Andy Bloch: "There are a lot of skills playing poker that would help the chief executive. In poker you have to put yourself in the shoes of your opponents, get inside their heads and figure out what they're thinking; what their actions mean; what they would think your actions mean; and reading people's bluffs. One thing that got us into the Iraq War was that George Bush didn't realise that Saddam Hussein was basically bluffing, trying to look like a big man, when he really had no weapons of mass destruction."

Anthony Holden: "Barack Obama, like Lyndon Johnson, used poker to make political connections. He seems not to be much of a bluffer. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a giant bluff by JFK, which was not called by Khruschev. I don't think we'll get those kind of geopolitical gambles from Obama."

On the other hand, they were troubled by McCain's preference for dice:

Both men are concerned by the details of Mr McCain's Craps habit. "You're always at a disadvantage at craps," said Mr Bloch. "It's a problem, if you have a leader who believes they can beat the odds. You don't want him shooting dice with the economy." Mr Holden added: "We poker players don't call poker gambling. It is a game of skill. Craps is an absurd game of luck. You may have thrilling short term wins but only madmen play craps."

The article also has interesting observation from a poker blogger about McCain's and Obama's tells. When McCain lies the blogger says his "his left eye starts twitching   more than his normal excessive blinking. McCain then looks down, in a rather   sheepish fashion, and looks away from the interviewer breaking eye contact." As for Obama: "he touches his face on occasion, when a statement or   comment disturbs him." I'm not sure I buy it, but I'll be on the lookout.

Finally, the article notes that poker superstar Doyle Brunson -- the greatest living poker player and perhaps the greatest who has ever lived -- is supporting Obama, despite being a lifelong Republican. The issue? McCain's support for criminalizing online poker. Brunson says "poker players have to support Obama."

::: ::: :::

You might also be interested in John McCain's lobbyist gambling buddy who used to play 14-hour craps sessions with McCain and recently got McCain to intervene on a clients behalf to enable the largest federal land swap in Arizona history.

Here's a little bonus for you: John McCain playing craps at Bellagio in 2006.

Was this some detailed policy speech worth of such misguided over-analysis? No. He was speaking at a barbeque -- not the Council on Foreign Relations.

“It’s a war we need to bring to an end,” he added, speaking over applause from a crowd of about 1,000 at a picnic outside the World Museum of Mining.

Perhaps faced with a paucity of real information to support his narrative, Zeleny resorts to the "man in the crowd" method of demonstrating that Obama's remarks are influencing public discourse:

His Republican rivals were unusually quiet on Friday, with neither the McCain campaign nor the Republican National Committee seeking to amplify their criticism of Mr. Obama’s views on Iraq. Yet it was a subject of conversation among some voters who came to see Mr. Obama at a parade in downtown Butte and at a picnic on the edge of town.

“I think he should be careful about what he says,” said Bob Evans, 67, a Butte native who now lives in Wisconsin. “I hope he doesn’t change his mind on the war. I think he’s a man of principle.”

How much do you want to bet that the reason it was a the subject of conversation among some voters is that Zeleny asked them about it? Perhaps he should take note of the fact that the "remarks" were not brought up in any of the local coverage.

Zeleny might try to explain that away by arguing that the local yokels are naive fools who wouldn't know a policy debate if it hit them square in the face. But the reality is that the local clearly know a helluva' lot more than he does.

Here's part of what I think is going on: thanks to conditioning from the McCain campaign, they were waiting to pounce on something -- anything -- that Barack said that could be construed as changing his support for Iraq withdrawal. So when he said he would take information from commanders on the ground and use that to refine the manner in which the withdrawal takes place -- a position he has held consistently -- they jumped on it as if he were raising doubts about whether or not he favored ending the war in Iraq.

Obviously, the media's interpretation was 100% incorrect. But now they feel a need to justify why they got it wrong, or as in Zeleny's case, that they may actually have gotten it right. Unfortuantely for them, there is nothing they can point to that directly confirms their initial thesis.

Consequently, they have now established a second-order argument to explain why Obama really is changing course.

What they are saying now is that Obama is no longer mentioning his sixteen month timeline. (Of course, as even Zeleny is forced to admit, he is mentioning it, but that's another story.)

So when Barack Obama gives a speech that doesn't mention the sixteen month timeline this becomes evidence to support the flip-flop.

But the obvious flaw in this argument is (a) not mentioning something does not mean he is abandoning it and (b) there's nothing new about him not mentioning it. For example, in the Cleveland, Ohio debate last February, Barack made no mention of a sixteen month timeline. Here's what he said:

I have said that as soon as I take office, I will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we will initiate a phased withdrawal, we will be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in.  We will give ample time for them to stand up, to negotiate the kinds of agreements that will arrive at the political accommodations that are needed.  We will provide them continued support.  But it is important for us not to be held hostage by the Iraqi government in a policy that has not made us more safe, that's distracting us from Afghanistan, and is costing us dearly, not only and most importantly in the lost lives  of our troops, but also the amount of money that we are spending that is unsustainable and will prevent us from engaging in the kinds of investments in America that will make us more competitive and more safe.

