And, as much as the NY Times tries, they just cannot find a way to spin it too negatively

Mr. McCain, of Arizona, alienated some environmentalists last week during a speech in Houston when he dropped his opposition to allowing offshore drilling for oil; this week, in a swing through California, he spoke about trying to wean the nation from its dependence on oil. He called for improving the enforcement of fuel economy standards, building more cars that could run on alternative fuels, dropping the tariff on imports of sugar-based ethanol from Brazil and offering big tax credits for nonpolluting cars.

“I further propose we inspire the ingenuity and resolve of the American people,” Mr. McCain said, “by offering a $300 million prize for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars.”

He said the winner should deliver power at 30 percent of current costs. “That’s one dollar, one dollar, for every man, woman and child in the U.S. — a small price to pay for helping to break the back of our oil dependency,” he said.

Now that is the kind of idea that can really pay off!

Meanwhile, Obama continues to run around pushing corn based ethanol, along with tax breaks and subisdies, which, while a good idea at the start, is not viable for the long term.

If you hang with terrorists, how can you be president?

If your wife has never been proud of the country you are running to be the chief executive, how can you be president?

If you have virtually no experience in government, and not enough related work experience to get hired on as a manager of a McDonald’s, how can you be president?

If you have trouble debating without a teleprompter, how can you be president?

If you find yourself getting caught saying patronizing and ugly things about the people you want to lead, how can you be president?

If your entire platform revolves around, change, hope, and “hey, I’m Black!”, how can you be president?

Or, we can go with Jane “Black Face” Hamsher’s If You Can’t Use a Computer, How Can You Be President?

I’m at the Personal Democracy Forum in New York and during the last session, Tracy Russo (formerly of the Edwards campaign, with me in the photo) got into it with Mark Soohoo of the McCain campaign. Tracy wondered how someone who doesn’t use a computer can be president of the United States.

Mark said that someone doesn’t have to know how to use a computer in order to understand them. Tracy said most emphatically that you do, and that someone who is going to be expected to lead the country through the social, political, economic and communication upheavals that are happening as a result of the changes in computer and online technology very much needs to be able to use one.

If you cannot control the racist, anti-semitic, bigoted, and unhinged content of the websites that have your name on them, how can you be president?

If you forgot to hire competent webmasters to run the websites with your name on them, how can you be president?

Tuesday update: Don Surber - Question: Are lefty bloggers so full of themselves again that they think the Internet rules the universe?

Yesterday, Ed Morrissey picked up a story by David Broder about Obama potential damaging his brand, and one paragraph stands out in light of a Washington Post story today. Ed writes

Broder wonders whether Obama has built sufficient trust with the American electorate to begin on this series of reversals.  Dick Morris last week referred to this as “political antibodies”, which candidates build up from a long period of public service.  Voters get to know them from years of action, and that gives politicians the ability to be flexible, especially as circumstances change.  For instance, most voters understand McCain’s shift on off-shore drilling, because circumstances have not just changed but have made life more difficult for Americans across the board.

In contrast, Obama has almost no public record at all — no legislative track record, no executive experience, no foreign-policy experience, and no military experience.  He has not built public trust, but has become popular through his promises of reform.  He claims the mantle of crusader, someone who will courageously attack Beltway business as usual and bring a new era of government excellence as a result.

All of which makes today’s Wash Post story all the funnier, as Obama tries to reintroduce himself to deflect away from who he really is, and who he portrayed himself as during the Democrat primaries

 In the opening weeks of the general-election campaign, Sen. Barack Obama has moved aggressively to shape his campaign and offered a clear road map for the kind of candidate he is likely to become in the months ahead: an ambitious gamer of the electoral map, a ruthless fundraiser and a scrupulous manager of his own biography in the face of persistent concerns about how he is perceived.

Obama’s early maneuvers suggest a clear understanding within the campaign of his strengths and weaknesses. He bought air time in 18 states, a sure sign that he hopes to expand Democrats’ traditional electoral map. He opted out of the public campaign-financing system — revealing his determination to press his financial advantage, even at the cost of handing his Republican opponent the opportunity to raise questions about the sincerity of his rhetoric on reform.

