politicalOBSERVER

Democratic National Convention
Wednesday, August 27

Bill Clinton
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 07:00 PM

I am honored to be here tonight to support Barack Obama. And to warm up the crowd for Joe Biden, though as you’ll soon see, he doesn’t need any help from me. I love Joe Biden, and America will too.

What a year we Democrats have had. The primary began with an all-star line up and came down to two remarkable Americans locked in a hard fought contest to the very end. The campaign generated so much heat it increased global warming.

In the end, my candidate didn’t win. But I’m very proud of the campaign she ran: she never quit on the people she stood up for, on the changes she pushed for, on the future she wants for all our children. And I’m grateful for the chance Chelsea and I had to tell Americans about the person we know and love.

I’m not so grateful for the chance to speak in the wake of her magnificent address last night. But I’ll do my best.

Hillary told us in no uncertain terms that she’ll do everything she can to elect Barack Obama.

Here’s why.

Our nation is in trouble on two fronts: The American Dream is under siege at home, and America’s leadership in the world has been weakened.

Middle class and low-income Americans are hurting, with incomes declining; job losses, poverty and inequality rising; mortgage foreclosures and credit card debt increasing; health care coverage disappearing; and a big spike in the cost of food, utilities, and gasoline.

Our position in the world has been weakened by too much unilateralism and too little cooperation; a perilous dependence on imported oil; a refusal to lead on global warming; a growing indebtedness and a dependence on foreign lenders; a severely burdened military; a backsliding on global non-proliferation and arms control agreements; and a failure to consistently use the power of diplomacy, from the Middle East to Africa to Latin America to Central and Eastern Europe.

Everything I learned in my eight years as President and in the work I’ve done since, in America and across the globe, has convinced me that Barack Obama is the man for this job.
Read the rest of this entry » »

This is good to hear this story from a high ranking American politician. It’s the sound of progress to addressing

2008 Democratic Convention
Wednesday, August 27

The history of the last hundred years has been a toxic mix of oil and war.

Wars were funded by, impossible without, and usually fought over oil. Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, the Nazi invasion of Russia, Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, and countless other conflicts have been based in whole or in part on the world’s addiction to oil. Even today, dictators and authoritarians from Venezuela to Russia, from Sudan to North Korea, base their actions—and their power to oppress their citizens and threaten their neighbors—solely on access to or sale of oil on the world market.

Since the turn of the new century, those hard facts have come home to America in the most vicious way. Attacked at home by oil-funded terrorists, at war abroad with oil-funded insurgents, threatened in global markets and faced with acquisition of our industrial base by oil-funded multinationals, we must defend America or face her utter destruction.

If we continue to follow this slippery, oil-slicked, downward-winding path, our citizens will shiver in darkness as our resources hemorrhage to Third World thugs whose only virtue is their control of petroleum-based energy.

These threats are real, they are immediate, and they are potentially overwhelming. And the saddest part, the most terrible irony, is that we finance them every time we pump gas or pay utility bills.

The threats are not new, nor is their solution. President Carter warned us about it in the 1970s when he proposed real solutions—conservation, fuel efficiency, and alternative fuels—to what he correctly named the “moral equivalent of war.” His proposals were ridiculed by Republicans who forgot that both Presidents Nixon and Ford had joined him in calling for America’s energy independence.

That bipartisanship, however, became partisan as this nation entered an era of oil industry dominance when, for the 28 years since 1980 except for the Clinton presidency, former oil industry executives have been president or vice president of the United States and indeed, for the past eight years, have filled both offices at once.

For the past eight years, the man in the Oval Office has tipped his hat over his eyes, kicked back his chair, and snoozed at his desk. Charged with protecting our national interests, he slept on duty while his vice president conspired with oil industry cronies. Tasked with cutting off funding to terrorists, he slept on duty while oil shortages worsened, oil prices soared, and dollars by the ton were delivered to terrorists’ banks in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela. Faced with a new kind of war, this president and his vice president helped their friends the old-fashioned way:
through war profiteering, tax cuts for billionaires, and in many cases out-and-out corruption.

There are honest answers to the problems we face, but they call for hard solutions and common sacrifices, the kind of sacrifices that this administration has only asked the American people to bear when it lined the pockets of the obscenely rich.