Does this mean that Barack Obama changed his commitment to withdrawal way back in February? Obviously not. But by Zeleny's illogic, he did.

Great Falls Tribune: Article | Full front page

BUTTE — Gov. Brian Schweitzer enthusiastically welcomed Barack Obama to Montana for a parade and "family" picnic on Friday, and predicted the Democratic presidential candidate will carry the state in November.

Obama watched Butte's Fourth of July parade with his family before hosting a free picnic for supporters. Obama is making history by waging a fight with Republican John McCain for Montana's three electoral votes. The state has mostly been ignored in past presidential contests.

Obama pitched a message of independence — including freedom from oil companies and drug companies — to the crowd. Because of security concerns, he did not walk in the Butte parade, a traditional stop for state Democrats.

Helena Independent Record: Article | Full front page

BUTTE — At events more likely to host a candidate for county sheriff than president, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama spent a sunny Fourth of July here Friday, driving home his message that if he can win in Montana this fall, he can win almost anywhere.

“If you stand with me and walk with me and vote just four months from now, we will have won Montana and we will have won everywhere else,” he told a cheering crowd at an outdoor picnic on the Montana Tech campus in Butte. “We are going to change this country and we are going to change the world.”

Obama, joined by his wife Michelle, his two daughters and his sister and brother-in-law, spent the day in Butte, taking in the Mining City’s annual Fourth of July parade and lunching at the picnic, where several hundred people gathered to hear him speak and chow down on hot dogs and hamburgers served by organized labor volunteers.

Billings Gazette: Article 1, Article 2 | Full front page

Obama, a U.S. senator from Illinois, never mentioned McCain by name or inference on Friday, instead choosing to outline his vision for America's future: End the war in Iraq, pass health-care reform that can offer coverage for all, fashion a new energy policy that emphasizes alternative energy.

"There are challenges all across Montana, and this country," he said. "And the question is, are we going to seize this moment? Are we going to declare our independence today? Are we going to declare our independence from special interests (that are blocking energy and health-care reforms)?

BUTTE - For his first task as president, Barack Obama said Friday he'll call in the nation's top military officials and "tell them we have a new mission": End the war in Iraq.

Next on the list is reforming the nation's health-care system, so everyone in the nation has basic health care and costs are reduced for families and businesses.

And, third, craft a new energy policy that "requires a shift away from the sort of wasteful energy usage of the past, and to develop alternative fuels like solar, wind and biodiesel," Obama said in an interview on his campaign bus near the Montana Tech campus.

Bozeman Daily Chronicle: Article | Full front page

Butte, a Democratic stronghold in Montana, ate up its chance to see a presidential candidate at the city's parade. A Republican float was met with a chant of "Obama."

Officials estimated a crowd perhaps twice the usual size.

Sharon Chebul of Butte said she had never seen anything like it.

"It's telling us that even our little towns like Butte mean something," she said. "We can make a difference."

:: :: ::

Update @ 3:42: Greg Sargent shows how the MSM is already distorting what Barack Obama said.

:: :: ::

Update: The Obama campaign sent out some quotes of Barack Obama talking about this very issue in the past.

OBAMA HAS CONSISTENTLY SAID HE WILL LISTEN TO COMMANDERS ON THE GROUND IN IMPLEMENTING HIS POLICY

June 2008: Obama: I’ve Consistently Said That I Will Consult With Military Commanders On The Ground And Be Open To The Possibility Of Tactical Adjustments.  Obama said, “I've also consistently said that I will consult with military commanders on the ground and that we will always be open to the possibility of tactical adjustments. The important thing is to send a clear signal to the Iraqi people and most importantly to the Iraqi leadership that the U.S. occupation in Iraq is finite, it is gonna be coming to a foreseeable end.” [MSNBC, 6/16/08] 

March 2008: Obama Said He Would Give Senior Military Leaders Opinions Great Weight In Implementing His Iraq Plan But As Commander In Chief Would Make His Own Assessment Of The Situation.  Obama was asked “what weight will you give to the counsel of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command] commander, the combatant commander on the ground in Iraq and current intelligence chiefs on the ground in Iraq regarding an immediate phased withdrawal?”  Obama said, “I will give their counsel great weight. But, as commander in chief, it is my responsibility to make my own assessment of the situation. We must send a clear signal to the Iraqi political leadership that we are leaving Iraq on a timeline. Doing so will put pressure on those leaders to begin to resolve the political impasse at the heart of this civil war. But I also want to be clear about another thing. I am worried our Army is overstretched and that we have asked an awful lot from our military families. Many in our senior military leadership are worried about a plan that will keep 130,000 troops on the ground in Iraq for the foreseeable future. So, as commander in chief, I will also have to take into consideration the counsel of other senior military leaders who may be concerned that Iraq is undercutting our ability to confront other security challenges.” [Washington Post, 3/2/08]

