Markets Shaken by GDP

Positive v. Negative

Boston Globe:

The Wisconsin Advertising Project, which monitors campaign ad spending nationwide, reported yesterday that of the $48 million worth of ads the two campaigns have aired since Obama clinched the nomination in early June, 90 percent of Obama's ads have been positive and mostly about himself, while about one-third of McCain's commercials referred to Obama negatively.

And that was before this...

The World's Biggest Arms Exporters

JUST five countries supplied 80% of global arms exports between 2003 and 2007, according to a recent report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, a think-tank. SIPRI counts the deliveries of large conventional weapons, each of which are assigned a value according to cost, strategic importance and other criteria. America supplied a third of global exports by this count, with South Korea and Israel the main buyers. China is Russia's best customer, taking 45% of its total exports. China is also the largest recipient of imports, accounting for 12% of the global total. Other big importers include India and the United Arab Emirates.

Obama Counters McCain's Recent Negativity

Is that a Fly?

Inside Professor Obama’s Classroom

Courtesy The Caucus
Examining the Course Materials
We’ve asked four legal experts to take a look at then-Professor Barack Obama’s course materials and offer some insight into what they say about Mr. Obama’s teaching methods, priorities and approach to the Constitution.

Pamela S. Karlan, a law professor at Stanford, an expert on voting issues and a former clerk to Justice Harry A. Blackmun, concludes that “it’s hard to tell whether Professor Obama is simply playing it close to his vest – that is, he has strong views but thinks the classroom isn’t an appropriate place for revealing them – or whether his views fall within the mainstream of the constitutional law professoriate, which tends to be moderately liberal on individual rights issues.”

Pamela S. Karlan | 1:30 p.m. Three preliminary reactions to this really interesting story.
1. In thinking about what inferences we might draw about a President Obama from a Professor Obama, we’re handicapped a little by a distinctive aspect of the University of Chicago Law School’s constitutional law curriculum. Unlike most other first-tier American law schools, Chicago separates into two separate courses what are often referred to as the “structural” and “individual rights” provisions of the Constitution. (This is probably more a function of the fact that Chicago uses three shorter terms each academic year, rather than the more conventional two longer ones, so each course covers a bit less territory.)
So the course that Professor Obama taught did not examine many of the issues that have come to the forefront of constitutional debate during the last eight years – such as the president’s inherent powers under Article II of the Constitution to disregard limitations placed on his authority by Congress or other aspects of what’s referred to as “separation of powers” (the checks and balances among the three branches of government).
The only slight hint we get about the war on terror, for example, comes from one question about handing out limited supplies of an anti-biological weapon drug, and there we’re focusing on individual rights, not the government’s powers.

2. Looking at the exams for the Constitutional Law class, one of the most striking features to a law professor is how conventional they are. If you put Professor Obama’s exam questions in a pile with the questions asked by me or my colleagues – or if you asked one of us to prepare model answers to his exam questions – you would not be able to guess which ones he prepared and which ones were prepared by full-time legal academics.
There are at least three inferences I draw from this. First, Senator Obama has a first-rate mind for legal doctrine and could have been a first-rate academic had his interests gone in that direction. He would have been most unlikely – even beyond the fact that his values differ – to have bought into the legal work underlying many of the current Administration’s policies, such as the incomplete “torture memos.”
Second, Senator Obama has a sensitivity to role. By this I mean that he doesn’t appear to have used his classroom as a platform for pushing his own pet theories of constitutional law. He seems to have taught “down the middle” in a way that gave the students the tools to be fine constitutional lawyers but didn’t require them to agree with his position. By contrast, I’ve seen other constitutional law professors’ exams and model answers where a student who disagrees with the professor’s idiosyncratic approach or policy preferences would have found it hard to do well.
Third, and perhaps related, precisely because the examinations and the model answers are so conventional, it’s hard to tell whether Professor Obama is simply playing it close to his vest – that is, he has strong views but thinks the classroom isn’t an appropriate place for revealing them – or whether his views fall within the mainstream of the constitutional law professoriate, which tends to be moderately liberal on individual rights issues.

3. The syllabus for Professor Obama’s Racism and the Law class is an interesting one. The materials are not particularly surprising, but seem relatively well thought-out. But their focus, as well as the focus of the exam questions, tends to be almost entirely on blacks and whites, with only one session devoted to the distinctive issues surrounding Native Americans – and that session being primarily historical – and relatively little attention devoted to questions that arise with respect to Latinos.
That’s not surprising as a matter of law school syllabi – the black-white paradigm remains dominant. And the syllabus is fifteen years old. But it’s interesting that Senator Obama, despite having spent many years in Hawaii, where a number of very interesting questions about multiracial groups and indigenous people have been playing out, hewed so closely to the black-white line. I would imagine if he were teaching such a course today, he might have ranged further afield.
Read more...