There’s an answer, but only if someone will speak truth to power.
Read the rest of this entry » »

First, a note I was writing to someone who said that their local economy was uneffected: “You say that the economy is good there. Have you checked the food banks and other resources for those having hard times? Here is a link to Bill Moyer’s Journal and a link to the video which is focusing on Denver since the Democratic convention is there”

Here is a big chunk of highlights from the Bill Moyer post:

BILL MOYERS: Working Americans, and that’s most people, are experiencing the “big squeeze.” In fact, they’re trying to survive one of the most profound social and economic changes in our history. The middle class is disappearing, facing a decline in standards of living. So you’d hope that the Democrats in Denver next week and the Republicans in St. Paul the following week would confront this crisis head on and not just serenade struggling families with a chorus of sympathetic but meaningless sound bites.

This week, we go to the city of the hour - Denver, the site of the Democratic National Convention. Nearly 75,000 people will gather in the Mile High City as Barack Obama makes history by becoming the first African American to be nominated by a major party for president.

But outside the convention center doors, history of a different, more prosaic sort is being made. This year oil hit a record high - $147 a barrel when last year, it was less than half that - around $68. A loaf of bread is up 14% from last year, a dozen eggs is up 33%, and pizza makers have seen the cost of their cheese soar from $1.30 to $1.76. Flour used to make the dough has tripled in price. As these prices soar, the value of homes is sinking. One in three home buyers since 2003 now owe more than their property’s estimated worth. Not only has home equity plummeted, so has the value of other holdings, like stocks and bonds and pensions, the investments families count on as a cushion during hard times.

So America’s middle class, our “fearful families” as some people call them, is taking it on the chin. The history-making nominations aside, all the rhetoric from all the speakers at next week’s Democratic Convention will be so much hot air above the Rockies unless the party comes to grip with how people are living and hurting today.

Just imagine what might happen if instead of going to all the shindigs being paid for by all the wealthy donors and corporations next week, the Democratic faithful - and their candidates - spread out across Denver’s neighbors, and listened to people caught in the big squeeze. That’s what our producer Betsy Rate and correspondent Rick Karr did just the other day.
Read the rest of this entry » »

First, here is a link to the Online NewsHour where Shields and Brooks discuss Biden as the VP on the eve before the announcement: video and transcript

Here is the column from David Brooks who wrote this article before the announcement:

Hoping It’s Biden

Published: August 22, 2008 in the New York Times

Barack Obama has decided upon a vice-presidential running mate. And while I don’t know who it is as I write, for the good of the country, I hope he picked Joe Biden.

Biden’s weaknesses are on the surface. He has said a number of idiotic things over the years and, in the days following his selection, those snippets would be aired again and again.

But that won’t hurt all that much because voters are smart enough to forgive the genuine flaws of genuine people. And over the long haul, Biden provides what Obama needs:

Working-Class Roots. Biden is a lunch-bucket Democrat. His father was rich when he was young — played polo, cavorted on yachts, drove luxury cars. But through a series of bad personal and business decisions, he was broke by the time Joe Jr. came along. They lived with their in-laws in Scranton, Pa., then moved to a dingy working-class area in Wilmington, Del. At one point, the elder Biden cleaned boilers during the week and sold pennants and knickknacks at a farmer’s market on the weekends.

His son was raised with a fierce working-class pride — no one is better than anyone else. Once, when Joe Sr. was working for a car dealership, the owner threw a Christmas party for the staff. Just as the dancing was to begin, the owner scattered silver dollars on the floor and watched from above as the mechanics and salesmen scrambled about for them. Joe Sr. quit that job on the spot.

Even today, after serving for decades in the world’s most pompous workplace, Senator Biden retains an ostentatiously unpretentious manner. He campaigns with an army of Bidens who seem to emerge by the dozens from the old neighborhood in Scranton. He has disdain for privilege and for limousine liberals — the mark of an honest, working-class Democrat.

Democrats in general, and Obama in particular, have trouble connecting with working-class voters, especially Catholic ones. Biden would be the bridge.
Read the rest of this entry » »

This post is an aggregation of topics linking American politics, the global economy, oil, State and Department of Defense policy.

Russia’s invasion of Georgia territory initially created a risk on commodity inflation which, at this point, has not created a bump up in oil prices:

Military tensions between Russia and Georgia have offered little support to the price of gold, while oil prices have continued to fall in spite of interruptions to two key pipelines carrying crude from the Caspian sea to Turkey.

The long-running surge in commodities and resulting inflationary pressures had been a main factor in slowing global economic activity – playing a bigger role than global financial turmoil, for instance, in the eurozone.

It is the two pipelines that create potential pressure on the global economy, particularly on the Eurozone’s ability to secure energy resources. Sure, John McCain tried to drum up the votes for all those ‘freedom fighters’ in the Republican ranks as he said all Americans would agree we are ‘all Georgians’ today. Let’s face it, the GOP supports freedom fighters fight for ‘open economies’ so that resources can flow to the developed world. From the Big Picture, “McCain certainly has received more Oil firm donations ($971,418), Obama certainly is no stranger to Oil company largesse ($345,150).”