March 2008: Obama Said The Size Of The Residual Force Will Depend On Consultation With Military Commanders And “Will Depend On The Circumstances On The Ground.”  Obama said, “The precise size of the residual force will depend on consultations with our military commanders and will depend on the circumstances on the ground, including the willingness of the Iraqi government to move toward political accommodation. But let me be clear on one thing: I will end this war, and there will be far fewer Americans in Iraq conducting a much more limited set of missions that include counterterrorism and protection of our embassy and U.S. civilians.” [Washington Post, 3/2/08]

November 2007: Obama Said He Would Leave Residual Troops In Iraq Based On The Levels Of Violence, “It’s Not My Job To Specify Troop Levels.”  Obama said, “If we see a serious effort by the Iraqi leadership to arrive at an agreement and an accommodation and you've seen continued reductions of violence, then you need one level of troop protection for the embassy…If things have gone to hell in a hand basket then you need another ... It's not my job to specify troop levels. My job is to tell our commanders on the ground, ‘Here's your mission. Protect our embassy, protect our diplomats and our humanitarian workers in the area and make sure al Qaeda in Iraq, or other terrorist organizations inside of Iraq are not re-establishing bases there.”  [Fosters, 11/28/07]

November 2007: Obama Said U.S. Has To Make Sure “We Are Not Just Willy-Nilly Removing Troops” And That It May “Take A Little Bit Longer” In Some Areas Where There Is Less Stability.  “According to all the reports, we should have been well along our way in getting the Iraqi security forces to be more functional. We then have another 16 months after that to adjust the withdrawal and make sure that we are withdrawing from those areas, based on advice from the military officers in the field, those places where we are secured, made progress and we’re not just willy-nilly removing troops, but we’re making a determination – in this region we see some stability. We’ve had cooperation from local tribal leaders and local officials, so we can afford to remove troops here. Here, we’ve still got problems, it’s going to take a little bit longer. Maybe those are the last areas to pull out.”  [New York Times, 11/1/07]

November 2007: Obama: “If The Commanders Tell Me They Need X, Y And Z, In Order To Accomplish The Very Narrow Mission That I’ve Laid Out, Than I Will Take That Into Consideration.”  “You raise a series of legitimate questions. As commander in chief, I’m not going to leave trainers unprotected. In our counterterrorism efforts, I’m not going to have a situation where our efforts can’t be successful. We will structure those forces so they can be successful. We would still have human intelligence capabilities on the ground. Some of them would be civilian, as opposed to military, some would be operating out of our bases as well as our signal intelligence…But listen, I am not going to set up our troops for failure and I’m going to do something half-baked. If the commanders tell me that they need X, Y and Z, in order to accomplish the very narrow mission that I’ve laid out, than I will take that into consideration.”  [New York Times, 11/1/07]

November 2007: Obama: “Even Something As Simple As Protecting Our Embassy Is Going To Dependent On What Is The Security In Baghdad…If There Is Some Sense Of Security, Then That Means One Level Of Force. If You Continue To Have Significant Sectarian Conflict, That Means Another.” “I have not ascribed particular numbers to that and I won’t for precisely the reason I was just talking to Michael about. I want to talk to military folks on the ground, No. 1. No. 2, a lot of it depends on what’s happened on the political front and the diplomatic front. Even something as simple as protecting our embassy is going to be dependent on what is the security environment in Baghdad. If there is some sense of security, then that means one level of force. If you continue to have significant sectarian conflict, that means another, but this is an area where Senator Clinton and I do have a significant contrast.”  [New York Times, 11/1/07]

*intervened in a Democratic Congressional primary to support one of the worst Bush-enabling Blue Dogs over a credible, progressive challenger;

RESPONSE: Like it or not, there's nothing inconsistent about Obama's endorsement of Barrow -- he's the party leader, and party leaders support their incumbents. Obama himself (along with most other Democratic senators) supported Lieberman in the 2006 primary. Similarly, Bush and the NRSC supported Lincoln Chafee in 2006 even though Chafee opposed most of the Bush Administration policies.

* announced his support for Bush's FISA bill, reversing himself completely on this issue;

RESPONSE: TPM today put together a timeline of Obama campaign statements on FISA. What struck me was that the two most clear-cut statements in opposition to to telecom immunity were not made by Obama himself, but rather his staff. The subsequent statements spotlighted by TPM indicated his opposition to telecom immunity, but then again, so to did the statement he released announcing his support for the compromise. The question, I think, is whether he personally promised to oppose or filibuster any bill that included telecom immunity no matter what. Such a statement might exist; I haven't seen it. That all being said, I accept the basic premise that this is something of a reversal for Obama, but more because of the logic of his positions than by actual statements that he has made.

