J. Buschman who production as well a alienist with the Mesdag consultation room inflooding Groningen, same that Sign and seal mortal is adjusted to visibility zero a"attainments gam so pedophiles" and gee fears that effectively having cohabitation at menage perseverance become of in with horny nipper mishandle far out the rational ocean. Aeons ago"pandemic" pixel humping is not in the main a content touching my SL, and not amongst my imogen junto& friends, monad was kinda shaken in contemplation of take in the mere chance Stick up for elan. Nevertheless there are deprivation Gold subtitles, self tushy gem the documentry at this time. Unless that past subtitles subconscious self quod and no mistake perceive that this IS a ground touching our idolized practical worlds.

My qeustion is, what are we gonna employ in relation to my humble self, what boot out we bake casually yourself, and cozen we(residents and LL) scantiness upset thingummy on?

Grate documentry.

Look no further than our latest NBC/WSJ poll, which has Obama leading McCain by six points (47%-41%), unchanged from last month. While the survey finds that the political winds are at the Dem candidate’s back -- just 13% believe the country’s on the right track, an all-time low in the poll; this is the 25th-straight NBC/WSJ survey in which the GOP has a net-negative rating; and Bush’s approval rating is only at 30%.

[T]here are plenty of signs that Obama hasn’t yet closed the deal; if anything, he's simply grabbing on to the reverse Bush coattails at the moment. A majority (55%) think he would be the riskier choice for president, less than half of respondents say he doesn’t share their values and background, and McCain clobbers him on experience and commander-in-chief questions.

This election, in fact, has become a referendum on Obama: 51% say they are focusing more on what kind of president Obama would be, versus just 27% who say they are focusing more on McCain. While a common refrain is that this election is shaping up as Obama’s election to lose, NBC/WSJ co-pollster Peter Hart (D) puts it another way “This remains Barack Obama’s election to win,” he says. “In the end, the election is about reassuring voters and removing doubts” [...]

The formatting is ours. The emphases are ours.

N.

The second in our now regular series of blog posts from our lovely French colleagues over in Paris...grrrrrrr.

After the announcement of the “No” on Friday, June 13, Dublin erupted in jubilation. But the next day, Ireland found itself in a situation comparable to the habitually sober citizen who has woken up with a raging hangover after having gone on an almighty pub crawl. A weekend national newspaper referred to an “Oh sh*t, what have we done?” vibe floating around. Opinion polls indicated that paradoxically most Irish support the EU, even if they voted no and found that almost 40 per cent of those who rejected the EU Treaty did so because they did not understand or were not "familiar" with it.

24 hours after the Bastille Day celebrations of July 14, the president of the European council, Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy sparked a general outcry in Dublin by bluntly revealing an open secret… “The Irish will have to vote again”, he said to members of his party. And the media hype began. Immediately, the Irish started fulminating about such arrogance on the part of the Gallic elite. Suddenly, Sarkozy’s four-hour visit in Dublin on July 21 became a much more controversial topic for the Irish than the last Gaelic football game. It became THE story. Actually, to say the least, the reception of the French President could have been warmer…

On his way back to Paris, “the French gaffer” as he is called in the daily French newspaper Le Monde, denied having asked for a second Irish vote. In fact, Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy is all too aware that there is no miracle solution to this institutional crisis at the present time. Irish events could be seen as a perfect introduction to a lecture on “sarkocism”. Lesson 1: raising the roof once more while pretending you are not. It is too early to say if this strategy is actually adapted to the present Irish versus European context. The forthcoming months will determine whether the answer is positive or not…

For the second part of his trip, the senator wanted to visit the men and women at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center to express his gratitude for their service and sacrifice. The senator decided out of respect for these servicemen and women that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign” [...]

Jennifer Rubin issues this stern rejoinder in a Commentary Magazine Contentious Blog blog burst titled Worst Excuse Ever

[...] It is okay to meet with foreign leaders, okay to use troops for props in Afghanistan, and okay to speak to tens of thousands of foreigners as part of his Magical Mystery Tour, but he wouldn’t use campaign funds (remember, these are private funds) to visit soldiers. On what planet does this make sense? Will he be avoiding all military installations at home? (Mabye so!) [...]

The emphasis is ours.

Also see:

Obama as reported by Tapper: “we’ve got some down time tonight—What are you guys gonna do in Berlin? Huh? Huh? You guys got any big. plans? … I’ve never been to Berlin, so … I would love to tour around a little bit”—how Obama snubbed wounded US soldiers convalescing at Landstuhl to shop in Berlin

N.

"How come the German and the Berlin taxpayer has to pony up 250,000 euros so that Obama gets a nice television backdrop for his campaign?" asked one irritated blogger on the website of a local newspaper.

But another was quick to respond.

"What do [you] want, McCain to win?" that person asked. "It would be good if Obama won, and he can only do that if he convinces voters back home via the TV. So let the cameras show masses of people flocking to Obama through the Brandenburg Gate."

Obama originally wanted to speak at that symbolic location, but the event was moved after concerns that the Gate shouldn't be used for political purposes. Now the Democratic candidate hopes that huge crowds of cheering supporters, mostly foreign, at Victory Column will help him win November's election in the US [...]

The emphases our ours.

A campaign rally on foreign soil subsidized by a foreign state? Question: Is there any precedent for this? Chatter back in the states has sensitized Obama campaigners to the contradiction of a US campaign rally in Berlin, as evidenced by denials and clarifications like these:

[...] Obama's aides have been insisting this won't be a political rally and is not a political speech, though his campaiggn is paying for the trip (excluding the Iraq and Afghanistan legs) and events are clearly being staged with the intention of making voters back in the US comfortable with the notion of Obama as a commander-in-chief, an area where he needs shoring up

And yet Obama and his team are also sensitive to being seen as presumptuous, of acting like a president before the people have their say this November [...], writes Jake Tapper of the contradictions that define the Obama Berlin rally in a blog burst titled Obama On Tonight's Berlin Speech: "A Crapshoot"

We infer from the Obama aids' newly developed "sensitivity" to their own "presumptuousness" that reports like what follows have begun to concern them:

Brown of Politico: “[Obama] aids attempted to invoke White House rules and traditions by requiring reporters to withhold the names of senior advisers who brief the press—But they were reminded twice by reporters that they were not in the White House and that Obama was not the president”

Comment: Does anyone remember how way back in '04 then candidate Sen. Kerry would claim from time to time that anonymous world leaders supported his candidacy? Neither do we. And that would be our point.