This graphic shows how ridiculous Republican politics has become. The GOP is running an ad that states John McCain fights Big Oil and McCain, not Obama, should lead the United States as we transform our Oil habit into renewable energy. (Excuse me for a second : “ha ha, he, HA HA HA.” The Republican party is inundated by a bunch of self oriented jerks who only understand solidarity if it fits their narrow perceptions of the world and advances their own power. Meanwhile they lie to the American people filling their politics with empty words like ‘freedom’–who could be against ‘freedom’. If the Republicans are so into freedom, lets get rid of government and civilization so that we can retreat into a primal freedom of anarchy. Too bad that the Republicans have grabbed a leadership role in our democracy. The party is full of social darwinist idiots who shouldn’t be given power to make military decisions because the American military is too powerful and violent–just look at the number of Iraq civilians who were killed by not so smart bombs dropped by blunt American war planes.)

We should all remember who is currently in charge at the State Department: Big Oil. From wikipedia: “(Secretary of State Condoleezza) Rice headed Chevron’s committee on public policy until she resigned on January 15, 2001, to become National Security Advisor to President George W. Bush. Chevron honored Rice by naming an oil tanker Condoleezza Rice after her, but controversy led to its being renamed Altair Voyager.”

Here is a caption from a New York Times photo that shows the former Chevron Board of Director at work: “Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Mikheil Saakashvili, the Georgian president, arriving at a news conference in Tbilisi on Friday. Ms. Rice persuaded Mr. Saakashvili to sign a revised pact” and here is the photo from yesterdays New York Times:

Here are some paragraphs from the NYT article:

MOSCOW — Russia’s president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, on Saturday signed a revised framework for a deal to halt the fighting in neighboring Georgia, which has stirred some of the deepest divisions between world powers since the cold war. But the Kremlin then indicated that despite the accord’s approval, it would not immediately pull its troops from the country…

The Russian announcements came a day after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice went to Georgia to demand a Russian pullout and win the Georgian president’s support for the revised cease-fire agreement.

But on Saturday, Russian troops remained within 25 miles of the Georgian capital, Tbilisi. And overall, the situation in Georgia was largely unchanged, with the Russians occupying wide swaths of territory.

So now we are seeing ‘Gazprom’ vs. ‘Chevron’ in Georgia. ‘Chevron’ has moved into secure pipelines feeding the West while Russia is maintaining pressure on the sovereignty of Georgia. It seems clear that Russia has grabbed the regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It will be difficult to dislodge the Russian’s from these two areas yet from the perspective of the West/Chevron/Big Oil, these two areas are worth giving up as long as the pipelines flow in the future.

Appearing on the podium with President Saakashvili as he blasted the Russians, Rice was also able to salvage the appearance of supporting ‘freedom fighters for democracies’.

MIKHEIL SAAKASHVILI, President of Georgia: Never, ever we will surrender. Never, ever will we give our freedom and independence. Never, ever will we give any piece of our territory.

And freedom will go to every part of Georgia, to every ethnic group, to every community in Georgia, and we will definitely get rid of these invaders for good.

Unfortunately, today we are looking evil directly in the eye. And today, this evil is very strong, very nasty, and very dangerous, for everybody, not only for us…

So who invited the trouble here? Who invited this arrogance here? Who invited these innocent deaths here? Who is — not only those people who perpetrate them are responsible, but also those people who failed to stop that.

And who is trying now to look for every excuse saying, “Oh, you know, Georgians might have started it.” Excuse me, 1,200 tanks came into Georgia within a few hours. There is no way you can mobilize those tanks in such a fast period unless you are ready.

Early in the conflict, Georgian’s were disappointed in the West for not coming to their aid as columns of Russian armor flooded into the Georgian State. The United States will send military humanitarian aid to support the cease fire.

As the West/Chevron/Big Oil shore up their position in Georgia (Azerbaijan should not be forgotten to the east), the not so surprising move on the Chess board appeared in Poland. Wednesday saw the move take shape:

Missile talks with Poles gain urgency

Talks on building part of a US missile defence shield on Polish soil restarted on Wednesday, with Polish officials sending much more positive signals than recently, in part because of fears awakened by the Russian attack on Georgia.

Donald Tusk, the Polish prime minister, said this week: “The Georgian issue shows that in the generally understood area of the former Soviet bloc, real security guarantees are important.”