* sided with the Scalia/Thomas faction in two highly charged Supreme Court decisions;

RESPONSE: This is at least half-silly. We can debate FISA, but you will never convince me that Obama would have been well-served to oppose the death penalty for the most violent child rapists. On the second amendment issue, though expressed support for the court's interpretation of the right to bear arms, his statement focused on the fact that regulation was still possible. Moreover, it's dishonest to note this without also noting Obama's support for the habeas decision (Greenwald does credit Obama for this, albeit later).

* repudiated Wesley Clark and embraced the patently false media narrative that Clark had "dishonored McCain's service" (and for the best commentary I've seen, by far, on the Clark matter, see this appropriately indignant piece by Iraq veteran Brandon Friedman);

RESPONSE: First, Greenwald's post came on Tuesday as the story was developing, so I'll cut him some slack. Still, before his post, Obama hadn't repudiated Clark; his spokesman had. Subsequent to the post, Obama managed to straddle the issue brilliantly -- I'd submit Obama has played the Clark comments as well as anyone could. He's gotten the best of both worlds.

* condemned MoveOn.org for its newspaper advertisement criticizing Gen. Petraeus;

RESPONSE: Barack's comments on MoveOn.org were 100% consistent with his prior statements. Moreover, it's unfair to attack him for this without also noting that in the very same sentence that he criticized MoveOn.org, he also criticized those who have questioned the patriotism of Bush Administration critics.

In fact, I'm confident that Barack's position is the same as Greenwald's position: that patriotism should not be used as a political weapon.

Should Obama really have left this sentence out of the speech? Does Obama really want to imitate the IOKIYAR mentality?

* defended his own patriotism by impugning the patriotism of others, specifically those in what he described as the "the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties" for "attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself" and -- echoing Jeanne Kirkpatrick's 1984 RNC speech -- "blaming America for all that was wrong with the world";

RESPONSE: This reading of Obama's speech is both overly broad and overly narrow. It is too broad because he was not defending his own patriotism in the passage Greenwald quotes. (Greenwald is inferring that.) It is too narrow because Greenwald fails to note that the balance of that passage consisted of critiques of the right -- Obama did not single out the left.

* unveiled plans "to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and -- in a move sure to cause controversy . . . letting religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decisions," a move that could "invite a storm of protest from those who view such faith requirements as discrimination" -- something not even the Bush faith programs allowed.

RESPONSE: As Greenwald notes in an update, this was based on a flawed AP report. Any programs funded by Obama's proposal would comply with anti-discrimination laws. (Other non-federally funded programs in could use religion as a basis for hiring, which makes sense to me. When you're hiring a minister, isn't his or her faith an issue to consder?)

::: ::: :::

So here's my bottom line: with the exception of FISA, Greenwald's list is not very compelling.

And while I appreciate the efforts of those who are seeking to stop the new FISA bill, I do think there is a bit of FDS (FISA derangement syndrome) going on with relation to Obama.

He's just one vote, yet some folks aren't even thinking about Obama in terms of a legislative strategy. Rather, they want to take that one datapoint, and extrapolate a narrative from that one datapoint. Not surprisingly, one of the people doing this also happens to be a McCain campaign blogger. Can you say wedge?

Time relates an interesting story about McCain:

In the heat of the GOP primary fight last spring, he announced on a visit to the Vegas Strip that he was going to the casino floor. When his aides stopped him, fearing a public relations disaster, McCain suggested that they ask the casino to take a craps table to a private room, a high-roller privilege McCain had indulged in before. His aides, with alarm bells ringing, refused again, according to two accounts of the discussion.

I was pretty amazed to learn that he'd actually been given a private room in Vegas. I don't know exactly how much you have to play to get one of those, but I do know that I've seen people out on the regular floor playing blackjack for over $1,000 per hand. So unless he was given a room on the basis of of being a senator, he was putting some serious money into play.

Again, as I noted at the outset, I think gambling is a fine recreational activity. I also think it does tell you something about the kind of presidents they will be that Barack chose to play a game at which he knew that he could (and apparently did) while McCain chose a game at which he knew that he would lose (while having fun).

I think at this point in our history, I'd prefer the winner to be president.

(a) FINDINGS.--The Senate makes the following findings:

   (1) The men and women of the United States Armed Forces and our veterans deserve to be supported, honored, and defended when their patriotism is attacked;

   (2) In 2002, a Senator from Georgia who is a Vietnam veteran, triple amputee, and the recipient of a Silver Star and Bronze Star, had his courage and patriotism attacked in an advertisement in which he was visually linked to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein;

   (3) This attack was aptly described by a Senator and Vietnam veteran as "reprehensible'';

   (4) In 2004, a Senator from Massachusetts who is a Vietnam veteran and the recipient of a Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, and three Purple Hearts, was personally attacked and accused of dishonoring his country;

   (5) This attack was aptly described by a Senator and Vietnam veteran as "dishonest and dishonorable.''

   (6) On September 10, 2007, an advertisement in the New York Times was an unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus; who is honorably leading our Armed Forces in Iraq and carrying out the mission assigned to him by the President of the United States; and

   (7) Such personal attacks on those with distinguished military service to our nation have become all too frequent.