And with a first ad that delves into his biography, Obama acknowledged ongoing concerns among his advisers that voters do not know whether he shares the values and beliefs of ordinary Americans, a potentially critical vulnerability. The ad speaks to the reality that enough questions were raised about Obama through the long nomination battle that he needs to address them. The campaign’s concerns include both taking on misinformation — such as the persistent claim that he is Muslim when he is in fact a Christian — and framing a biography unlike that of any nominee in the modern era.

Followed up massive amounts of “the American People do not really know Obama!”, which means, of course, that the long primary allowed the middle ground voters to learn who he really is, and he is not someone who has their best interests at heart, not someone who shares their same values, and not someone who they will trust. Obama breaks his word. He speaks in platitudes and sweeping rhetoric, but has very little experience to back it up. He was on the wrong side of the Surge, and refuses to acknowledge the successes of The Surge. He wants direct talks with America’s enemies with no pre-conditions. He is the one playing the race card, and white middle America, a pretty big voter block, does not appreciate being called racists simply because they disagree with Obama’s soaring rhetoric of hope and change and change and hope.

They do not appreciate being called bitter because they love God and own guns. They do not appreciate the wife of Obama and her “first time I have been proud of my country” yammering. Middle American’s are proud people who do not want government running their lives. And, again, while they certainly do not trust politicians that much, they expect them to at least keep their word on the big issues, which, so far, Obama is not.

He can fake who he is all he wants, but, contrast that with John McCain. People know John McCain. He has a long record, some of which people like, some of which drives Conservatives nuts. But, you know where he stands. You know what he will do. He has the track record to say “ya know, that is not working. I am going to change my position so that the problem can be fixed.”

Interestingly, the more Obama tries to reintroduce himself to lie to middle America and middle ground Republicans, the more he will enrage his base.

Interestingly, as Senator Neophyte demonizes the American oil companies, he is linked himself to the American ethanol industry, which even the United Nations says is one the reasons for higher prices of food stuff around the world. Obama doesn’t like oil, because of the evil CO2 that it produces (funny how he never talks about he actual pollution from oil based engines), and, like the tobacco industry, it is easy to demonize. Apparently, he loves ethanol, which uses more energy than it produces (depending on which source you read. Some say less, some say a tiny bit more), and, being that plants produce methane, which is a much stronger greenhouse gas then CO2, the more plants, the more CO2

….And as befits a senator from Illinois, the country’s second largest corn-producing state, he delivered a ringing endorsement of ethanol as an alternative fuel.

Mr. Obama is running as a reformer who is seeking to reduce the influence of special interests. But like any other politician, he has powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn, he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry at a time when energy policy is a point of sharp contrast between the parties and their presidential candidates.

The NY Times is soft peddling this story, but, one gets the feeling that they are not too happy with Obama’s apparent association with the ethanol companies, which leads to his pro-ethanol stance, which seems like, well, politics as usual.

Nowadays, when Mr. Obama travels in farm country, he is sometimes accompanied by his friend Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader from South Dakota. Mr. Daschle now serves on the boards of three ethanol companies and works at a Washington law firm where, according to his online job description, “he spends a substantial amount of time providing strategic and policy advice to clients in renewable energy.”

Wouldn’t that make Daschle a, you know, lobbyist?

Not long after arriving in the Senate, Mr. Obama himself briefly provoked a controversy by flying at subsidized rates on corporate airplanes, including twice on jets owned by Archer Daniels Midland, which is the nation’s largest ethanol producer and is based in his home state.

Politics as usual.

Jason Furman, the Obama campaign’s economic policy director, said Mr. Obama’s stance on ethanol was based on its merits. “That is what has always motivated him on this issue, and will continue to determine his policy going forward,” Mr. Furman said.

Yup, those great merits like taking more energy to produce then it gives back. Plus the methane. Higher food costs. Now, if we could shift to sugar based……

Last excerpt

Mr. McCain advocates eliminating the multibillion-dollar annual government subsidies that domestic ethanol has long enjoyed. As a free trade advocate, he also opposes the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff that the United States slaps on imports of ethanol made from sugar cane, which packs more of an energy punch than corn-based ethanol and is cheaper to produce.

Mr. Obama, in contrast, favors the subsidies, some of which end up in the hands of the same oil companies he says should be subjected to a windfall profits tax. In the name of helping the United States build “energy independence,” he also supports the tariff, which some economists say may well be illegal under the World Trade Organization’s rules but which his advisers say is not.