The US would like to build a base containing 10 missile interceptors in Poland, which would be linked with a radar located in neighbouring Czech Republic. The Czechs have already agreed to host the radar, but Mr Tusk’s government has been much more wary.

Warsaw has been concerned that a missile base would become a target of Russian hostility, a not unreasonable assumption in light of the threats Moscow has issued over the programme. In order to ensure that Polish security does not suffer, negotiators have been pressing the US to station Patriot interceptor batteries in Poland to protect Polish airspace.

“One Patriot missile battery permanently stationed in Poland, that is our government’s minimum condition,” Bogdan Klich, the defence minister, said on Wednesday on Polish radio.

The missile defence shield is unpopular with voters in both the Czech Republic and in Poland, but the centre-right governments of both countries feel that having the bases, with their US troops, would improve their security. Neither country’s officials see an attack by a rogue state – the raison d’être of the missile shield – as a realistic threat, but they regard the presence of the bases as a bulwark against a possible threat from Russia. -Financial Times

The Russians are testing the American Military as the US admitted publicly in July that the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are stretching their ability thin. Still, the US stated that they still had plenty of bandwidth to handle other situations, particularly in relation to Iran. Yet, it is Georgia that shows what the Americans can still do while fighting two wars: ‘military humanitarian aid’ to create a presence without deploying ‘fighting forces’ plus strengthening military relationships in Europe. The West/Chevron/Big Oil scored big on expanding their military reach on Thursday.

Missile shield accord draws Russian fire

Moscow lashed out at Washington and Warsaw on Friday, saying the plan to site a US anti-missile defence shield in Poland would undermine the global balance of power and put Poland at risk of nuclear attack.

Washington and Warsaw reached a preliminary agreement on Thursday to build part of the missile defence shield in Poland, station US Patriot missiles there and bolster the two countries’ military co-operation.

The US claims the shield in Poland, as well as a radar tracking base to be located in the Czech Republic, is designed to defend against “rogue states” such as Iran.

The timing of this week’s agreement, as relations between Russia and the US deteriorated over the Georgia crisis, has strengthened Moscow’s conviction that the move is anti-Russian.

“The deployment of new anti-missile forces in Europe has the Russian federation as its aim,” said Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian president, at a press conference with Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, on Friday.

Anatoly Nogovitsin, the deputy head of the Russian armed forces, warned Poland that by hosting the shield it could become the target of a nuclear attack in war time. “The US is concerned with its own anti-missile defence, not Poland’s. But Poland, by deploying [the shield], will be exposed to attack.”

Here is where the West/Chevron/Big Oil creates even more military tension and instability in the world by adhering to Neo Con policy. This quote below shows how the Bush Administration has become a farce as they stick to double standards:

As much as Mr. Bush has argued that the old characterizations of the cold war are no longer germane, he drew a new line at the White House on Friday morning between countries free and not free, and bluntly put Russia on the other side of it.

“With its actions in recent days Russia has damaged its credibility and its relations with the nations of the free world,” Mr. Bush said in his fourth stern statement on the conflict in five days, and the strongest to date. “Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century.”

Mr. Bush in the quote above has just articulated one big reason why he should not have authorized the unilateral invasion of Iraq. The Bush Administrations and Republicans actions (policy) are far removed from what they say (politics). This is one main reason why the nation must vote for the Democrats in overwhelming numbers this Fall. An Obama presidency will automatically give America new credibility on the world stage which is important in unwinding the actions of the Bush Administration.

A senior Russian general promptly gave credence to Poland’s worst fears by saying Friday that the country had just made itself a target of Russia’s nuclear arsenal.

These repercussions have prompted some to question the wisdom of Mr. Bush’s aggressive response to the Russian incursion into Georgia.

“What worries me about this episode is the United States is jeopardizing Russian cooperation on a number of issues over a dispute that at most involves limited American interests,” said Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy at the Cato Institute in Washington.

Voting for McCain will continue the tensions and heighten them since it is McCain’s position to oust Russia from the G-8. McCain’s strong support of the War in Iraq and the surge will continue the Bush Administrations Neo Con legacy and tie the United States to a course that makes Russia increasingly nervous.

The war in Iraq troubled the Russians as an example of unchecked American unilateralism. But the Bush administration’s relentless pursuit of missile defenses in Europe, the expansion of NATO to Russia’s borders and the support of Kosovo’s independence from Serbia have simply infuriated them.

Russia has used its oil and natural gas to fill its coffers and rebuild its military after the disarray of the 1990’s.