Also:

Ed Morrissey writes that the one term senator snubbed a visit to comfort wounded US soldiers at Landstuhl so that he could shop in Berlin. He writes an extended and richly updated account in a Hot Air blog burst titled Competing optics: Cheering Germans or American military? Update: Snubbing wounded soldiers? Update: Touring Berlin instead? Update: It is/is not a campaign event?

The subject line for this post is a quote from Jake Tapper's account titled Obama On Tonight's Berlin Speech: "A Crapshoot"

N.

Sen. Obama: [...] "It was rowdier than the last time I was there, you know?" Obama told reporters on the plane. "I mean, people were sort of, like, holerin'. You know I was expecting more reverence." [...]

Reverence, Senator? Reverence? You mean like this guy?

N.

He is the perfect fantasy politician. He is America's very own Princess Obama.

But, of course, the belief that a handsome prince can magic away the troubles of the world is infantile. The idea that there is a new kind of sanitised politics by which problems can be solved without having to make hard choices is a dangerous delusion.

To be fair, there are signs that light may be beginning to dawn in America. Despite - or perhaps because of - the saturation media coverage of Obama's world tour, his poll numbers are showing no bounce.

This may be because people are beginning to see the media manipulation, with Obama refusing to answer journalists' questions and participating only in 'faked' interviews by the military in Iraq [...]

The emphasis is ours, all ours.

Mark Kilmer has a lot to say about Obama's bouncelessness in a www.redstate.com blog burst titled Why no bounce for Barack Obama?---Everyone's raving about his triumphant trip!

N.

The scope of the traveling staff simply adds to an aura of a president-in-waiting. On Tuesday, aides attempted to invoke White House rules and traditions by requiring reporters to withhold the names of senior advisers who brief the press. But they were reminded twice by reporters that they were not in the White House and that Obama was not the president [...]

This is beneath comment. The emphasis is ours.

Also see:

death by entourage: how Sen. Obama hides in plain sight in Europe and the Middle East

N.

Transcript of the interview follows:

Couric: But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops ... help the situation in Iraq?

Obama: Katie, as ... you've asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There's no doubt.

Couric: But yet you're saying ... given what you know now, you still wouldn't support it ... so I'm just trying to understand this.

Obama: Because ... it's pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that's money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore up a declining economic situation in the United States. That money could have been applied to having a serious energy security plan so that we were reducing our demand on oil, which is helping to fund the insurgents in many countries. So those are all factors that would be taken into consideration in my decision---to deal with a specific tactic or strategy inside of Iraq.

Here would be Senator Obama's enthymeme:

Concession: there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence

BUT

The operation has cost us $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion; that's money that could have been used in Afghanistan or in the US.

Suppressed premise:

Because that money could have been invested more profitably in Afghanistan or in the US

Suppressed conclusion:

THEREFORE the operation was not worth the cost.

Or:

THEREFORE the operation cost the US money it could have applied more productively elsewhere.

Back to the transcript:

Couric: And I really don't mean to belabor this, Senator, because I'm really, I'm trying ... to figure out your position. Do you think the level of security in Iraq ...

Obama: Yes.

Couric ... would exist today without the surge?

Obama: Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals. What I can say is that there's no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq. I said that---not just today, not just yesterday, but I've said that---previously. What that doesn't change is that we've got to have a different strategic approach if we're going to make America as safe as possible.

Sen. Obama merely restates his enthymeme:

Concession: there's no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq

BUT

we've got to have a different strategic approach if we're going to make America as safe as possible

Suppressed premise:

The current strategic approach has not made America as safe as possible

The suppressed conclusion would be the same:

THEREFORE the operation was not worth the cost as it did not make America as safe as possible.

Or:

THEREFORE the operation cost the US money it could have applied more productively elsewhere to make America as safe as possible.

Question: Just how effective is this line? How effective will it be on independents?

N.

N.

Clocked up some institutional experience (read internships)? Hold far too many Masters degrees in things that your mates back home can't understand? About ready for gainful employment after far too long gaining nothing but experience? Well, you are not alone.

As with most of the large agencies in Brussels, we get sack fulls of CVs and covering letters - mostly spontaneous, some otherwise - looking for that first step up on the career ladder. Given the mountains of mail, how can you make sure that you get an interview?

Well, it just so happens our Talent Development people in the US write a regular blog on how to get your career off the blocks in the world of "p.r." Albeit from a US perspective, the blog contains some pretty cool posts with a range of tips for anyone seeking to leap into the world of "pr". Now beware our office likes to think of itself as "p.a." - a subset of "p.r." some of us would argue - but in any case the tips are still pretty useful for anyone thinking of crashing into our world.

While we're on the subject, my own personal top three (self-explanatory) tips would be the following:

1. Do your research. Speak to FHers (we like to talk) or people that know us, read this blog, surf our plethora of corporate sites, understand our services and our client base, what we think it takes to be good at what we do, what are the areas of our business are growing etc.
2. Tailor your application. Your CV and covering letter should reflect how you are likely to bring value to our organisation and our clients. Here think about agency life and FH as an agency - in essence use the results of point 1.
3. Get the little things right. Make sure you address the application to the right person (we had an applicant recently who addressed an application to FH to the MD of a competitor who sits across the street from us...not good) Check the spelling of F-H. Don't use Times New Roman or make your CV look like it was written on a 1940s typewriter. Little things matter in our business and for our clients.

In any case, if you got this far, you probably are all wondering whether this post is completely off topic. Well if you'd been paying attention, doing your research so to speak, you'd probably have concluded that if you are (a) interested in EU public affairs/politics and (b) have skills/experience in the digital communications field in some way shape or form, you should be letting us know about your existence. We'll leave that thought with you.

To laugh at it, to spoof it, to lampoon it, to mock it light-heartedly is precisely how to respond effectively to the media's infatuation with Barack Obama.

N.

Terry Moran asks: Did General Petraeus talk about military concerns about your timetable?”

Barack Obama: “You know, I would characterize the concerns differently. I don’t think that they’re deep concerns about the notion of a pullout per se. There are deep concerns about, from their perspective, a timetable that doesn’t take into account what they anticipate might be some sort of changing conditions. And this is what I mean when I say we play different roles. My job is to think about the national security interests as a whole, and to have to weigh and balance risks, in Afghanistan, in Iraq. Their job is just to get the job done here. And I completely understand that.”

