From the horse's mouth...

Per Reuters, via TPM:
"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... Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems.... The Americans have found it difficult to agree on a concrete timetable for the exit because it seems like an admission of defeat to them. But it isn't," [Iraqi PM Nuri al-] Maliki told Der Spiegel.

On fund-raising and debts

Senator Obama raised $52 million in June this year, his second-best monthly haul. Even the DNC did reasonably well (for the DNC!) In the mean time, some Clinton supporters say they will find it easier to help Senator Obama ONLY if Obama helps Clinton pay off her debts. Not to mention pressuring Obama to pick Senator Clinton as his VP.
A couple things. The Clinton debt figure touted is around $22 million. Senator Clinton has apparently asked the public not to help alleviate her personal loans - $11 million - to her campaign, which is a good start (a la Mitt Romney!)
However, much of the remaining debt - as much as $5 million - is actually owed to Mark Penn! I mean, Mark friggin' Penn!! The guy who might be, short of the Clintons, solely responsible for her defeat! The guy who devised the message(s) - and ran the polls needed to check if his message was working! Talk about a conflict of interest... Not to mention sheer incompetence and short-sightedness. I see absolutely no reason to help that portion of Senator Clinton's debt. Nor should Mark Penn expect any of it to be paid. So really, if anything, the Clinton debt that needs to be paid off is closer to $5 million.

But I'd take issue with this entirely - does Obama really have to help pay off the debts accumulated due to Senator Clinton's campaign mismanagement? The very debts accumulated to try and show Obama as unelectable and inexperienced, during a seemingly-never-ending campaign that appears to have ended with plenty of supporters on both Democratic sides bitter, and with some Clinton supporters either refusing to vote in November or even supporting John McCain?

As for PUMAs, Hillaryis44 and other such nuts - grow up. Far from Obama's supporters forming a cult of personality, it is people like these Clinton supporters who are Kool-Aid drinking cultists. From what I read, apparently Obama choosing a female-VP-not-named-Clinton would be an insult to Senator Clinton, and would result in a major backlash. Why, are there no other competent legislators who happen to be women out there? Governors Janet Napolitano and Kathleen Sibelius, Senators Blanche Lincoln and Amy Klobuchar, not to mention Speaker Nancy Pelosi - are these all incompetent, just-plain-lucky, undeserving legislators? Just because they didn't run for President doesn't diminish their capabilities. And as I have said earlier, Senator Clinton's performance in arguably the two most important endeavors of her career - universal health care in the early '90s and her Presidential campaign - have been incredibly subpar for someone described by her devotees as hypercompetent and highly accomplished. So I have no idea why Senator Obama should pick her as his VP, to placate her childish, immature supporters.

[Edit: Actually, I do - read the comments below. Senator Clinton would be a competent, able deputy, but I don't like blackmail. Also, not all Clinton-supporters are childish/immature PUMAs, thankfully.]

Can't you tell I am feeling just peachy today?

In Boston...

Am in Boston for a couple weeks... In-between 14-h work days, have a day off tomorrow (Sunday). Might get a chance to roam around the city. Maybe even bike. Nice.
Just returned from Hellboy II. Great movie; apparently critics love it too (Ebert's back, good!) Rather poignant who Hellboy fights (and kills, of course); the Tooth Fairies are something special. Excellent dose of escapism. Must-watch!

Today's Tweety - I mean Chris Mathews - show

Just watching Tweety's show - I suppose the local NBC station is showing it late, perhaps to accommodate Wimbledon.
The talking heads are discussing bipartisanship - and keep making the point that McCain has a better record of working across the aisle, while Obama talks but hasn't walked.
Morons - they only focus on the US Senate, not on the eight years Obama spent in the Illinois State Senate. I suppose if it didn't happen in DC, it doesn't matter. That probably happens to people when they spend way too much time in DC... Happens to journalists, politicians, even activists.

Obama has done a lot in the Illinois State Senate - gathering bipartisan support for legislation on video-taping police interrogations, for one, and apparently also for ethics and health care reform (WaPo link via Wikipedia). Per the WaPo article:

"...he reached Republican-dominated Springfield as a committed liberal...

Yet he emerged as a leader while still in his 30s by developing a style former colleagues describe as methodical, inclusive and pragmatic. He cobbled together legislation with Republicans and conservative Democrats, making overtures other progressive politicians might consider distasteful.

Along the way, he played an important role in drafting bipartisan ethics legislation and health-care reform. He overcame law enforcement objections to codify changes designed to curb racial profiling and to make capital punishment, which he favors, more equitable."

Add that long record to his work in the US Senate, on nuclear non-proliferation with Dick Lugar, the now-famous plan to reduce US fuel consumption in co-operation with Republicans Lugar, Gordon Smith, and Norm Coleman (in addition to Democrats Dick Durbin, Jeff Bingaman, and Joe Biden), etc... So what do these talking (pin)heads mean that Obama hasn't walked his talk?

Obama on his faith... including abortion rights?

WaPo has a decent write-up on Obama's address to St Louis' African Methodist Episcopal Church. As Obama says, he probably won't win the votes of single-issue Evangelicals who are opposed to gay rights or abortion rights. But there are other areas - poverty alleviation, helping the sick including people infected with HIV/AIDS, stewarding the environment - where Obama is better than McCain. By showing up - and making it clear he is interested in their vote - hopefully Obama can do better than Kerry's abysmal 21-78 loss among White Evangelicals in 2004 (23% of the electorate, and perhaps the difference between Bush and Kerry; Kerry won 56-43 among the rest).