I’m not going to comment on the subsidies one way or another, that is the first I’ve heard, and I do not know enough about them, other then it seems to be typical government. But, interestingly, McCain is in favor of reducing or eliminating the tariffs on sugar based ethanol (too be honest, won’t make that much of a difference, as most of the countries that produce it have none to spare), while Obama, Mr. Hope, Change, a New Politician, a guy who is not an insider, has not been captured by the system, and wants to change the way Washington does business, is apparently in the pocket of Big Ethanol. Personally, if he is in Big Ethanols pocket, not big deal from a politician, but, this goes against everything the Obamissiah has been preaching.

The Times also points out that Surprise Surprise! Obama has not really explained his opposition to sugar based ethanol.

PS: Renewable Fuels: Obama has worked on numerous efforts in the Senate to increase access to and use of renewable fuels. Obama passed legislation with Senator Jim Talent (R-MO) to give gas stations a tax credit for installing E85 ethanol refueling pumps. The tax credit covers 30 percent of the costs of switching one or more traditional petroleum pumps to E85, which is an 85 percent ethanol/15 percent gasoline blend. Obama also sponsored an amendment that became law providing $40 million for commercialization of a combined flexible fuel vehicle/hybrid car within five years.

First he tried the “let’s tax the American oil companies to death” approach (which has not been shelved.) Now, he is trying another “let’s make the Lefties feel good about hating rich people” tact (except for rich book authors. They are the “good rich”)

(The Politico) With the cost of gas a top issue in the presidential campaign, Barack Obama on Sunday will announce a plan to crack down on oil speculation by tightening regulations on energy traders.

And that will do what to reduce price at the pump, barely a Senator Obama? Hello? Whistle. Bueller? Bueller?

Anyhow, from what I have heard and read multiple times is that it is the speculators who are keeping the prices down. Personally, I cannot say for sure, trading is really not my bag, but, regardless, the main cause of the escalating prices boils down to supply and demand. The massive escalation of demand in China and India is the primary factor in this.

The announcement is further evidence that an Obama administration would take an activist, populist approach to regulating business.

Sometimes I have to wonder about the Politico. Populist? Is that another word for fascist? Or, perhaps Authoritarian. Totalitarian? Nationism?

Brought to you by the same folks who have published national security programs designed to defend the United States from terrorist attacks, and were asked by the White House and Congress members of both parties to not publish, the NY Times provides the name of a CIA interrogator so that al Qaeda knows who to look for, along with his family, to torture and kill

The interrogator, Deuce Martinez, a soft-spoken analyst who spoke no Arabic, had turned down a C.I.A. offer to be trained in waterboarding. He chose to leave the infliction of pain and panic to others, the gung-ho paramilitary types whom the more cerebral interrogators called “knuckledraggers.” (snip)

Mr. Martinez declined to be interviewed; his role was described by colleagues. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, director of the C.I.A., and a lawyer representing Mr. Martinez asked that he not be named in this article, saying that the former interrogator believed that the use of his name would invade his privacy and might jeopardize his safety. The New York Times, noting that Mr. Martinez had never worked undercover and that others involved in the campaign against Al Qaeda have been named in news articles and books, declined the request. (An editors’ note on this issue has been posted on The Times’s Web site.)

Apparently, the Times feels that it is OK to play semantic games which put Martinez and his family in mortal harm simply for a story about KSM’s interrogation. I notice that the Times was in high outrage over the release of Valerie Plame’s name, which had been featured on Joe Wilson’s Who’s Who web page, despite her being a staff officer working at CIA headquarters, and not having been undercover for over 5 years.

For the most part, if they had just left Martinez’s name out of it, it would be a good story. But

(From the Editors Note) The newspaper seriously considered the requests from Mr. Martinez and the agency. But in view of the experience of other government employees who have been named publicly in books and published articles or who have themselves chosen to go public, the newspaper made the decision to print the name.

Will the Times take responsibility if something happens to him and/or his family? Freedom of the Press does not mean they can put someone in mortal danger. BTW, since Martinez was working undercover in a foreign nation, possibly within the last 5 years, doesn’t that mean he is covered by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act?