Sorry Senator Obama, Even Your Prayers Are ‘Public Domain’

Sorry Senator Obama, Even Your Prayers Are ‘Public Domain’

Posted using ShareThis

Humor...

Quote of the Day

McCain has straitjacketed himself in an ideology focused more on enemies (real and imagined) than on opportunities.

He has also taken a rather exotic line on Russia, which he wants to drum out of the G-8 organization of major industrial powers (a foolish proposal, since none of the other G-8 members would abide by it). His notion of a "League of Democracies" seems a transparent attempt to draw a with-us-or-against-us line in the sand against Russia and China. But that's the point: McCain would place a higher priority on finding new enemies than on cultivating new friends. Bounce 2 Joe Klein

McCain On The Anbar Awakening

From a CBS interview with John McCain today:

"Couric: Senator McCain, Sen. Obama says, while the increased number of U.S. troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that?

McCain: I don't know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarlane (phonetic) was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history. Thanks to General Petraeus, our leadership, and the sacrifice of brave young Americans. I mean, to deny that their sacrifice didn't make possible the success of the surge in Iraq, I think, does a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed.

They were out there. They were protecting these sheiks. We had the Anbar awakening. We now have a government that's effective. We have a legal system that's working, although poorly. And we have progress on all fronts, including an incredible measure of security for the people of Iraq. There will still be attacks. Al Qaeda's not defeated. But the progress has been immense. And to not recognize that, and why it happened, and how it happened, I think is really quite a commentary.

Couric: A commentary on what?

McCain: That Sen. Obama does not understand the challenges we face. And … not understand the need for the surge. And the fact that he did not understand that, and still denies that it has succeeded, I think the American people will make their judgment."

Well, that's funny, because Spencer Ackerman happens to have Col. (now Brigadier General) McFarland right here:

"With respect to the violence between the Sunnis and the al Qaeda -- actually, I would disagree with the assessment that the al Qaeda have the upper hand. That was true earlier this year when some of the sheikhs began to step forward and some of the insurgent groups began to fight against al Qaeda. The insurgent groups, the nationalist groups, were pretty well beaten by al Qaeda.

This is a different phenomena that's going on right now. I think that it's not so much the insurgent groups that are fighting al Qaeda, it's the -- well, it used to be the fence-sitters, the tribal leaders, are stepping forward and cooperating with the Iraqi security forces against al Qaeda, and it's had a very different result. I think al Qaeda has been pushed up against the ropes by this, and now they're finding themselves trapped between the coalition and ISF on the one side, and the people on the other."

That's from September 29, 2006. Here's Gen. McFarland, writing about the surge in 2008, described (pdf) a lot of work in Anbar province throughout the summer of 2006, culminating in a "tipping point" (h/t Seth Colter Walls):

"On 9 September 2006 Sittar organized a tribal council, attended by over 50 sheiks and the brigade commander, at which he declared the “Anbar Awakening” officially underway. The Awakening Council that emerged from the meeting agreed to first drive AQIZ from Ramadi, and then reestablish rule of law and a local government to support the people. The creation of the Awakening Council, combined with the ongoing recruitment of local security forces, began a snowball effect that resulted in a growing number of tribes either openly supporting the Awakening or withdrawing their support from AQIZ."

The surge was announced on Jan. 10, 2007. That's four months after the "tipping point" at which the Anbar Awakening really got under way, and three and a half months after the briefing at which McFarland described the success of the Awakening. McFarland and his troops left Anbar in February of 2007 (pdf; p. 51), before any of the surge troops would have arrived. So I don't see how this could possibly be true: "Colonel McFarlane (phonetic) was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening." Unless, as Matt Yglesias notes, McCain credits the surge with enabling time travel.

Spencer Ackerman says that McCain's statement is "either a lie or professional malpractice for a presidential candidate who is staking his election on his allegedly superior Iraq judgment." Ilan Goldenberg is even harsher:

"This is not controversial history. It is history that anyone trying out for Commander and Chief must understand when there are 150,000 American troops stationed in Iraq. It is an absolutely essential element to the story of the past two years. YOU CANNOT GET THIS WRONG. Moreover, what is most disturbing is that according to McCain's inaccurate version of history, military force came first and solved all of our problems. If that is the lesson he takes from the Anbar Awakening, I am afraid it is the lesson he will apply to every other crisis he faces including, for example, Iran.

This is just incredibly disturbing. I have no choice but to conclude that John McCain has simply no idea what is actually happened and happening in Iraq."