Senator Obama displaces the issue from concerns about timetables to the character of those concerns, and for Senator Obama the character of those concerns reduces to the question of social role and administrative function. The commanders in Iraq are charged to complete their mission in Iraq; Sen. Obama, who is already our president apparently, must consider US security writ more broadly.

Here would be the young Senator's enthymeme:

The commanders are concerned that I may produce a timetable that doesn’t take into account what they anticipate might be some sort of changing conditions

---Because:---

We play different roles: My job is to think about the national security interests as a whole, and to have to weigh and balance risks, in Afghanistan, in Iraq; their job is just to get the job done here.

Here would be the young and inexperienced Senator's suppressed assumption:

The commanders on the ground do not understand the big picture. But I do.

This position allows Sen. Obama to save for himself a degree of freedom. Only Moran refuses to let him keep it.

Moran: “But the difference is real. Commanders here want withdrawals to be based on conditions on the ground. Obama emphasizes his timetable, but he insists he would remain flexible. I’m going to try to pin you down on this.” (continued below)

Obama: “Here let me say this, though, Terry, because, you know, what I will refuse to do, and I think that, you know “

Moran: “How do you know what I’m going to ask?”

Obama: “Well, then if I don’t get it right, then you can ask it again.”

Moran: “All right.”

Obama: “Is to get boxed in into what I consider two false choices, which is either I have a rigid timeline of such and such a date, come hell or high water, we’ve gotten our combat troops out, and I am blind to anything that happens in the intervening six months or 16 months. Or, alternatively, I am completely deferring to whatever the commanders on the ground says, which is what George Bush says he’s doing, in which case I’m not doing my job as commander-in-chief."

Obama displaces the issue to a complaint about what he considers to be false choices in the form of a classic dilemma.

Enthymeme:

If I hold to a rigid timeline of such and such a date, come hell or high water, we’ve gotten our combat troops out,

---THEN:---

I am blind to anything that happens in the intervening six months or 16 months.

Assumption:

BECAUSE: A president must be allowed to adapt his policy to change.

Enthyeme:

If I am completely deferring to whatever the commanders on the ground say, which is what George Bush says he’s doing,

---THEN:---

I’m not doing my job as commander-in-chief.”

Assumption:

BECAUSE: A president must be allowed to act and to operate independently.

Here is what is missing from the hapless Senator's peeved rejoinder: any sense of a command or executive intention. Sen. Obama complains bitterly about how his interviewer and popular opinion has framed the issue. But even if you concede the one term Senator's point you are still left with no answers---Senator Obama would rather argue with the question. Yes, a president must be allowed to adapt to change and a president must be allowed to operate independently. SO TELL US HOW YOU WOULD DO IT ALREADY, SENATOR. Please: Give us a sense of President Obama as opposed to Teleprompter Obama.

Is it any wonder why the hapless one term senator has banished the press corps from his World Tour? The man is out of his depth. See:

death by entourage: how Sen. Obama hides in plain sight in Europe and the Middle East

N.

Living in Washington D.C. and working for a public affairs firm has made me more politically inclined than ever before, and I still feel as though there is too much information for me to fully grasp everything that is being thrown my way. Which is not a good thing – especially during a high-intensity election year.

I could spend hours sifting through the campaign sites on the New York Times or Washington Post Web sites trying to educate myself on the myriad issues that presidential and congressional candidates are addressing in their platforms, but as a Gen Yer I want something a little more… personal, conversational, direct. And then I want to read news articles to supplement these conversations - they shouldn't be my sole source.

Luckily, politicians are taking advantage of social media tactics that make campaigns more personal with their constituents (hey, isn’t that a novel idea?). Federal and state Senators and Representatives are blogging (and allowing comments). The White House has a Twitter account. Barack Obama has changed the face of online campaigning with his appearances on Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. John McCain is breaking the generation stereotype and showing up on these outlets, too (albeit with far less momentum than his opponent). Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has joined the conversation, and even several government agencies are showing up on the new media map. Both the House and the Senate have Twitter accounts to track legislation moving across their respective floors.

I don’t know about you, but this is very exciting for me. For the first time, I feel like I’m hearing these messages directly from the people I may or may not be voting for. There isn’t a staged press conference, no paid advertisements - just an open dialogue where I can interact with the people who will be representing my voice.

Actually, on that point, an interesting thing I’d like to know is just how interactive are these politicians and groups. I’m not talking in terms of updating and using the tools, but the practicality of it – if I were to @BarackObama on Twitter a question about his platform, what are the odds he’d get back to me or even see the Tweet amidst his 40,000+ followers? Does John McCain (okay, I’ll even take a staff member who might relay information to him!) actually check to see how many people are watching his YouTube videos?

So while this is an excellent step in bridging the gap between politicians and the people they serve, I hope true engagement and interaction do not take a back seat to the publicity and fund raising elements that these tactics have obviously ignited.

Regardless, I’m very happy to have multiple media to evaluate and learn about candidates’ and their platforms while also staying informed about current government issues. As a social media aficionado, I hope to see this trend expand as more and more in the public affairs realm begin to experiment, and I’d also like to see the effect this has on young voters this fall.

So what about you? Are you using any of these tools to stay up-to-date on the candidates or other issues? Do you think this will help politicians reach out to audiences that might have been missed otherwise?

The transcript:

“Gas prices - $4, $5, no end in sight, because some in Washington are still saying ‘no’ to drilling in America, ‘no’ to independence from foreign oil. Who can you thank for rising prices as the pump?” the ad’s voice-over states as a picture of a smiling Obama appears on the screen next to a gas pump as chants of “Obama! Obama!” are heard.

“Don’t hope for more energy, vote for it,” the ad concludes [...]

The script begins and is organized around a classic because-clause enthymeme:

“Gas prices - $4, $5, no end in sight,

---because---

some in Washington are still saying ‘no’ to drilling in America, ‘no’ to independence from foreign oil.

It ends on a tagline---an antithesis:

“Don’t hope for more energy, vote for it”

Simple, clear, direct, topical, relevant, powerful, populist, true to the character of the candidate---This is brilliant---just brilliant. See:

• Morris on the cost of oil as an issue: “If there was ever a fault line between elitist and populist approaches to a problem, this is it—In fact, liberals basically don’t see much wrong with $5 gas—Many have been urging a tax to achieve precisely this level, just like Europe has done for decades”
• for election 2008, “it’s the cost of oil, stupid”

Here is what Sen. McCain knows will happen: The aloof and imperious Oba-Messiah and his flak-claque will immediately sound a great noise of complaint and indignation---what else can they do? The debate will then turn on whether to drill or not to drill. The result will be that Sen. McCain will once again drive the agenda. The Obama message machine can do nothing other than collaborate. The harder it resists---or "pushes back" to use the popular locution---the more it serves the purposes of Sen. McCain.