The Russians are acting today because they are being provoked by the United States, Europe and the West/Chevron/BigOil.

The question of NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine — which the alliance in April pledged would one day happen, while declining to start the process — appears to have hardened Mr. Putin’s resolve over Georgia’s separatist regions.

No matter how much the Americans argue that NATO is now focused on other threats, for Russia, it remains an enemy force. And no matter how often the Americans say missile defense is aimed at Iran and other so-called rogue nations, it remains an existential threat to Russia’s aging and shrinking nuclear capacity. Both are part of what Russia views as remnants of American cold war policy.

The same is true of Kosovo’s independence from Serbia, a close Russian ally. Russian officials now cite Kosovo as precedent for the independence or annexation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

“It’s clear the policies we have pursued regarding missile defense and installations in Europe, regarding further expansion of NATO have created difficulties with Russia,” said James F. Collins, the last American ambassador to the Soviet Union and now a director at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “It takes two to tango.”

On the matter of Georgia, though, Mr. Bush has put an end to the dance. He made it clear that his push for democracy trumps his relationship with Mr. Putin and Russia as a whole, describing the matter as a stark choice of a new era.

“Only Russia can decide whether it will now put itself back on the path of responsible nations,” he said, “or continue to purse a policy that promises only confrontation and isolation.”

Bush also stated why Georgia was important to Americans even though Americans disagree with how the Bush Administration pursues its goals:

“Some Americans listening today may wonder why events taking place in a small country halfway around the world matter to the United States. In the years since it’s gained independence after the Soviet Union’s collapse, Georgia has become a courageous democracy. Its people are making the tough choices that are required of free societies. Since the Rose Revolution in 2003, the Georgian people have held free elections, opened up their economy, and built the foundations of a successful democracy.

Georgia has sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq to help others achieve the liberty that they struggled so hard to attain. To further strengthen their democracy, Georgia has sought to join the free institutions of the West. The people of Georgia have cast their lot with the free world, and we will not cast them aside.” - George Bush

Yet Americans are content to stay on the sidelines instead of exhausting more American blood and treasure:

In March 2007, only 15 percent of those surveyed answered “yes” to the following question: “Should the United States try to change a dictatorship to a democracy where it can, or should the United States stay out of other countries’ affairs?” 68 percent were content to stay on the sidelines.

Democratization, of course, was an inaugural theme of the Bush administration. However, the campaign in the Middle East was faltering by 2006 as elections in Iraq, Egypt and the Palestinian failed to spark wider gains. In May, James Traub wrote in The New York Times Magazine, “We don’t hear much about the propagation of democracy these days.”

Further, Georgia isn’t even the Democracy that Bush Administration would like for you to think that it is worth defending–Georgia might be more like a democracy than Russia yet Mr. Saakashvili’s government has taken pages from the Putin government as they establish power in the post USSR era. This situation is more about expanding the reach of the West into a territory to contain Gazprom and the Russians. The ‘pro-Democracy’ rhetoric is smoke and mirrors to utter to the American people to create an excuse to expand American Military proliferation. Here are some quotes from the PBS NewsHour to gain perspective :

If you look at his record after coming into office, (Mr. Saakashvili) very sharply strengthened the presidency at the expense of the parliament. There’s been harassment of opposition figures.

There’s been harassment of opposition media businesspeople who try to fund the opposition, to the extent that the State Department’s own human rights report has raised very serious questions, troubling questions about how Georgia is ruled…

(Mr. Saakashvili ) studied very carefully the solutions that Putin put forward, including the aggregation of power in the hands of the presidency and dealing with breakaway regions. And I think, to a substantial extent, if you look at his first year in office, you see the echoes of things that Putin did.

But there’s one major difference between Putin and Saakashvili, and that is a commitment to democracy and democratic institutions. I think, in the case of Saakashvili, that was sincere and real from the beginning. And in the case of Putin, we have the appearance of democracy without much substance…

I think, in this case, there was a strong sense in the Georgian government that this was the last shot, that, in fact, South Ossetia and Abkhazia were in the process of being fully incorporated and integrated into the Russian Federation.

There was a long complex program in place under which the Russians had been issuing passports to local Abkhaz. In fact, Tskhinvali was covered with posters that said, “Putin, our president.” So it was de facto being incorporated into the Russian Federation.

And I think they understood this was a last shot, that if Georgia didn’t assert its control over this territory, it was going to be lost forever. And I think the tragedy here is that it probably was already lost and there was little they could do. Certainly, without the support of the United States and Europe, they were not going to be able to wrest this back from Russia…

Well, the (US) administration absolutely was telling him not to provoke the Russians and to resolve the dispute peacefully. The problem is that Mr. Saakashvili was also getting a number of other mixed messages from the administration.

