Is Obama already the President?

I posted with hopes of finding the point. Maybe there isn't one to be found, but that was the original intent.

 

WOW. I agree with you!!!

 

The point is: Obama's policy statements are becoming reality in the face of his opponent bashing said policies as naive.

Or go read politics for dummies on ishouldntvotebecauseicantunderstandanything.com

 

Don't you think you would have gotten YOUR point across by stopping after the first graph?

Did you really need to toss in the insult just for kicks?

 

Everything comes with a price.

If you have an issue, here's a tissue.

 

Let's see if the crappy political media covers Malaki's comments up for McCain, whose team was spinning like a top last night.

Already last night, CNN and the like were touting an Iraqi spokesman saying that Malaki was misquoted or mistranslated or taken out of context (without providing specifics). Of course, the Iraqi statement was issued through CENTCOM. Laughable.

Here's a more thorough transcript of the interview:

SPIEGEL: Germany, after World War II, was also liberated from a tyrant by a US-led coalition. That was 63 years ago, and today there are still American military bases and soldiers in Germany. How do you feel about this model?

Maliki: Iraq can learn from Germany's experiences, but the situation is not truly comparable. Back then Germany waged a war that changed the world. Today, we in Iraq want to establish a timeframe for the withdrawal of international troops -- and it should be short. At the same time, we would like to see the establishment of a long-term strategic treaty with the United States, which would govern the basic aspects of our economic and cultural relations. However, I wish to re-emphasize that our security agreement should remain in effect in the short term.

SPIEGEL: How short-term? Are you hoping for a new agreement before the end of the Bush administration?

Maliki: So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat. But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias. The American lead negotiators realize this now, and that's why I expect to see an agreement taking shape even before the end of President Bush's term in office. With these negotiations, we will start the whole thing over again, on a clearer, better basis, because the first proposals were unacceptable to us.

SPIEGEL: Immunity for the US troops is apparently the central issue.

Maliki: It is a fundamental problem for us that it should not be possible, in my country, to prosecute offences or crimes committed by US soldiers against our population. But other issues are no less important: How much longer will these soldiers remain in our country? How much authority do they have? Who controls how many, soldiers enter and leave the country and where they do so?

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.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566852,00.html

Of course, I'm sure McCain's "base" will let him skate by again despite being wrong on the substance. Again.

 

The current Rolling Stone ran Obama on the cover with no words. Never seen that before unless I'm forgetting. Jann did the interview. It wasn't bad. The first thing Obama said that has made like him somewhat is when he said "For Whom the Bell Tolls" was one of the inspiring books he read. That's my favorite book. But Jann didn't follow up and ask why that book inspired him.

 

It's also a pretty good Metallica song too.

 

Bush is just doing what he planned on doing at the time he felt like doing it. It's politics. And it also steals the thunder of the opposition.

 

How does it steal Obama's thunder? How can you attack him as naive and inexperienced on foreign policy when he's leading and McCain/Bush are following?

 

A Democrat complaining about crappy political media? You must buy drugs off the street from Carl Bernstein.

 

A very kid-gloves interview, like Jann does with ALL Democratic nominees. Sad, because Rolling Stone could have gotten into the meat of some of the issues that really matter, and instead it spit the bit.

RS ain't what it used to be, which is why I let my subscription lapse late last year after having it for I-don't-know how many years.