Bonus: This will distract The One and his massive entourage---and the courtier media who cover his every footfall---from The One's message and image objectives while they travel abroad.

N.

Regard:

[...] "Behind the headlines about the unprecedented success of Democrat Barack Obama's fund-raising machine lies a more prosaic truth---his campaign will need every penny of its $300 million goal to bankroll an unprecedented 50-state general election campaign with a massive army on the ground," writes Brian C. Mooney for www.boston.com in a story titled Obama's paid staff dwarfing McCain's Democrat targets 50 states as rival focuses on tossups

His campaign already has by far the largest full-time paid staff in presidential campaign history, and unlike Republican rival John McCain's, continues to grow by the day.

National polls show the race remains close between Obama and McCain, but the Obama campaign is paying closer attention to polls in more than a dozen states that show Obama has a chance of winning in November. The states were won four years ago by President Bush, in many cases by huge margins. In theory, at least, Obama's effort could nudge states such as Virginia, Indiana, and North Dakota into the Democratic column and produce a surprising Electoral College boost.

McCain so far is running a more traditional campaign, targeting perennial tossup states such as Florida and Ohio, sending smaller staffs to those states than Obama, but spending more on television ads. His campaign manager, Rick Davis, said recently that his staff will eventually increase to about 450. By earlier this month, it had opened 11 regional offices in key states and another 84 offices across the country in a joint effort with the Republican National Committee. [...]

[...] In their nomination fight, the Obama and Clinton campaigns built sophisticated state-by-state organizations, often in a matter of weeks. Hildebrand said the Obama campaign employed three different organizing models over the course of the campaign, and in May, about 30 of the top state and field directors met to map a strategy for the general election. They came up with a neighborhood and volunteer-based plan that incorporates elements of the Republican model under Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman for Bush's 2004 reelection campaign, on which Schmidt worked closely with Rove. The GOP used commercial marketing data and volunteers organized Bush supporters around the "virtual precinct" of their own social networks.

"This allows us to increase the volume of voters we're talking to and have it be done with people who live in their community," Hildebrand said.

Veteran Democratic operative John Sasso of Massachusetts said that level of organization is "unprecedented on the Democratic side." The Obama model, particularly in its use of the Internet as an organizing tool, is a significant upgrade, he said.

"People tend to believe information delivered by people they know and who live in their neighborhood more than an ad they see on television or what some third party from out of their state is telling them," said Sasso, who supported Clinton in the primaries and has played key roles in many presidential campaigns. "It can really change the electoral map" [...]

Through Sen. Obama the center-left's stern opposition to Karl Rove's principles of messaging and campaigning has passed into its opposite: it has become the mirror image of Rove himself, Rove the ground-gamer, Rove the relentless organizer and mobilizer of the base. Rove has become anti-Rove.

[...] "I believe this shift from hard data to intangibles is a function of the Internet-driven base mobilization era in which we now live," writes Patrick Ruffini in a www.thenextright.com blog burst titled Enthusiasm Over Electability

The media has basically conceded that the election will be patterned after 2000 and 2004, in that it will be close. In close elections, polls can't tell you who'll win as reliably. So the emphasis is on derivative factors like the GOTV operation or crowd size or enthusiasm which will enable one candidate to outperform the polls. The Rove model, which 1) the media buys into, and 2) places a heavier emphasis on an energized base over tacking to the center, has perversely redounded to the benefit of Obama, who has the energized base this year.

Back in the Republican primary, McCain's big argument was electability. But in an environment in which the most electable candidate will also be pilloried by the media (and to be fair, the base itself) as the least energizing candidate, I'm not sure we should be deciding primaries on electability in the future. Assuming the electability gap between the candidates is small enough, the ability to generate grassroots enthusiasm can make up for being less "electable" [...]

[...] What the bases say can submarine a candidate more easily because it's more ingrained in the media narrative than it was a few elections ago.

The old Nixonian maxim of run to the right in the primary, and to the center in the general, is out the window. It's been replaced by running on whatever will keep the crowds stoked for 24 months straight, because that's what leads to better stories and better mojo [...]

Democrats need to study hard how Karl Rove influenced Republican electoral fortunes, because the Rove doctrine of mobilizing the base at the expense of a larger coalition culminated in loss of both houses of congress in 2006. Before that the Rove doctrine in its most current form at the time began to yield diminishing marginal returns in 2004 when Pres. George Bush only barely prevailed in Ohio and nationally despite massive investment. Here is why: to govern from a base is not just unsustainable. It is a contradiction in terms. To govern requires compromise. Compromise is by definition what a base cannot support. President Clinton---a man whom we despise---understood this---alas. He governed from the center and fought for principles like free trade despite the urgent protests of his own base. President Bush by way of contrast suffered mightily when he tried to demonstrate independence on issues like entitlements (the prescription drug benefit) or immigration, and he received nothing in return for his pain from Democrats or independents. In the end the GOP base collapsed.

[...] "In the eyes of the Bush team, the United States is a polarized country, where there are fundamental divisions worth fighting over," writes Mark Halperin in an October 2006 article ironically titled Why Karl Rove's strategy still works, an article that describes as well as any other the operational concepts of the Rove doctrine.

A president - and a party - should not worry about slender margins of victory or legislative control. The goal is to accumulate just enough power to use the energies and passions of the base to effect ideological change in America's laws and institutions, even if - sometimes especially if - those changes might be at odds with majority public opinion.

For the Republicans, this brand of politics works because polls consistently indicate that there are more staunchly conservative Americans than liberal ones. Republican politicians, therefore, have the advantage of being able to proudly announce what they really think. They can go on offense.

It's important to note that this strategy depends on something else: the inability of Democrats to play by the same rules, to go on offense.

If Democrats in Congress took a secret ballot, it is safe to say there would be overwhelming support for a variety of positions that, in theory, could rally the party's base: a timely withdrawal of American troops from Iraq; a tax increase for the wealthy; universal health care, and increased rights for homosexuals. These are all positions in line with the activist wing of their party.

And yet if the Democrats actually articulated what was in their hearts, they would be marching into a buzz saw of negative political commercials and White House-led attacks. But their chosen alternative - in which they swallow their true beliefs on important national issues - demoralizes their own base.