The administration was making it very clear that they were willing to take on the European opposition to bring Georgia into NATO. There was considerable support for the Georgian military, a variety of other steps.

And then, just a month ago, you had Secretary Rice in Tbilisi standing next to Saakashvili saying, in response to a question from him, “Mr. President, we always fight for our friends.”

And it’s clear that she had something else in mind. She was talking about the dispute with our allies over joining NATO. But this very open-ended statement on her part, I think, cannot but have created some opportunities for misunderstanding, let me put it that way…

I want to go back to the question about American — the American voice here. I think he’s absolutely right. America wasn’t speaking with a single, clear voice.

We had lower-level State Department officials giving a correct message, but it was confused and it was overridden by a louder voice from Washington that came particularly from the neocon community. I think we see tragic consequences from that.

But right now, Misha Saakashvili personally and his government are Russia’s target. Russia’s first object here is to take two pieces of Georgian territory. Its second objective is to remove Misha Saakashvili and his government. And I think he’s got the fight of his life before him.

Here is the entire transcript from this Online NewsHour segment.

This week on the campaign trail, Sen. Barack Obama conducted a high-profile overseas trip while GOP rival Sen. John McCain toured top election battleground states. Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Books discuss the week in politics.

JIM LEHRER: And to the analysis of Shields and Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, New York Times columnist David Brooks. Mark, cudgels aside, was this trip that Barack Obama took overseas politically successful for him?

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist: Yes, first of all — in several respects. First of all, the Berlin speech, the most covered, the dimension, the warmth of the response to him and to the speech he gave was proof-positive that the values and the American people, the United States values, are still held in high esteem overseas, that the problems that we’ve had over the past seven-and-a-half years are attributable to the specific policies and the specific personas of our elected leaders.

And I think that was an enormously important message for Americans to see, to see a foreign audience, not a totally friendly American — to American policy, with flags, American flags being waved. And I thought the rest of it worked for him. I thought he had some good luck; there’s no question about it.

But I think you have to say that the policies are catching up with him, whether it’s Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates recognizing, acknowledging the need for more troops in Afghanistan, along the Pakistan border problems, the administration sending a high envoy to meet with Tehran after six years of saying they wouldn’t do it, you know, obviously, Prime Minister Maliki’s statement essentially embracing Obama’s position on troop withdrawal…
Read the rest of this entry » »

Associated Press
July 27, 2008 10:57 a.m.

WASHINGTON — Presidential contender Barack Obama is pivoting from foreign policy to the economy at home.

Sen. Obama said in an interview broadcast Sunday that cost of gas and food will keep Americans focused on finances even during the coming Olympics in Beijing. The Illinois Democrat said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he’s gathering key economic advisers on Monday to discuss a second economic stimulus package and ways to deal with high energy prices.

Among the people he will talk to are investor Warren Buffett, Eric Schmidt, chairman and CEO of Google, as well as former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker.

“What is driving people all across the country right now is worries and concerns about inability to pay the gas bill and inability to buy food because prices have gone up so high,” Sen. Obama said.

Sen. Obama was asked whether high gas prices are a good thing in a way because it has forced the nation to focus on energy policy. He said he did not think so because ordinary families are under enormous stress. However, the question gave him an opportunity to talk about his support for higher fuel efficiency standards for automobiles, which he said his opponent, Republican candidate John McCain, has consistently opposed.

“We should have over the last 20 years been planning for this day,” Sen. Obama said.

Obama greets 200,000 Berliners

By Hugh Williamson in Berlin

If Germans could vote in US elections, then Barack Obama would probably win with ease.

More than 200,000 people packed into a central Berlin park on Thursday evening to hear a speech by the US Democratic presidential candidate likely to resonate on both sides of the Atlantic.

Billed by the German press as a possible repeat of former US president John F. Kennedy’s 1963 “Ich bin ein Berliner” address, the speech in fact brought back memories of Ronald Reagan’s famous plea to Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down” the Berlin Wall. In the speech to his largest audience during the election campaign – in the US or elsewhere – Mr Obama praised Germans for bringing down communism when they felled the Wall in 1989, but said the US and Europe must stand together to “tear down other walls” dividing races, nations and rich and poor.

Turning on the fluent rhetoric familiar to US voters, he talked of his father’s humble background in Kenya, of his love for America, but also of his recognition that his country had “made mistakes”. The US must finally “end the war in Iraq”, he said, to strong cheers from the crowd.