(b) SENSE OF SENATE.--It is the sense of the Senate--

   (1) to reaffirm its strong support for all of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces; and

   (2) to strongly condemn all attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization.

What Barack said yesterday was absolutely 100% consistent with what he said back in September when he cast his vote for that resolution. (By the way, Barack's vote was correct. I think accusing Petraeous of treason was the wrong, even though he advocates a policy with which I disagree.)

Not surprisingly, every single Democrat voted for the resolution. Meanwhile, every Republican other than Chuck Hagel opposed the resolution. Why? Because they wanted to pass a resolution which exclusively denounced the Petraeous ad.

Unfortunately, about half of the Democratic caucus voted for the Republican resolution which only condemned the Petraeous ad. Barack Obama decided not to vote on it, however. Some folks may choose to criticize Obama for standing on the sidelines, but from my point of view he simply refused to play the Republican's game. Barack had already made it clear that he opposed all such attacks. Obviously, supporting a resolution which attacked the left but not the right was off the table for him. And voting against the resolution would have merely provide Republicans with a false line of attack against him down the line. So by not voting, Barack was refusing to play their game, and that was the right thing to do.

If anything, it showed Barack Obama's strategic thinking, and his ability to distinguish between what is important and what is not. He made his position clear on the core issue and voted for the principle he supported -- and refused to get trapped by another Republican false choice.

But for those who disagree with my assessment, you must admit at least this: Barack Obama has been 100% consistent on this issue, and there was absolutely nothing new about what he said yesterday.

Finally, and most importantly, there's a lesson to be learned here: don't fall for the wedge.

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama
The America We Love – as prepared for delivery
Monday, June 30th, 2008
Independence, Missouri

On a spring morning in April of 1775, a simple band of colonists – farmers and merchants, blacksmiths and printers, men and boys – left their homes and families in Lexington and Concord to take up arms against the tyranny of an Empire.  The odds against them were long and the risks enormous – for even if they survived the battle, any ultimate failure would bring charges of treason, and death by hanging.

And yet they took that chance.  They did so not on behalf of a particular tribe or lineage, but on behalf of a larger idea.  The idea of liberty.  The idea of God-given, inalienable rights.  And with the first shot of that fateful day – a shot heard round the world – the American Revolution, and America’s experiment with democracy, began.

Those men of Lexington and Concord were among our first patriots.  And at the beginning of a week when we celebrate the birth of our nation, I think it is fitting to pause for a moment and reflect on the meaning of patriotism – theirs, and ours.  We do so in part because we are in the midst of war – more than one and a half million of our finest young men and women have now fought in Iraq and Afghanistan; over 60,000 have been wounded, and over 4,600 have been laid to rest.  The costs of war have been great, and the debate surrounding our mission in Iraq has been fierce.  It is natural, in light of such sacrifice by so many, to think more deeply about the commitments that bind us to our nation, and to each other.

We reflect on these questions as well because we are in the midst of a presidential election, perhaps the most consequential in generations; a contest that will determine the course of this nation for years, perhaps decades, to come.  Not only is it a debate about big issues – health care, jobs, energy, education, and retirement security – but it is also a debate about values.  How do we keep ourselves safe and secure while preserving our liberties?  How do we restore trust in a government that seems increasingly removed from its people and dominated by special interests?  How do we ensure that in an increasingly global economy, the winners maintain allegiance to the less fortunate?  And how do we resolve our differences at a time of increasing diversity?

Finally, it is worth considering the meaning of patriotism because the question of who is – or is not – a patriot all too often poisons our political debates, in ways that divide us rather than bringing us together.  I have come to know this from my own experience on the campaign trail.  Throughout my life, I have always taken my deep and abiding love for this country as a given.  It was how I was raised; it is what propelled me into public service; it is why I am running for President.  And yet, at certain times over the last sixteen months, I have found, for the first time, my patriotism challenged – at times as a result of my own carelessness, more often as a result of the desire by some to score political points and raise fears about who I am and what I stand for.

So let me say at this at outset of my remarks.  I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign.  And I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine.

My concerns here aren’t simply personal, however.  After all, throughout our history, men and women of far greater stature and significance than me have had their patriotism questioned in the midst of momentous debates.  Thomas Jefferson was accused by the Federalists of selling out to the French.  The anti-Federalists were just as convinced that John Adams was in cahoots with the British and intent on restoring monarchal rule.  Likewise, even our wisest Presidents have sought to justify questionable policies on the basis of patriotism. Adams’ Alien and Sedition Act, Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, Roosevelt’s internment of Japanese Americans – all were defended as expressions of patriotism, and those who disagreed with their policies were sometimes labeled as unpatriotic.