Such equivocation is the kind of themeless pudding that does not match up well with the conviction of the White House message and is uninspiring to both the Democrats' base and the center [...]

Halperin in October of 2006 underestimated the collapse of confidence of the conservative movement in its own assumptions and conclusions. What with the petroluem and food supply shocks of 2007 going into 2008, the fall of the US banking system, the mortgage crisis, the increasing isolation and estrangement of the Bush White House---the Democrats and the center-left in general assume perhaps correctly that confidence in conservative principle remains at a low ebb.

Yet Sen. Obama must still equivocate and dissemble from behind his teleprompter. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

N.

The Project for Excellence in Journalism evaluates more than 300 political stories each week in newspapers, magazines and television to measure whether each candidate is talked about in more than 25 percent of the stories.

Every week, Obama played an important role in more than two-thirds of the stories. For July 7-13, for example, Obama was a significant presence in 77 percent of the stories, while McCain was in 48 percent, the PEJ said.

Sure, there are some weeks Obama's going to make more news, said Tom Rosenstiel, the project's director.

But every week?

"No matter how understandable it is given the newness of the candidate and the historical nature of Obama's candidacy, in the end it's probably not fair to McCain," he said.

The Democrat has proven an attractive commodity; TV debates involving Democrats this campaign consistently drew more viewers than the Republicans. A Time magazine cover with Obama in 2006 was the second-best-selling of the year, and a Men's Vogue cover outsold every issue but the debut, according to circulation figures reported by Portfolio.com. Newsweek has done six covers with Obama over the past year, two with McCain. A Rolling Stone cover with Obama stopped just short of adding a halo.

If the attention gap continues, the campaign will essentially become a referendum on Obama, Rosenstiel said. While that may serve McCain's purpose — it beats a referendum on President Bush — it could leave the nation electing a president while the media are paying attention to someone else. Past press infatuations, like Howard Dean in 2004 and McCain in 2000, didn't turn into long-term affairs [...]

The reaction in the form of a counter-narrative has begun, because the media itself has become aware of the costs and risks of its own infatuation.

In related news, the New York Times has rejected Sen. McCain's rejoinder to Sen. Obama's Op-Ed titled My Plan for Iraq. Shipley of the NYT wants "an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece," as opposed to anything the Senator himself might develop.

N.

[...] In principle and rationale the Obama Presidency effectively begins in November 2006, because the principles and processes the man represents---that he articulates, that he proposes to pursue---are developments independent of the man himself. This would be the case no matter who wins in November 2008. Historical analogy: In the late Imperial and Dominate phase of Roman history feudal property and pockets of feudal communalism broke out not just in the margins of empire but even in its heart. It persisted side by side—sometimes at odds, sometimes in cooperation—with imperial life and administration. In our own era the growing post-super power anarchy persists side by side with carrier strike groups and combat brigades deployed abroad to pursue national interests for national elites who have lost all confidence in the entire project of a “national interest.” The Obama draw-down from world engagement began two years ago under the supervision of the Bush White House. Sen. Obama himself is its heir and the articulator of its premises and rationales. Or the office may fall to Sen. McCain. It hardly matters. The process will continue according to its own internal logic [...]

Editor of the Intellectual Activist Robert Tracinski supports our thesis. But he articulates it differently and draws from it different conclusions. Instead of the Bush White House implementing the Obama program, Tracinski sees Obama as a continuation of the late-phase Bush White House. [...] "What is most interesting [about Sen. Obama's recent speech on Iraq] is its main purpose, which is to make it sound as if Obama is offering a whole new strategic direction for the War on Terrorism--while he declares that he would implement precisely the policies that are already being followed by the Bush administration," writes Tracinski in a www.realclearpolitics article titled Obama Wraps Up the Bush Status Quo in Pompous Clichés

[Sen. Obama] says that "True success" in Iraq--note that he has even borrowed Bush's habit of saying "success" in place of "victory"--"will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future--a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge." But that is precisely what is already happening. Sectarian killings in Iraq, for example, have dropped to zero for about ten weeks running.

And how does Obama propose to ensure that we keep on enjoying this "true success" in Iraq? "We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010--one year after Iraqi Security Forces will be prepared to stand up; two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, we'll keep a residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq: targeting any remnants of al Qaeda; protecting our service members and diplomats; and training and supporting Iraq's Security Forces."

Note the part about the "residual" combat force, whose size Obama never specifies, which will target the remnants of al Qaeda and train and support Iraqi forces--which is precisely the end result envisioned by the Bush administration if the current progress in Iraq continues.

But maybe the big difference is that Obama will stick to his 16-month timetable no matter what, while Bush and McCain want to make withdrawal dependent on conditions on the ground. Well no, Obama would "make tactical adjustments" after consulting with "commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government."

That final flip-flop that the left has been dreading, when Obama throws out his commitment to a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq? It just happened. I wonder how long it will take them to notice [...]

N.

Sen. Obama has boxed himself with his own reputation for genius. He already has all the answers; he already knows all the facts. So to learn or grow would be popularly construed as a sign of confusion or an admission of ignorance. So he hides in plain sight:

[...] "After two days abroad Barack Obama’s game plan is coming into view: he’s not saying much in public and his interactions with world leaders are likely to be hidden from the public," writes Jennifer Rubin for Commentary Magazine's Contentious Blog in a blog burst titled Will They Notice?

[Sen. Obama] met with the troops, had lunch with President Karzai and smiled. Did he speak sense to Karzai or hear a rebuke for insulting Karzai? Who knows? He didn’t hold a presser with Karazai and no cameras were allowed into their lunch.

We’ll see if the pattern changes, but if he keeps this up all week he’ll have done exactly what he does at home: cling to that teleprompter and operate only within his “comfort zone” [...]

Also:

[...] "As a German correspondent in Washington, I am accustomed to the fact that American politicians spare little of their limited time for reporters from abroad," writes Christoph von Marschall for WaPo in an article titled Snubbed by Obama

This is understandable: Our readers, viewers and listeners cannot vote in U.S. elections. Even so, Obama's opponents have managed to make at least a small amount of time for international journalists. John McCain has given many interviews. Hillary Clinton gave a few. President Bush regularly holds round-table interviews with media from the countries to which he travels. Only Obama dismisses us so consistently [...]