But the 30-minute speech – his sole public address on his week-long foreign tour of Iraq, the Middle East and Europe – also had a sting in the tail. America had “no better partner than Europe”, but Europe must pull its weight more, for instance in bringing peace to Afghanistan. “The US cannot do this on its own,” he said – a message set to go down well with his voters back home.

US existing home sales tumble

By James Politi in Washington

Sales of previously-owned homes in the US tumbled by 2.6 per cent in June, much more than forecast by economists, spreading more gloom across the damaged US housing industry.

According to the National Association of Realtors, existing home sales dropped from an annual rate of 4.99m units in May to 4.86m units last month – the lowest in a decade and 15.5 per cent below its pace in June 2007.

The measure of the time needed to sell the inventory of unsold homes rose to an 11.1 month supply from a 10.8 month supply in May.

“The list of reasons for the weakness is long,” says Mike Larson, real estate and interest rate analyst at Weiss Research. “Consumer confidence is down; unemployment is up. Mortgages are harder to get now that lenders have found religion, and the broader economy has been decelerating.”

Goldman Sachs economists said the data pointed “towards continued home price declines”.

Ford to shift direction after $8.7bn loss

By Bernard Simon in Toronto

Ford Motor has unveiled an ambitious facelift for its troubled North American operations aimed at shifting its focus from big pick-up trucks and sport-utility vehicles towards smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.

But the number-two Detroit carmaker also underlined the magnitude of the challenges it faces, announcing a record quarterly loss of $8.7bn and warning that it does not expect an upturn in the US economy before 2010. The latest loss includes pre-tax special charges of $8bn from writedowns in assets and the lease portfolio of its financing arm, Ford Credit.

The carmaker cautioned that this year’s cash drain will be greater than it had initially projected.

Ford shares sank nearly 15 per cent to $5.14 shortly before the close on Thursday.

US financial stocks in worst fall since 2000

By Michael Mackenzie, Nicole Bullock, Justin Baer and Francesco Guerrera in New York

US financial stocks suffered their worst one-day fall since 2000 on Thursday, as investors’ recent optimism was hit by renewed fears over the health of Washington Mutual and weak housing data.

Financial shares had rallied more than 30 per cent in the preceding five days amid relief at smaller-than-expected losses at several leading lenders and a government crackdown on abusive short-selling.

But the market cracked in the morning after the release of figures showing sharp drops in US home sales and house prices. The rout then gained momentum after Gimme Credit, a research firm, suggested that creditors and customers were cutting their exposure to WaMu – prompting a spirited response by the lender.

WaMu shares fell as much as 23.4 per cent, before ending 13.3 per cent lower as the S&P Financials index shed 6.7 per cent. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage financiers, both slumped nearly 19 per cent, while Merrill Lynch fell 14 per cent, Lehman Brothers 12 per cent, Citigroup 10 per cent and JPMorgan 5.9 per cent.

Fannie’s and Freddie’s free lunch

By Joseph Stiglitz

Much has been made in recent years of private/public partnerships. The US government is about to embark on another example of such a partnership, in which the private sector takes the profits and the public sector bears the risk. The proposed bail-out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac entails the socialisation of risk – with all the long-term adverse implications for moral hazard – from an administration supposedly committed to free-market principles.

Defenders of the bail-out argue that these institutions are too big to be allowed to fail. If that is the case, the government had a responsibility to regulate them so that they would not fail. No insurance company would provide fire insurance without demanding adequate sprinklers; none would leave it to “self-regulation”. But that is what we have done with the financial system.
Read the rest of this entry » »

Senator John McCain with the Dalai Lama on Friday at a private residence in Aspen, Colo. The Dalai Lama was in Aspen for a symposium on Tibetan culture.

New York Times
July 26, 2008
By ELISABETH BUMILLER

WASHINGTON — President Bush and Senator John McCain have long been in agreement on major elements of American foreign policy, particularly in their approach to the “axis of evil” countries of Iran and North Korea, and their commitment to staying the course in Iraq.

But now the administration’s agreement to consider a “time horizon” for troop withdrawals from Iraq has moved it, at least in the public perception, in the direction of the policies of Senator Barack Obama. That has thrown Mr. McCain on the political defensive in his opposition to a timed withdrawal, Republicans in the party’s foreign party establishment say.

On Friday Mr. McCain went so far as to say that the idea of a 16-month withdrawal, which Mr. Obama supports, was “a pretty good timetable,” although he included the caveat that it had to be based on conditions on the ground.