Incidentally, the WaPo also quotes Obama's position on abortion rights, as stated to the AME Church. Earlier, Obama stated that "mental distress" should not qualify as an exception to bans on late-term abortion. Now, this was weird - did he mean only physical threats to the mother's health were reasonable exceptions and a mental disorder/illness was not OK?
So, Obama's fuller position is, according to his statements before the AME Church:

"Historically, I have been a strong believer in a woman's right to choose, with her doctor, her pastor, her family," he said Saturday. "And I've been consistent in saying you have to have a health exception on any significant restrictions or bans on abortions, including late-term abortions.

"It can be defined by physical health. It can be defined by serious clinical mental health diseases," he continued. But "it's not just a matter of feeling blue."

OK... So there are exceptions made for "serious clinical mental health diseases." That sounds much better. And I am pretty sure there aren't women rushing out for an abortion just because they have suddenly had a change of heart - much as the GOP/religious right would try to hype the situation. [My opinion is based solely on my gut - not on any actual knowledge.]
Here's a good comment on the initial report, from a TPM post - apparently by a neonatal nurse.

Not politics? On whom not to marry

Maureen Dowd quotes extensively from a Catholic priest, Father Pat Connor, who counsels people on whom not to marry. Some choice quotes (delivered mostly to women!):
"Does he have a sense of humor? That covers a multitude of sins." - Ummm, does that mean a sense of humor is not good to have?
"Imagine a religious fundamentalist married to an agnostic. One would have to pray that the fundamentalist doesn’t open the Bible and hit the page in which Abraham is willing to obey God and slit his son’s throat." - Oh brother!
And this really hits home, as it is often advanced as a reason for men to marry back in India:
"Don’t marry a problem character thinking you will change him. He’s a heavy drinker, or some other kind of addict, but if he marries a good woman, he’ll settle down. People are the same after marriage as before, only more so." [emphasis mine - RS]
To end:
“After I regale a group with this talk, the despairing cry goes up: ‘But you’ve eliminated everyone!’ Life is unfair.” - Mr Right, or Mr Right Now? :-)

Jay Cost's take on Obama's ad-buys

Via Pollster.com, here's Jay Cost's take on Obama's ad-buys in 18 states. Cost says the aggressive buys in states like Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, Georgia and Indiana show Obama's Chicagoan confidence. Cost however goes on to declare that Democrats looking to expand the electoral map beyond the Kerry-2004 states should follow President Clinton's 1996 victory pattern, playing for Kentucky, West Virginia, Louisiana, Tennessee and Arkansas. These latter five states apparently retain a Democratic advantage in registration, unlike the four red states. But, says Cost, Obama is not advertising here because he lost big to Senator Clinton in the Democratic primaries. Hence, Cost concludes, Obama will either win in a landslide, or lose like Kerry.

Let's look at the facts. Obama has bought ads in Nevada, New Mexico and Iowa - states President Clinton won, but Kerry lost by just 21k, 6k and 10k votes respectively (Wiki). Contrast these with Kerry's losses in Cost's "Democratic 5" - margins of 350k in KY, 100k in WVa, 350k in TN, 100k in AR, and 380k in LA. In addition, President Clinton lost Colorado by just 1.37% or 20k votes (link via the Wiki) respectively, while Kerry lost CO by 100k (<5%). If one was a Democratic Presidential candidate, would one not make a play for NV, NM, IA and perhaps CO?

In one sense, I can see that Cost is suggesting the 2008 electoral playing field will be like 2004, including states Kerry lost by not much. I would also agree that the same factors that cost Obama the Democratic primaries in KY and WV could make Obama lose the two in the GE - particularly racism. As for TN and AR - these two are Clinton turf, which explains why President Clinton won the GE there in 1996 and Senator Clinton won the primaries this year. However, Al Gore could not even carry his home state of Tennessee, let alone Arkansas, even as he won the popular vote in 2000 (Wiki). These factors, combined with Kerry's losing margins, suggest that TN, AR, KY and WV would not naturally be on this Democrat's winning strategy (or that of another Kerry/Gore-type), even in an expansionist plan.

For the other part of the puzzle - Obama buying ad-time in ND, MT, IN, AK and GA. ND and MT may be long-shots, but Obama does well in Western states (CO, NV, NM) - yesterday's Rasmussen MT poll actually has him 5% ahead! The June Alaska polls also have Obama within 5%. Indiana borders Obama's home state of IL and some parts share the Chicago media market, so folks should be familiar with Obama (the IN Democratic primary this year was very, very close). A June SUSA poll has Indiana as a tie, with Obama up 48-47.

Georgia, IMHO, is part of Obama's broader "southern" strategy, together with NC and VA. VA has been steadily turning blue. As an InsiderAdvantage poll (via Pollster.com) write-up says, GA has a high percentage of African-Americans and youth, both of which favor Obama. There is also the Bob Barr factor in GA.

To wit - the past is not necessarily a predictor of future success. President Clinton had his winning electoral map; but that doesn't mean that's the map a Democratic Presidential candidate should follow in 2008. That is the map a White Southern Democrat would follow - if it was 1996.

A decade later, ground conditions and state politics/demographics are different, which means a state like Virginia, which President Clinton did not win in either 1992 or 1996, could turn Blue in 2008. However, even a White Southern Democrat like Al Gore, let alone a Northern liberal like John Kerry, failed to carry the south (which includes KY, WV, LA, TN, and AR). Perhaps this prompted Thomas Schaller to opine that Obama would be the latest Democrat to fail in the south, with the possible exception of Virginia.

However, Obama - as a young Black Midwestern Democrat - has strengths and weaknesses that a Kerry or a Gore or even a Bill Clinton did not have, as well as other factors like eight years of George W Bush, and even Bob Barr. So while NC, GA, IN, AK, MT, ND may seem like a stretch... Not necessarily. And current polls bear this out.