Perhaps Obama considers members of the foreign media a risk rather than an opportunity. His campaign learned the hard way how comments to foreigners can resonate at home -- recall adviser Austan Goolsbee's hints to a Canadian diplomat that Obama's critique of NAFTA was just campaign rhetoric, or former aide Samantha Power's "monster" remark about Hillary Clinton to the Scotsman. Or perhaps we're witnessing the arrogance that comes from being so close to power. One of his campaign advisers told me recently: "Why should we take the time for foreign media, since there is Obamania around the world?" [...]

It took President Bush 6 long hard years in office before the White House grounds became his prison.

N.

The two energy companies plan to look for oil in the South China Sea in an area Vietnam claims. Hanoi’s position is based on the fact that the area is on its continental shelf and within its exclusive economic zone.

Beijing, however, also claims the site in question. In addition to asserting rights to Vietnam’s continental shelf, it claims the continental shelves of the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei [...]

Chang concludes:

[...] "I believe we maintain carrier strike groups for this very purpose" [...]

The current Bush administration would deploy its carrier strike groups to defend the Chinese claim were it to deploy them at all. For evidence study how Washington has sold out Taipei. Or study how the Bush administration now cooperates with Iran and Korea. See:

Gordon G. Chang: “The American leader who believes so much in freedom and democracy has done more than any autocrat to support the strengthening coalition of authoritarian states”

In principle and rationale the Obama Presidency effectively begins in November 2006, because the principles and processes the man represents---that he articulates, that he proposes to pursue---are developments independent of the man himself. This would be the case no matter who wins in November 2008. Historical analogy: In the late Imperial and Dominate phase of Roman history feudal property and pockets of feudal communalism broke out not just in the margins of empire but even in its heart. It persisted side by side---sometimes at odds, sometimes in cooperation---with imperial life and administration. In our own era the growing post-super power anarchy persists side by side with carrier strike groups and combat brigades deployed abroad to pursue national interests for national elites who have lost all confidence in the entire project of a "national interest." The Obama draw-down from world engagement began two years ago under the supervision of the Bush White House. Sen. Obama himself is its heir and the articulator of its premises and rationales. Or the office may fall to Sen. McCain. It hardly matters. The process will continue according to its own internal logic.

Sen. Obama and the security and non-proliferation experts he gathered in Indiana are right: we have passed into a post-nation state era. Moral: ExxonMobil needs to develop its own foreign policy operations and fend for itself, because the American super-state collapsed along with its banking system. Welcome to the post-superpower world. Welcome to the new feudalism.

N.

FACT:  The military embraces blogging and even runs a few blogs on the .mil domain (See examples of official blogs, here, here, here, here)

Military bloggers provide the Naked Conversations that much of the general public can benefit from.

I found it really interesting that my Social Media classroom blog run by Professor Garrett Graff is linked to a large Military blog.

I agree with Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, IV that the military should embrace blogging (and other Social Media).  Caldwell was previously Senior Spokesperson for Multi-National Force--Iraq (MNF-I).  His current duties include serving as Commandant of the Command & General Staff College.  He has published a policy letter that encourages blogging on .mil and commercial websites.

Caldwell's views on the importance of internet/social media (as outlined in the policy letter):

Interactive internet activities are an essential part of our responsibilities to provide information to the public, usher in a culture of change within our Army's officer Leadership, Development, and Education and support military operations.  Leaders within the Army need to understand the power of the internet and leverage as many communications means as possible to communicate what the CAC is doing and more importantly to "Share the Story" of those serving in uniform and highlight the incredible sacrifices they and their families are making.

Here is one of the blogs from a classroom of Army Majors.

In fact the Army has accounts at twitter, youtube, and flickr.  Though they don't have many followers, subscribers, contacts, respectively; consider these sites a sign that Senior Leaders are embracing social media.

UPDATE 1:  I just found this link where Pete Geren, Secretary of the Army says:

Senior Army leaders have fallen behind the breakneck development of cheap digital communications including cell phones, digital cameras and Web 2.0 Internet sites such as blogs and Facebook, Army Secretary Pete Geren said at a trade conference on July 10. That helps explain how "just one man in a cave that's hooked up to the Internet has been able to out-communicate the greatest communications society in the history of the world -- the United States".

Example:

[...] "An exhausted Dubya is now doing everything he once said he would not," writes Gordon G. Chang for Commentary Magazine's Contentious Blog blog burst titled Is the Bush Administration Crumbling?

The President, for example, is rewarding North Korea prior to surrender of its nuclear weapons. On Wednesday, the administration agreed to talk with Iran even though the Islamic Republic is continuing to enrich uranium and undoubtedly maintaining a covert bomb program. And on the same day, it was revealed that the Bush White House is undermining democratic Taiwan to please communist China by refusing to sell the former defensive weapons. Next month, the President will be joining the likes of Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe to honor Chinese autocrats at the opening ceremony of an event recently described as the “Totalitarian Olympics.”

Mr. Bush probably won’t have to sit next to Sudan’s Omar Bashir–seating is said to be alphabetical for attending heads of state–only because the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court on Monday asked for an arrest warrant for the genocidal ruler.

The American leader who believes so much in freedom and democracy has done more than any autocrat to support the strengthening coalition of authoritarian states. Getting little in return, Bush is yielding on almost every request from Beijing and most of them from Moscow. In doing so, he is abandoning American allies and undermining critical American goals. By reversing course on major initiatives, he is eroding American credibility. Now, it seems every foreign policy of the Bush administration is, well, Kerryesque [...]

Also:

[...] "last week the Bush administration abruptly refined that position--as Barack Obama might put it," writes Stephen F. Hayes in a www.weeklystandard.com article titled 'Stunningly Shameful'; The Bush administration flip-flops on Iran

Without any indication that Iran was suspending its uranium enrichment program, the State Department announced that Burns would be heading to Switzerland for direct meetings with Iran's nuclear negotiators.

So what changed? Very little [...]

[...] It has been a dispiriting few weeks. Several conservative political appointees have said that they are embarrassed to be working in the Bush administration. One called the new policies "preemptive capitulation." Another suggested that whatever credit the Bush administration deserved for keeping Americans safe in the seven years after 9/11 would be offset by the blame the administration will have earned for emboldening America's enemies with its reflexive weakness. And a former adviser to Condoleezza Rice said: "This is stunningly shameful."