Republicans also say the administration’s decision to authorize high-level talks with Iran and North Korea has undercut Mr. McCain’s skepticism about engagement with those countries, leaving the perception that he is more conservative than Mr. Bush on the issue.

Essentially, as the administration has taken a more pragmatic approach to foreign policy, the decision of Mr. McCain to adhere to his more hawkish positions illustrates the continuing influence of neoconservatives on his thinking even as they are losing clout within the administration.

Whether the perception of Mr. McCain as being at odds with the administration is politically advantageous for him is a matter of debate among his supporters, but many of his more conservative advisers do not think it is a bad thing.

“There’s no doubt, particularly as Bush has adopted policies in the direction of Obama, that that gives Obama bragging rights,” said John R. Bolton, the Bush administration’s former ambassador to the United Nations, who has sharply criticized the administration’s talks with Iran and North Korea. “But if you believe as I do that this administration is in the midst of an intellectual collapse, it doesn’t hurt McCain. Occasionally in politics it helps to be right.”

But other Republicans — the so-called foreign policy pragmatists, many of whom have come to view the Iraq war as a mistake — say the administration’s policy shifts highlight the more confrontational nature of Mr. McCain’s foreign policy, particularly in his approach toward Russia and his embrace on Friday of the Dalai Lama, whom the Chinese regard as the fomenter of a rebellion in Tibet. They say the meeting will only antagonize China before the Summer Olympics, and at a moment when the United States is seeking its cooperation on economic issues and negotiations with North Korea.
Read the rest of this entry » »

Obama has reported that he has recently received over $54 million more of campaign contributions. So what does he do with some of that money? He bolsters his Foreign Policy Credentials and takes a tour of the world.

While he has been away perhaps the most significant shift in the Bush policy with Iraq from a political perspective occurred: “Mr Obama has also benefited from an apparent U-turn by the Bush administration over Iraq policy. The White House last week announced that President George W. Bush had agreed with Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, on the need to include a “general time horizon” for removing US troops in a security agreement being hammered out by both countries.” The article further states “While the White House stresses that the goals would be “aspirational”, it suggested on Tuesday that the agreement could include possible dates for the US to hand over control of certain provinces to the Iraqi security forces.”

Obama’s troop withdrawal plan wins support

Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, on Tuesday welcomed the “growing consensus” around a timetable for withdrawing US troops from Iraq.

Speaking in Jordan following a two-day visit to Iraq, Mr Obama stressed that Iraqi leaders were ready and willing to take responsibility for security. “The best way to support Iraqi sovereignty and to encourage the Iraqis to stand up is through the responsible redeployment of our combat brigades.”

More on this issue will be posted next.

Obama Vows Focus on Iran, Mideast Peace

On the sixth day of his international trip, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee shuttled between Israeli and Palestinian leaders in Jerusalem and the West Bank and visited Israel’s iconic Holocaust museum. He then boarded a helicopter for the short ride to Sderot, which borders the Gaza Strip and has been the frequent target of Qassam rockets fired by Palestinian militants there.

After meeting with local officials and hearing about the damage caused by the rockets, Obama told assembled reporters it was in “Israel’s strong national interest to have a lasting peace with the Palestinians.”

“The threats to Israel’s security begin in Sderot, but they don’t end there,” Obama said, citing Tuesday’s tractor attack in downtown Jerusalem and the ongoing possibility of nuclear weapons in Iran. “A nuclear Iran would be a game-changing situation, not just in the Middle East but around the world.”

Plus, here is an article which explores the difference in Obama trade strategy and that of John McCain.

Obama, the optimist on trade

Financial Times

Around the world, the press has portrayed the 2008 US presidential election as a choice between freer trader John McCain and “protectionist” Barack Obama. That traditional paradigm has helped the media simplify the differences between the two men. However, such these labels do not accurately describe either candidate. And it does not fully portray the candidate, Mr Obama, who has the more optimistic vision of trade.

The conventional wisdom labels Mr McCain as a freer trader because he supports three bilateral trade agreements negotiated by the Bush administration. Mr Obama, in contrast, has come out forcefully against these agreements. Moreover, because Mr Obama states that he wants to review the effects of existing trade agreements, the press has found him to be unenthusiastic about trade liberalisation. (It is important to note that the US is already conducting a similar review of the World Trade Organisation.) Finally, Mr Obama has support from many US unions, which traditionally have taken a protectionist stance.

In fact, both men are pro-trade; they each support using trade agreements to open markets and create economic efficiencies. But the two have different perspectives regarding what trade agreements should do, what rules these agreements should include, and whom these agreements should directly benefit.
Read the rest of this entry » »