Note to self: if I ever run for President and decide to stake everything on my understanding of one thing, I should familiarize myself with the basic facts about it. I should be especially careful to do this before I say something like this about someone who got it right: "I don't know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened."
Courtesy Andrew Sullivan

Take the Test

Political Humor...Colbert and...

Never Underestimate McCain, But ...

Oh, let's just admit it: John McCain is a long shot. He's got a heroic personal story, and being white has never hurt a presidential candidate, but on paper 2008 just doesn't look like his year. And considering what's happening off paper, it might be time to ask the question the horse-race-loving media are never supposed to ask: Is McCain a no-shot?

Continues...

The media will try to preserve the illusion of a toss-up; you'll keep seeing "Obama Leads, But Voters Have Concerns" headlines. But when Democrats are winning blood-red congressional districts in Mississippi and Louisiana, when the Republican president is down to 28 percent, when the economy is tanking and world affairs keep breaking Obama's way, it shouldn't be heresy to recognize that McCain needs an improbable series of breaks. Analysts get paid to analyze, and cable news has airtime to fill, so pundits have an incentive to make politics seem complicated. In the end, though, it's usually pretty simple. Everyone seems to agree that 2008 is a change election. Which of these guys looks like change?

To read full article Bounce 2 Michael Grunwald Time Magazine

Obama Trip to Iraq...Flexibility

The NBA's euro problem

It was only a matter of time before the declining dollar affected the world of sport. In years past, the Europe's prime basketball talent bolted across the pond for the superior pay and play of the NBA. Now, the trend appears to be heading in the opposite direction, thanks to the rising euro and an influx of Russian investment in the European league. Suddenly, playing in Europe doesn't sound like such a bad idea after all.

Former New Jersey Net Bostjan Nachbar (above left, with Dallas's Dirk Nowitzki) is the latest player to spurn the NBA and sign a more lucrative contract with a European team, which pays in the much more attractive euro, and often tax-free:

"The NBA had better be careful," Nachbar said. "European teams are offering a lot of money. It's much more, considering there are no taxes, than what I could make signing for the midlevel exception."

Once confined to players with previous overseas experience, the trend is spreading to home-grown Americans, too. Highly rated high schooler Brandon Jennings, struggling with academic issues, shocked the college basketball world by opting to play in Europe instead of attending school. And Atlanta's Josh Childress, unhappy with the state of contract negotiations with the Hawks, is weighing an offer to play in Greece.

Although the NBA, already cultivating the Chinese market, has been eyeing European expansion, I don't think this is exactly what Commissioner David Stern had in mind.
Courtesy Foreign Policy Passport

Iraq Ready for US Withdrawl?

Patrick Appel noted this story earlier:

"Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a German magazine he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months.

In an interview with Der Spiegel released on Saturday, Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible."

The Spiegel interview is here:

"SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?

Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.

SPIEGEL: Is this an endorsement for the US presidential election in November? Does Obama, who has no military background, ultimately have a better understanding of Iraq than war hero John McCain?

Maliki: Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited."

Marc's take on Maliki endorsing Obama's withdrawal timetable:

This could be one of those unexpected events that forever changes the way the world perceives an issue. Iraq's Prime Minister agrees with Obama, and there's no wiggle room or fudge factor. This puts John McCain in an extremely precarious spot: what's left to argue? To argue against Maliki would be to predicate that Iraqi sovereignty at this point means nothing...Via e-mail, a prominent Republican strategist who occasionally provides advice to the McCain campaign said, simply, "We're fucked."

I tend to agree this is McCain's Perfect Storm scenario...talk about out on a plank all by yourself.

John Adams Addresses Supreme Court

Can Virginia, after 44 years in the GOP column, go Dem?

To probe this topic, E.J. Dionne Jr. column not only turns in a tremendous RUTHER GLEN dateline but also sounds out two Virginia politicos who know their way around Richmond's Capitol Square (to say nothing of Big Stone Gap, Farmville and Tappahannock):

[Virginia Gov. Tim] Kaine is broadly progressive in his views. But like Obama, whom he supported in the primaries, Kaine has been a vocal critic of partisanship. Indeed, Virginia Democrats have been gaining ground since 2001 partly by casting theirs as the party of nonpartisanship and Republicans as ideologues.

"We've been doing that here in Virginia for a while," said Mo Elleithee, a top Kaine consultant who worked for Hillary Clinton this year. "We did that with Warner in '01, Kaine in '05 and Democratic legislative candidates in '07."

Elleithee sees the path for Obama in Virginia as similar to Kaine's: Win just enough in the state's rural areas and overwhelm McCain in the Washington suburbs and among African Americans, notably in Hampton Roads.