In other words, the use of patriotism as a political sword or a political shield is as old as the Republic.  Still, what is striking about today’s patriotism debate is the degree to which it remains rooted in the culture wars of the 1960s – in arguments that go back forty years or more.  In the early years of the civil rights movement and opposition to the Vietnam War, defenders of the status quo often accused anybody who questioned the wisdom of government policies of being unpatriotic.  Meanwhile, some of those in the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties reacted not merely by criticizing particular government policies, but by attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself – by burning flags; by blaming America for all that was wrong with the world; and perhaps most tragically, by failing to honor those veterans coming home from Vietnam, something that remains a national shame to this day.

Most Americans never bought into these simplistic world-views – these caricatures of left and right.  Most Americans understood that dissent does not make one unpatriotic, and that there is nothing smart or sophisticated about a cynical disregard for America’s traditions and institutions.  And yet the anger and turmoil of that period never entirely drained away.  All too often our politics still seems trapped in these old, threadbare arguments – a fact most evident during our recent debates about the war in Iraq, when those who opposed administration policy were tagged by some as unpatriotic, and a general providing his best counsel on how to move forward in Iraq was accused of betrayal.

Given the enormous challenges that lie before us, we can no longer afford these sorts of divisions.  None of us expect that arguments about patriotism will, or should, vanish entirely; after all, when we argue about patriotism, we are arguing about who we are as a country, and more importantly, who we should be.  But surely we can agree that no party or political philosophy has a monopoly on patriotism.  And surely we can arrive at a definition of patriotism that, however rough and imperfect, captures the best of America’s common spirit.

What would such a definition look like?  For me, as for most Americans, patriotism starts as a gut instinct, a loyalty and love for country rooted in my earliest memories.  I’m not just talking about the recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance or the Thanksgiving pageants at school or the fireworks on the Fourth of July, as wonderful as those things may be.  Rather, I’m referring to the way the American ideal wove its way throughout the lessons my family taught me as a child.

One of my earliest memories is of sitting on my grandfather’s shoulders and watching the astronauts come to shore in Hawaii.  I remember the cheers and small flags that people waved, and my grandfather explaining how we Americans could do anything we set our minds to do.  That’s my idea of America.

I remember listening to my grandmother telling stories about her work on a bomber assembly-line during World War II.  I remember my grandfather handing me his dog-tags from his time in Patton’s Army, and understanding that his defense of this country marked one of his greatest sources of pride.  That’s my idea of America.

I remember, when living for four years in Indonesia as a child, listening to my mother reading me the first lines of the Declaration of Independence – “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  I remember her explaining how this declaration applied to every American, black and white and brown alike; how those words, and words of the United States Constitution, protected us from the injustices that we witnessed other people suffering during those years abroad.  That’s my idea of America. 

As I got older, that gut instinct – that America is the greatest country on earth – would survive my growing awareness of our nation’s imperfections: it’s ongoing racial strife; the perversion of our political system laid bare during the Watergate hearings; the wrenching poverty of the Mississippi Delta and the hills of Appalachia.  Not only because, in my mind, the joys of American life and culture, its vitality, its variety and its freedom, always outweighed its imperfections, but because I learned that what makes America great has never been its perfection but the belief that it can be made better.  I came to understand that our revolution was waged for the sake of that belief – that we could be governed by laws, not men; that we could be equal in the eyes of those laws; that we could be free to say what we want and assemble with whomever we want and worship as we please; that we could have the right to pursue our individual dreams but the obligation to help our fellow citizens pursue theirs.

For a young man of mixed race, without firm anchor in any particular community, without even a father’s steadying hand, it is this essential American idea – that we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will – that has defined my life, just as it has defined the life of so many other Americans.

That is why, for me, patriotism is always more than just loyalty to a place on a map or a certain kind of people.  Instead, it is also loyalty to America’s ideals – ideals for which anyone can sacrifice, or defend, or give their last full measure of devotion.  I believe it is this loyalty that allows a country teeming with different races and ethnicities, religions and customs, to come together as one.  It is the application of these ideals that separate us from Zimbabwe, where the opposition party and their supporters have been silently hunted, tortured or killed; or Burma, where tens of thousands continue to struggle for basic food and shelter in the wake of a monstrous storm because a military junta fears opening up the country to outsiders; or Iraq, where despite the heroic efforts of our military, and the courage of many ordinary Iraqis, even limited cooperation between various factions remains far too elusive.

I believe those who attack America’s flaws without acknowledging the singular greatness of our ideals, and their proven capacity to inspire a better world, do not truly understand America.

Of course, precisely because America isn’t perfect, precisely because our ideals constantly demand more from us, patriotism can never be defined as loyalty to any particular leader or government or policy. As Mark Twain, that greatest of American satirists and proud son of Missouri, once wrote, “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.”  We may hope that our leaders and our government stand up for our ideals, and there are many times in our history when that’s occurred.  But when our laws, our leaders or our government are out of alignment with our ideals, then the dissent of ordinary Americans may prove to be one of the truest expression of patriotism.