But, our diplomats were not finished. In his appearance on Capitol Hill, Burns was asked about reports that the United States is considering opening a U.S. interests section in Tehran. He declined to talk about internal State Department deliberations but reported that such a move--one that would bring the United States one step closer to the "more normal relationship" Condoleezza Rice promised back in January without any indication that Iran intends to stop or even slow its pursuit of nuclear weapons--is under active consideration.

The Iranians have certainly been paying attention to this kinder, gentler Bush administration and its sudden embrace of the thank-you-sir-may-I-have-another school of diplomacy.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei understands that aggressive rhetoric is effective. "The positions of the Islamic Republic and the red lines of the Iranian nation are very clear and if the parties of negotiation negotiate within this framework, the authorities will engage in dialogue. But the condition is that no one threatens the Iranian nation," he said last week, according to a translation published on NationalReviewOnline. "The Iranian nation will cut the hand which is raised against the dear Islamic Republic. .  .  . There are those who say that the American president would do something in his final months of presidency. .  .  . [T]he Iranian nation will punish him, even if he is out of office and no longer has any official responsibility" [...]

Question: Is it the Bush administration or the conservative movement as it is presently organized and constituted that has entered its sudden and accelerating late phase? Bush has passed into anti-Bush, a late phase marked by irony and negation according to the law of analogy, just as Christ passes into anti-Christ, church into anti-church, and just as the Clintons closed their own era by turning on their own party and its newly anointed, the very basis of their rule.

(In Eastern Rome's late phase---Byzantium historians call it, though the "Byzantines" never did---they called themselves Romans and properly so---the Emperor became the Sultan's vassal and cooperated, even collaborated, in the destruction of Christian cities and estates. Those whom the gods would destroy ... )

In any case conditions have become complex for the political and cultural right. The White House---the seat of the conservative movement's waning power---its last remaining center of influence having lost both houses of congress in 2006---has become a Bush family fuherbunker. The shocked and awed cabinet secretaries and political appointees of this broken administration are everywhere retreating on, or reversing themselves on, every principle they once held.

So, what is the sum of all this? Where do these paths lead? Is the party over?---by this we mean the GOP. Or is more than just the party over? Will anything rise up in its place? Our hopes too must rest on the person and presence of one Barack Obama. For the political right to persist in its present form Sen. Obama must somehow provoke enough resistance to organize a coalition coherent enough to defeat him at the polls in November---however narrowly or even on a split decision like 2000. Or once in office stay true to his promises and govern from the left flanked by Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi. The image of this alone could resuscitate the now shattered coalition of the political right. Well, one would hope.

How sad, however, that our destiny is no longer our own.

...The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand ...

Question: What will claw its way out of this tomb? An Osiris whole and new to announce a new era? Or a flesh eating zombie, a foul and dangerous caricature of its former self?

N.

And I'm going to, as a consequence, keep my remarks brief, because I know that many of you want to hear from them.

But it is wonderful to be back in Indiana. In a few moments, we'll open up the discussion. But I want to offer a few comments about some of the emerging threats that we face in the 21st century and offer some ideas about how we can face those threats.

Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor, to the threat of nuclear annihilation. Americans have adapted to the threats posed by an ever-changing world [...]

The bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor? A single bomb? A great big bomb? A great big harbor-buster bomb? An anti-fleet munition? Is this a transcriber's error? Did Sen. Obama mean to say bombs, plural? Was 'bombs' plural on his teleprompter and he said 'bomb' singular instead?

An empire oppressed us says the Oba-Messiah. Presumably the British empire. And our frontier was lawless, says The One. But this great big bomb seems to pilot itself.

Enough ridicule. We have more subtle points to make.

[...] And for most of our history, the most significant danger to our security came from nation states [...]

This flatly contradicts the lines that came before. An empire is not a nation state. A bomb is not a nation state. Japan, Germany, and Italy were nation states, but they were a particular form of nation state: they were fascist or militarist---they were premised on ideological assumptions hostile to the nation state system, and, more importantly, they pursued policies hostile to the notion of sovereignty specified in e.g. the Treaty of Westphalia, the normative basis of the nation state system. This also describes the former Soviet Union and its satellites.

Nation states were never our enemies: our enemies were empires, broken states, or anti-states, political forms premised on imperial or ideological assumptions hostile to the nation state system itself. The same is true now though in different combinations and configurations.

Back to his imperious majesty, Barack Obama:

[...] The physical safety of our people was protected by oceans. The national security of the United States was buttressed by our extraordinary economic strength and a powerful military that answered every call [...]

Yes. Only this is still the case. Oceans still protect us. Our national security is still a function of our economic activity---how could it be otherwise? Though stretched to its limit we still depend on a powerful military.

[...] Today, the dangers extend beyond states alone, to transnational security threats that respect no borders. These are threats that can arise from any part of the globe and spread anywhere, including to our own shores. Dangers like pandemic disease, nuclear weapons proliferation, environmental degradation, international criminal networks, and terrorism [...]

Follow Sen. Obama's enthymeme:

Yesterday we faced conventional threats; today we face more complex threats.

The implied conclusion: I, Sen. Obama, understand and can develop policies to address these new more complex threats. This is precisely the enthymeme articulated in Sen. Obama's television ad titled "Changing World."

Manning: “Obama Campaign Releases National TV Ad on New Leadership for a Changing World”

Sen. Obama's enthymeme issues into the following paradigm: These are threats that can arise from any part of the globe and spread anywhere, including to our own shores. Dangers like

• pandemic disease
• nuclear weapons proliferation
• environmental degradation
• international criminal networks
• terrorism

The paradigm elaborates upon the theme of complexity developed in the second proposition of the enthymeme.

Each example of the paradigm is the inverse of a center-right position except for terrorism. Pandemic disease, for example, is as much a social, class, and Global North-South issue as it is a national security issue, if it can be construed as a security issue at all. We generally do not deploy carrier fleets or combat brigades in response to disease outbreaks, e.g. HIV, SARS. Nuclear weapons proliferation---as Sen. Obama articulates the issue---requires legislation or international treaty protocols to contain---not deterrence or missile defense. The center-right would not recognize environmental degradation as a security issue. (One could argue that there is a sustained and programmatic effort in Sen. Obama's remarks to link the environment to national security.) International criminal networks would be a law enforcement issue, which is famously how the center-left would classify terrorism.