Yet Elleithee also says McCain makes the state "very challenging" for Democrats, particularly because his war-hero status appeals to its large population of active and retired military voters

But the issue in Virginia may well be whether history is just history this year. Christopher Peace, a 31-year-old Republican who represents this area just north of Richmond in the state House of Delegates, argues that the election will be decided by "people in their mid-30s, married with two children and two dogs, professional families."

"A lot of that rhetoric about 'working families' is about them," Peace said. "They are not duty-bound to their party anymore. They are duty-bound to their pocketbooks." Such voters made Kaine governor, and they're the ones Obama needs to win.
Photo Courtesy Ranhar2

Surging Towards Democrats

Sun-Sentinel: Through May Democratic voter registration in Broward County is up 6.7% compared to GOP registrations, which grew 3%.
Democrats have posted even greater gains statewide, up 106,508 voters from January through May, compared with 16,686 for the Republicans.

McCain on Iraq's Independence

From 2004 at the CFR:

Question: "What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there?"

McCain: "Well, if that scenario evolves then I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because -- if it was an elected government of Iraq, and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people."

Here's McCain today. Not so clear.

Iraq, Standing For Independence

A deadline should be set for the withdrawal of U.S. and allied forces from Iraq, and the pullout could be done by 2011, an Iraqi government spokesman said Tuesday.

Ali al-Dabbagh said any timetable would depend on "conditions and the circumstances that the country would be undergoing." But he said a pullout within "three, four or five" years was possible.

"It can be 2011 or 2012," al-Dabbagh said. "We don't have a specific date in mind, but we need to agree on the principle of setting a deadline."

Al-Dabbagh's comments come as the United States and Iraq try to negotiate a framework governing the stationing of U.S. and allied troops beyond the end of 2008, when the current U.N. mandate for coalition forces expires. Bounce 2 CNN for the rest of the story.

Music....

Obama on Iraq

Obama said he had not changed his position regarding Iraq troop withdrawals, but that he could "refine" his policy after assessing the situation there.

This, of course, echoes what Obama said at the Sept. 26 NBC News/MSNBC debate from Dartmouth, N.H., (see full transcript below) when neither he nor Clinton nor Edwards would commit to having troops out by 2013.

"I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible," Obama said then. "We don't know what contingency will be out there. What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office, which it appears there may be unless we can get some of our Republican colleagues to change their mind and cut off funding without a timetable, if there's no timetable, then I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians and making sure that we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there.

"I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out."

At a brief press conference on the tarmac here Thursday, the presumptive Democratic nominee said his plan to withdraw troops within 16 months had always been dependent on the facts on the ground and that he would "do a thorough assessment" of the situation when he visits Iraq, a trip he has said he wants to make before the election.

“My position has not changed but keep in mind what that original position was. I have always said that I will listen to commanders on the ground; I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability," he said. "That assessment has not changed and when I go to Iraq and I have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”

Later, Obama came back out and addressed it again:
"Apparently I wasn’t clear enough this morning on my position with respect to the war in Iraq. I have said throughout this campaign that this war was ill conceived, that it was a strategic blunder and that it needs to come to an end. I’ve also said that I will be deliberate and careful in how we got out, that I would bring our troops home in the pace of one to two brigades per month and that that pace we would have our combat troops out in 16 months. That position has not changed.

"I have not equivocated on that position. I am not searching for maneuvering room with respect to that position. What I said this morning and what I will repeat because its consistent with what I have said over the last two years is that in putting this plan together, I will always listen to the advice of commanders on the ground but that ultimately I’m the person who is making the strategic decisions and it is my view that strategically for us to perpetuate this war in Iraq the way that John McCain has proposed and neglect the extraordinary problems that we’re seeing in Afghanistan, to continue spend $10 to 12 billion a month, to continue to put enormous burdens on our military and military families, is not the best way to make the American people safe.

"So we are going to go visit Iraq, I want to have conversations with commanders on the ground, Iraqi officials. When I come back, that information will obviously inform how we shape our plans moving forward. For example, does it-- what is the current training situation and how many residual troops might be needed in order to train Iraqis to stand up both the army and the police? What is the current posture in terms of negotiations between the various Iraqi factions on critical issues like how oil is distributed, oil revenues are distributed?

"But, you know, let me be as clear as I can be, I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the joint chief of staff in and I will give them a new mission and that is to end this war responsibly, deliberately, but decisively. And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades a month and again that pace translates into having our combat troops out in 16 months time. ...

"[T]his is the same position that I had four months ago; it’s the same position that I had eight months ago; it’s the same position that I had 12 months ago."