See Dubya: Like hell I’ll link these worthless blackhearted anti-American ass-grommets.

Allahpundit: Too bad, because an otherwise fascinating story about the scramble to build a counterterror apparatus after 9/11, the merits of coercive vs. non-coercive interrogation, and the stings that nailed Abu Zubaydah and KSM is going to be submerged in a debate over their decision to publish the lead interrogator’s name against his wishes and those of CIA chief Michael Hayden.

Fausta: ….tells us that the NYT has revealed the full name of the CIA man who managed to get Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to talk. Funny how the Times and other media were full of outrage when Valerie Plame, who used to drive into the CIA parking lot every morning with the top down of her Mercedes, was “outed”, but they have no problem in outing anyone else employed by the CIA.

Macsmind: The identity of CIA employee is classified, and although illegal under the Intelligence Identities Protections ACT, the CIA did ask that his name not be published. Therefore the Ny Times is in legal jeopardy for publishing his name.

Six Meat Buffet: Valerie Plame was a desk jockey but Martinez was actually out in the field interrogating the planners of 9/11. I hope the Congressional investigations will start shortly into these traitors who claim to have agonized over this decision to intentionally putting this man at risk.

Flopping Aces: Yes, if only he were an “undercover” operative like Valerie Plame Wilson. Then the NY Times would have kept him anonymous. [/sarcasm]

Gateway Pundit: this time by releasing the name of the CIA interrogator in their article on the interrogation of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed the Times has put the interrogator and his family in grave danger.

For an opposing view, Talk Left thinks outing Martinez is a great thing, vis a vis releasing Martinez’s name (and is also trying to smear Martinez for being a former “Narcotics officer”: Good for the Times.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove and Right Wing News.

Just having way too much fun with this

Yes, I have several more. Stay tuned for this afternoon!

They are having meltdowns in Nutroot Land over Obama’s support of the new FISA bill

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) today announced his support for a sweeping intelligence surveillance law that has been heavily denounced by the liberal activists who have fueled the financial engines of his presidential campaign.

In his most substantive break with the Democratic Party’s base since becoming the presumptive nominee, Obama declared he will support the bill when it comes to a Senate vote, likely next week, despite misgivings about legal provisions for telecommunications corporations that cooperated with the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program of suspected terrorists.

Anyone want to bet that, despite his pledged support, he doesn’t actually vote yea on the bill, instead, he will either vote present or not vote at all? That way, he can always change his mind, talk out of both sides of his mouth, and not have to actually take an official stand.

“Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program,” Obama said in a statement hours after the House approved the legislation 293-129.

Yes, because he did a marvelous job in monitoriting Jeremiah Wright, his associations with Bill Ayers, what his wife was saying on the stump, and the filth on his official website’s community pages.

• Greg Sargent is bummed out.
• Digby is annoyed, because “Nothing is more associated with us than this issue.”
• MyDD is not that surprised that Obama is punting the issue, and, regarding change, “We’ve done our part, now you do yours.” IMPORTANT WRIST SLITTING ALERT to follow.
• Atrios names Obama Wanker Of The Day.
• Liberal Values is “disappointed” but has “hopiness” that Obama might do the right thing, despite the view that Obama is acting like a typical politician.

Sock Puppet, who wrote some books, ya know! writes “Nobody should be fooled by Obama’s vow to work to remove telecom amnesty from this bill.” Don’t worry, Glenn, we won’t be.

He’s also pissed off at Pelosi, Hoyer, Emanual, and every Democrat who pushed the bill and voted for it. Watch out, he might start emailed Sybil-like!

This is interesting, though. There is a project by ACTBLUEPRO-TERRORIST to put some ugly ads into newspapers and such about the bill, and

Placing this as a full-page ad in The Washington Post (at an extremely discounted rate) is also the ideal way to announce the beginning of this campaign to all of them…. (emphasis mine)

So, how does this group get an “extremely discounted rate?” Would a pro-FISA bill group, say, one of the telecom PAC’s, get an extremely discounted rate if they wanted to put a pro-FISA bill ad in the Wash Post?

Sister Toldjah breaks down who the Missiah actually is, based on the reactions of the puppy upper needing Missiah disciples.

Matt at Blogs For Victory wanted some photoshops, but, why bother when I have the real thing?