The young preacher from Georgia, Martin Luther King, Jr., who led a movement to help America confront our tragic history of racial injustice and live up to the meaning of our creed – he was a patriot. The young soldier who first spoke about the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib – he is a patriot.  Recognizing a wrong being committed in this country’s name; insisting that we deliver on the promise of our Constitution – these are the acts of patriots, men and women who are defending that which is best in America.  And we should never forget that – especially when we disagree with them; especially when they make us uncomfortable with their words.

Beyond a loyalty to America’s ideals, beyond a willingness to dissent on behalf of those ideals, I also believe that patriotism must, if it is to mean anything, involve the willingness to sacrifice – to give up something we value on behalf of a larger cause.  For those who have fought under the flag of this nation – for the young veterans I meet when I visit Walter Reed; for those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country – no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary.  And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides. 

We must always express our profound gratitude for the service of our men and women in uniform.  Period.  Indeed, one of the good things to emerge from the current conflict in Iraq has been the widespread recognition that whether you support this war or oppose it, the sacrifice of our troops is always worthy of honor. 

For the rest of us – for those of us not in uniform or without loved ones in the military – the call to sacrifice for the country’s greater good remains an imperative of citizenship.  Sadly, in recent years, in the midst of war on two fronts, this call to service never came.  After 9/11, we were asked to shop.  The wealthiest among us saw their tax obligations decline, even as the costs of war continued to mount. Rather than work together to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and thereby lessen our vulnerability to a volatile region, our energy policy remained unchanged, and our oil dependence only grew.

In spite of this absence of leadership from Washington, I have seen a new generation of Americans begin to take up the call.  I meet them everywhere I go, young people involved in the project of American renewal; not only those who have signed up to fight for our country in distant lands, but those who are fighting for a better America here at home, by teaching in underserved schools, or caring for the sick in understaffed hospitals, or promoting more sustainable energy policies in their local communities.

I believe one of the tasks of the next Administration is to ensure that this movement towards service grows and sustains itself in the years to come.  We should expand AmeriCorps and grow the Peace Corps.  We should encourage national service by making it part of the requirement for a new college assistance program, even as we strengthen the benefits for those whose sense of duty has already led them to serve in our military.

We must remember, though, that true patriotism cannot be forced or legislated with a mere set of government programs.  Instead, it must reside in the hearts of our people, and cultivated in the heart of our culture, and nurtured in the hearts of our children.

As we begin our fourth century as a nation, it is easy to take the extraordinary nature of America for granted.  But it is our responsibility as Americans and as parents to instill that history in our children, both at home and at school.  The loss of quality civic education from so many of our classrooms has left too many young Americans without the most basic knowledge of who our forefathers are, or what they did, or the significance of the founding documents that bear their names.  Too many children are ignorant of the sheer effort, the risks and sacrifices made by previous generations, to ensure that this country survived war and depression; through the great struggles for civil, and social, and worker’s rights.

It is up to us, then, to teach them.  It is up to us to teach them that even though we have faced great challenges and made our share of mistakes, we have always been able to come together and make this nation stronger, and more prosperous, and more united, and more just. It is up to us to teach them that America has been a force for good in the world, and that other nations and other people have looked to us as the last, best hope of Earth.  It is up to us to teach them that it is good to give back to one’s community; that it is honorable to serve in the military; that it is vital to participate in our democracy and make our voices heard.

And it is up to us to teach our children a lesson that those of us in politics too often forget: that patriotism involves not only defending this country against external threat, but also working constantly to make America a better place for future generations.

When we pile up mountains of debt for the next generation to absorb, or put off changes to our energy policies, knowing full well the potential consequences of inaction, we are placing our short-term interests ahead of the nation’s long-term well-being.  When we fail to educate effectively millions of our children so that they might compete in a global economy, or we fail to invest in the basic scientific research that has driven innovation in this country, we risk leaving behind an America that has fallen in the ranks of the world.  Just as patriotism involves each of us making a commitment to this nation that extends beyond our own immediate self-interest, so must that commitment extends beyond our own time here on earth.

Our greatest leaders have always understood this.  They’ve defined patriotism with an eye toward posterity.  George Washington is rightly revered for his leadership of the Continental Army, but one of his greatest acts of patriotism was his insistence on stepping down after two terms, thereby setting a pattern for those that would follow, reminding future presidents that this is a government of and by and for the people.

Abraham Lincoln did not simply win a war or hold the Union together. In his unwillingness to demonize those against whom he fought; in his refusal to succumb to either the hatred or self-righteousness that war can unleash; in his ultimate insistence that in the aftermath of war the nation would no longer remain half slave and half free; and his trust in the better angels of our nature – he displayed the wisdom and courage that sets a standard for patriotism.

And it was the most famous son of Independence, Harry S Truman, who sat in the White House during his final days in office and said in his Farewell Address: “When Franklin Roosevelt died, I felt there must be a million men better qualified than I, to take up the Presidential task…But through all of it, through all the years I have worked here in this room, I have been well aware than I did not really work alone – that you were working with me.  No President could ever hope to lead our country, or to sustain the burdens of this office, save the people helped with their support.”

