Obama's Appeal

A commenter named "phoenix a stepinac" gets to the core of why Obama's so appealing to me and many others:

Beyond his intelligence, what appeals to me about Obama is his apparent zeal for aggressive statesmanship. While McCain claims to hold the mantle of foriegn policy, he always appears dismissive when asked about diplomatic, multilateral foreign policy issues, and seems unwilling to think extemporaneously about evolving events. This lends him an air of obstinance; it feels as if he has no desire to truly know more about the parties in a conflict, no desire to triangulate a solution. He has all too willingly embraced the anti-intellectualism of the Bush White House, the distrust of nuance and conflicting opinion that has us mired in a disgusting war.

I find a lot of things alarming about Obama's recent foreign policy statements. For one thing, his proposal for dealing with Afghanistan seems a bit short sighted and politically expedient. Regardless of this, he appears possessed of a certain drive, an embrace of thoroughly caucused factuality, and a willingness to shift his views with the times without the egomaniac's obsession with constant justification and calibration.

I feel that this goes a good deal of the way in explaining why his popularity has soared all over the world. Most people, world leaders and myself included, have not deluded themselves into believing Obama will work entirely in favor of their specific interests all of the time. Obama has proven, however, that he will elevate the position of the Presidency back to that of a world statesman, and weigh all sides of his decisions with the gravity and seriousness they deserve.

I could not have put it better myself (and I share Phoenix's apprehensiveness at some of Obama's recent rhetoric concerning Afghanistan.)

Morning's Minion on the Iraq Situation

As of right now, Obama pretty much has this thing in the bag.

The reaction to Nouri al-Maliki’s endorsement of Obama’s Iraq withdrawal timetable is interesting. First, we had an Iraqi government spokesman claim that Maliki was misquoted, without offering any details, and with the translation showing quite clearly that Maliki said what he said, as an audiotape of the interview actually exists. Even more dubiously, the qualifying statement was issued by the occupying army! But, after recent clarification, there is now no doubt that the Iraqi government favors a withdrawal timetable similar to Obama’s proposal.

McCain Left Without an Issue

More on Al-Maliki's agreement with Obama's timetable, this time from Marc Ambinder:

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. Obviously, our national interests aren't equivalent to Iraq's, but... Malik isn't listening to the generals on the ground...but the "hasn't been to Iraq" line doesn't work here.

So how will the McCain campaign respond?

(Via e-mail, a prominent Republican strategist who occasionally provides advice to the McCain campaign said, simply, "We're fucked."

Villagers Manifesting Idiocy Yet Again

Jamison Foser over at Media Matters, on why discussing "likability" in our presidential candidates is moronic:

Yet again, the political media is obsessed with the question of whether the Democratic presidential nominee is "likable" and whether he can "connect" with "regular people." We go through this every four years. It's a remarkably bad way for journalists to spend their -- and our -- time, but old habits die hard, especially when the alternative is doing some actual reporting.

Voting for president based on who seems the most likable -- or, in the media's favorite shorthand, based on who you would rather have a beer with -- is a spectacularly bad idea, what with the almost total lack of similarity between talking about the Knicks over a bottle of Bud and running the world's most powerful nation. It requires very little judgment or analytical skills to determine that the Knicks stink. Deciding whether to send Americans off to die in a foreign land is (or should be) a little different.

[H/T Digby]

Lyrics from Ray LaMontagne

So now we see how it is
This fist begets the spear
Weapons of war
Symptoms of madness
Don't let your eyes refuse to see
Don't let your ears refuse to hear
Or you ain't never going to shake this sense of sadness

Nuri al-Maliki Endorses Obama Plan to End US Involvement In Iraq

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.

"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."
Asked if he supported Obama's ideas more than those of John McCain, Republican presidential hopeful, Maliki said he did not want to recommend who people should vote for.

"Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems."

McCain being buried

Obama raises $52 Million in June

Henry at Vox Nova...

...has a fascinating series up on Man At The Crossroads. Except from today's installment:

A second reason many people use to abandon God is because of the evil done in God’s name. We should all agree with them that such a corruption of religion needs purification. The sad fact, however, is that such corruption often goes unnoticed and is too ingrained to be rooted out easily. But even when this is the case, people should not give up faith in God. It’s ultimately an ad hominem. Truth is truth, whether the followers of truth do evil or not. But doubters, following this line of thought, should see it for what it is: another reason to question humanity, not God.[6] Indeed, it is ironically saying that, because people have done evil, I can’t believe in God, so I will believe in myself (despite the fact that I am also human).

Good Question

Sully asks a good question.

Calling All Conservative Catholics

What alternative do you propose to universal health care, on the European model? Whatever the problems there, everyone is guaranteed basic care, no one there is bankrupted by medical bills, and everyone seems (by and large) happy with it.

How, as a Catholic, can you oppose that?

Just...explain to me why it would be so horrifying to just have universal health care in the United States. Yes it would cost money, and yes, taxes would go up - but so what? Isn't working people not being bankrupted by hospital bills ever again worth a few more percent at tax time? Isn't a society where everyone can go to a doctor when he's sick better than a society where he delays going because then he won't eat or won't be able to buy gas, or can't pay his car payment or whatever?

Give me a good, solid reason to oppose it - not a picking-around-the-edges, "particular statistic 'x' suffers in comparison to America..." reason, but simply-stated summary of why, in principle, it would be so horrible.

The reply, "we ought to care for each other in the community" sounds good - heck, I even agree with it. But the price of modern health care is too much for that kind of community-provided care. I have no idea what an MRI machine costs, but I can't imagine my local parish can fork over than kind of cash.

As Catholics, we can either, 1. Wring our hands and dream piously of New Jerusalem, or 2. Come up with a plan B.

I'll go first: "Millions of people having either no health insurance or junk insurance in a country as affluent as the US is a scandal. Universal health care, modeled on Western European systems, is practically achievable and would be good because it would guarantee basic health care to every citizen."

Bloody Day in Afghanistan

9 US troopers are dead (so far) and 15 wounded in an attack on an outpost:

CNN:

Nine U.S. troops were killed Sunday in an attack on a base in a remote province of eastern Afghanistan, a Western official said.

[...]

NATO confirmed that nine of its International Security Assistance Force troops were killed, but it didn't release the troops' nationalities. Fifteen other ISAF troops and four Afghan troops were wounded, NATO said.

"The fighting began in early morning hours and continued into the day as insurgents were repulsed from an Afghan National Army and ISAF combat outpost," said a NATO statement.

Prayers and thoughts for the dead, the wounded, their families and the Afghan people.

Sully asks a...

Good Question.