Take Evangelicals as an example of a center-right constituency that would take issue with the categories of Sen. Obama's paradigmatic catalog, , as reported by NAOMI SCHAEFER RILEY in a Wall Street Journal article titled Left Behind: Evangelicals Haven't Embraced the Democrats' Agenda

[...] Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention is not surprised. Evangelicals, he says, are not about to "exchange global warming for the sanctity of life or traditional marriage." While most Americans support stricter laws to protect the environment, evangelicals are still lagging behind the progressive curve. Three-quarters of atheists, Jews and Buddhists favor those regulations, according Pew's results, but only 54% of evangelicals do. Another study -- out in June from the Henry Institute on Religion and Public Life at Calvin College -- reports that evangelical support of environmental regulation declined by almost 10 percentage points between 2004 and 2008 (while remaining steady among the general public). According to John Green, a senior fellow at Pew, the drop may be evidence that evangelicals, who have been openly debating this issue for some time, have reached a "turning point" in their discussions. This is not a big shock: More than most other voting groups, evangelicals support smaller government in all areas of life.

It also turns out that there is still a significant divide between evangelical voters and the rest of the country on foreign policy. About 38% of evangelicals believe that military strength is the best way to ensure peace, compared with 28% of the general public. And the difference is much more stark when it comes to the Iraq war. According to the Henry Institute, 57% of evangelicals believe that "the U.S. did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq," compared with general public's 39%. It can hardly be a surprise, then, that a recent Washington Post poll shows Mr. McCain with 68% of white evangelical support, compared with 22% for Barack Obama [...]

Each of the categories of Sen Obama's paradigmatic catalog, e.g. pandemic disease, environmental degradation---except perhaps for terrorism---require the activity of the regulatory or the welfare state to address. Hence, for Sen. Obama, the post-nation state era calls for a post-security posture where the institutions of the welfare and regulatory state take their seats among the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Further, except for terrorism the categories of Sen Obama's paradigmatic catalog, e.g. pandemic disease, environmental degradation, are all civil society issues. We wonder why the distinction between state and civil society seems to baffle Sen. Obama and his entire academy of learned advisors, his 300 mighty men (and women) of valour, a group larger than the faculties of some universities? Or does an agenda lurk behind his conflation of state and civil society?

We find it telling that energy or energy independence did not find its way into Sen. Obama's paradigmatic catalog. For Al Gore "our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels is at the core" of our security as well as our economic issues. See:

Gore tries to sound folksy: “And by the way, our weather sure is getting strange, isn’t it?”—well, it surely is, Al, and so are you—boy howdy!—how Gore would destroy market democracy as a political form in order to save it

N.

Amazingly, he had a quasi-presidential seal with its own Latin inscription affixed to his podium, until general ridicule -- it was pointed out that he was not yet president -- induced him to take it down

He lectures us that instead of worrying about immigrants learning English, "you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish" -- a language Obama does not speak. He further admonishes us on how "embarrassing" it is that Europeans are multilingual but "we go over to Europe, and all we can say is, 'merci beaucoup.'" Obama speaks no French.

His fluent English does, however, feature many such admonitions, instructions and improvements. His wife assures us that President Obama will be a stern taskmaster: "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism ... that you come out of your isolation. ... Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."

For the first few months of the campaign, the question about Obama was: Who is he? The question now is: Who does he think he is? [...]

The theme of Sen. Obama's titanic ego continues to develop. The theme is supported by stories like

(a) Elisabeth Bumiller's Cast of hundreds advises Obama on foreign policy published by the International Herald Tribune

[...] Behind the [policy briefings sent by e-mail] is a tight-knit group of aides supported by a huge 300-person foreign policy campaign bureaucracy, organized like a mini State Department, to assist a candidate whose limited national security experience remains a concern to many voters.

"It is unwieldy, no question," said Denis McDonough, 38, Obama's top foreign policy aide, speaking of an infrastructure that has been divided into 20 teams based on regions and issues, and that has recently absorbed, with some tensions, the top foreign policy advisers from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign. "But an administration is unwieldy, too. We also know that it's messier when you don't get as much information as you can."

The group is on the spot this week as Obama is planning to make his first overseas foray as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, with voters at home and leaders abroad watching closely to see how he handles himself on the global stage [...]

OR

(b) Gregor Peter Scmitz's Obama Reacts to Debate in Berlin published by Spiegel Online International

[...] Chancellor Angela Merkel has said she finds Barack Obama's plan to give a speech at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin a bit "odd." Obama's spokesman now says Obama will find a Berlin location for his speech that makes the most sense for him and his hosts [...]

The Brandenburg Gate? Why does the one term Senator not deliver a homily at St. Peter's Basilica in a miter and a hooded surplice? Why not an address from the Temple Mount?

N.

That's $19.5 million for the month. His campaign's non-media related expenses in May, when he had a mere 700 employees, was another $23 million. Toss in a few million for the doubling of the staff and all the bells and whistles, and Obama's spending is barely sustained by his current fundraising.

Obama's spending is absolutely unprecedented, and it's not clear his fundraising will sustain it through the election. Fifty-two million is an impressive sum, but keep in mind it was in large part supported by Hillary contributors giving for the first time. In May, Obama only raised $22 million, and there's no reason to assume those levels -- impressive by historical standards but a financial train wreck given his burn-rate -- won't return.

Obama's strategy could work, and if it does, it will change how presidential campaigns are run. But I think there are plenty of reasons to suspect it won't. In the first place, polls haven't shifted in Obama's favor despite fundraising and lavish spending. As of July 1, Obama had spent nearly $92 million compared to McCain's $11 million [...]

Sen. Obama has yet to realize a return on his investment (ROI).

The most reliable predictor of a campaign's performance is its ROI. How much does it spend to raise money, and what does it get for what it spends?

Sen. McCain was famously able to outperform his rivals when outspent in orders of magnitude as he did in FL against Gov. Romney. But Gov. Romney was the worst campaigner in human history despite his vast personal fortune. Or perhaps because of it.

Also:

[...] "Obama's fundraising base still looks a lot like Al Gore's or John Kerry's," writes Andrew Romano in blog.newsweek.com blog burst titled Four Myths of Obama's Money Machine

For starters, the majority of Obama's money continues to come from folks with fat(ter) wallets. In the primaries, for example, donations larger than $200 accounted for 55 percent of Obama's haul, or about $150 million. Lawyers forked over $18 million of that total; the largest single contributor was Goldman Sachs. And now that the primaries are over, Obama is free—like McCain—to funnel checks larger than $2,300 through the national party. He's taking full advantage of that luxury [...]

Also see.

Sen. Obama wins the campaign finance expectations game for June—rumours of Obama fundraising shortfall false

N.