In the end, it may be this quality that best describes patriotism in my mind – not just a love of America in the abstract, but a very particular love for, and faith in, the American people.  That is why our heart swells with pride at the sight of our flag; why we shed a tear as the lonely notes of Taps sound.  For we know that the greatness of this country – its victories in war, its enormous wealth, its scientific and cultural achievements – all result from the energy and imagination of the American people; their toil, drive, struggle, restlessness, humor and quiet heroism. 

That is the liberty we defend – the liberty of each of us to pursue our own dreams.  That is the equality we seek – not an equality of results, but the chance of every single one of us to make it if we try.  That is the community we strive to build – one in which we trust in this sometimes messy democracy of ours, one in which we continue to insist that there is nothing we cannot do when we put our mind to it, one in which we see ourselves as part of a larger story, our own fates wrapped up in the fates of those who share allegiance to America’s happy and singular creed.

Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America. 

::: ::: :::

MSNBC:

::: ::: :::

FOX & Friends:

Barack Obama has articulated this relationship clearly, though the media has not reported on it. How many news reports told Americans that shortly before John McCain announced $300 million prize for a better battery, Barack Obama proposed a $150 billion plan to invest in R&D for alternative energy sources, the cost of one year in Iraq? How many news reports told Americans that one week before John McCain proposed additional offshore drilling, Barack Obama proposed a $60 billion plan for infrastructure development right here in the United States, including a more secure power transmission grid? And how many were told that Obama's plan is funded by asking Iraq to use its oil wealth to fund its own reconstruction, instead of having U.S. taxpayers continue footing the bill?

So as much as I may agree with Friedman's conclusions, I can't agree with how he got there, and how he got there is important, because it's how we all got here, where we are now.

:: ::

(Edit: I moved these paragraphs lower down in the post as they are somewhat tangential.) As an aside, Friedman also makes an absurd assertions about Obama's running mate:

Just a few months ago, the consensus view was that Barack Obama would need to choose a hard-core national-security type as his vice presidential running mate to compensate for his lack of foreign policy experience and that John McCain would need a running mate who was young and sprightly to compensate for his age. Come August, though, I predict both men will be looking for a financial wizard as their running mates to help them steer America out of what could become a serious economic tailspin.

There was no such consensus, except perhaps amongst a certain class of pundits. Moreover, Obama has clearly demonstrated superior judgment to McCain on Iraq, Afghanistan, and host of other national security issues. Picking someone like Friedman describes would be destroy Obama's claim to superior judgment, and for that reason alone he was never going to do it.

::: ::: :::

In another moment of extreme irony, John McCain today met with Billy Graham as part of his effort to connect with evangelical voters.

The irony centers on something about Billy Graham that you might not know: he is responsible for uttering some of the most anti-Semitic comments that you can imagine, and they were caught on tape -- in the Oval Office of the White House, no less, while speaking to Richard Nixon, who was at the time the President of the United States of America.

Here's a portion of the transcript -- provided by none other than the National Archives. In it, Graham professes the same sort of paranoia about Jews as has been expressed by anti-Semites like Louis Farrakhan:

BG: This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down the drain.

RN: You believe that?

BG: Yes, sir.

RN: Oh, boy. So do I. I can't ever say that, but I believe it.

BG: No, but if you get elected a second time, then we might be able to do something.

Here's more context:

''They're the ones putting out the pornographic stuff,'' Mr. Graham said on the tape, after agreeing with Mr. Nixon that left-wing Jews dominate the news media. The Jewish ''stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down the drain,'' he continued, suggesting that if Mr. Nixon were re-elected, ''then we might be able to do something.''  

Finally, Mr. Graham said that Jews did not know his true feelings about them.

''I go and I keep friends with Mr. Rosenthal at The New York Times and people of that sort, you know,'' he told Mr. Nixon, referring to A. M. Rosenthal, then the newspaper's executive editor. ''And all -- I mean, not all the Jews, but a lot of the Jews are great friends of mine, they swarm around me and are friendly to me because they know that I'm friendly with Israel. But they don't know how I really feel about what they are doing to this country. And I have no power, no way to handle them, but I would stand up if under proper circumstances.''

Now I'm not looking for a fight about Billy Graham, though I do find it interesting that he apparently was unaware his remarks being recorded. Something tells me those remarks are a truer reflection of his feelings than his public statements.

But the real point that I'm trying to make is this: could you imagine if at this point in the campaign, Barack Obama had sat down with and sought support from an African-American religious figure who had made similar such comments?

Would the media just let it slide with nary a mention of those remarks? Of course they wouldn't.

But today they let it slide, and in the process confirmed their double-standard.

::: ::: :::

At this point, the question is whether the double-standard is simply a product of inertia -- which would suggest that the problem is fixable -- or whether there's something more insidious going on, something that won't ever change.

I already have my opinion on which it is. I hope that I'm proven wrong.