not likely to engender hope, but fear and anger.  And while I vehemently denounce the violence that was perpetrated upon us seven years ago in no uncertain terms, I am not surprised that it took place.

Or maybe she wants to engender hope by converting them to christianity?  That would go along with her christian reconstructionist background.  “Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still,” wrote Dale Carnegie.

The editing of this interview was pretty terrible.  After explaining the Bush doctrine to her (which she apparently didn’t know about before he explained it), they clearly cut a different take in there.  How many tried did they give her to before they finally went with the answer they broadcast?  You can tell because the lighting is slightly different, and the audio is very different for that take.  It’s as if she got up and sat back down.  The audio suddenly became much boomier.  After that answer, it’s clear they went back to the original interview.

That seems pretty slimy on the part of ABC to give her multiple takes, or if it’s not a multiple take, then what?  Maybe she got up and talked to her handlers for an answer before it?  With the incredible superficiality of her answers so far, that wouldn’t surprise me.

She likes the phrase “hell-bent on destroying America.”  She used it at least twice in this interview to describe islamic extremists.  It’s as if the her handlers gave her a stock of phrases to cart out, and since she doesn’t have any real substance on these issues, she has to fall back on them again and again.

She’s like a barbie doll with a pull-string – “math is hard!”

Even McCain doesn’t think that a mayor or a governor for a short time is enough experience.  At least he didn’t when he was bagging on Giuliani and Romney during the Republican primary: