According to the Melbourne Age's Washington correspondent,  Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Armed Services Committee on Wednesday that they should lower their expectations about what a troop increase in Afghanistan might do, and that such an increase was not wanted at this time.   This is tantamount to an effective declaration of loss in Afghanistan.

Has this been completely smothered by the bailout?  Is there any coverage of it in America?   I've seen no comment on the cable stations and neither McCain nor Obama  seem to have reacted to it.

Poblano's analysis of the internals.   Really priceless analysis, not to mention heartening for anyone who, like me, was at risk of going into a blue funk after seeing the Drudge  & Fox debate polls.
fivethirtyeight.com
(The analysis explains why the internals are even  worse for McCain than the topline results, which had Obama winning 51-38.)

From Ben Smith's blog.  Thought it worth posting here in case anyone was tempted to check it out
Warning...

From the UK computer magazine Webuser:

Emails claiming that US presidential candidate Barack Obama was involved in a sex scandal should be treated with caution, security experts have warned.

The emails claim that Obama had been videoed in a compromising situation and promise to show you the footage if you click on the links contained in the message.

[snip]

Though the links do direct you to a sex video, it isn't Obama involved, according to Sophos. And while the video distracts you, something far more sinister is going on in the background.

"What appears to be an amateur porn movie is displayed on the computer screen while the malware is doing its dirty work and infecting your Windows PC with spyware," said Cluley.

Keats had it - `angry bellows full of wind...`

I can't bear listening to her!   Her voice is SO hard and shrill.  The way she talks is painful!   It's so strident.

Is it just me?

According to Marc Ambinder,
The Federal Bureau of Investigation did not participate in the vetting of Gov. Sarah Palin and did not conduct a background check as part of the process, an FBI spokesman said today.
The Washington Post reported Sunday, citing an interview with campaign manager Rick Davis, that the vetting process "included reviews of financial and other personal data, an FBI background check and considerable discussion among the handful of McCain advisers involved in the deliberations.

"In general, we do not do vetting for political campaigns except as it might regard investigations needed for security clearances," said John Miller, the chief FBI spokesperson.

The FBI did not participate in a vet, nor did it run a background check of Gov. Palin as part of the process."

Extraordinary that the campaign thought  it could get away with this sort of falsehood.  But it says just as much about their sense of vulnerability that they'd try, does it not?

According to this poll, Obama's lead has been halved since last month - Overall, Obama holds a three-point lead over McCain, 45-42 percent, which is within the survey’s margin of error. That’s down from Obama’s six-point advantage last month, 47-41 percent.
The pollsters argue that the negative GOP ads have worked - 50% of those polled think McCain would be a competent C-in-C, cf 39% for Obama.
The real problem for Obama lies with the negative primary impact:  21 percent Clinton supporters are backing McCain, with an additional 27 percent who are undecided or want to vote for someone else.

What’s more, those who backed Clinton in the primaries — but aren’t supporting Obama right now — tend to view McCain in a better light than Obama and have more confidence in McCain’s ability to be commander-in-chief.

What none of these pollsters address is whether having her on the ticket would cost him more in independents in swing states than she'd bring him by mollifying her primary voters.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26314990/

Have you seen his latest?   Actually saying he regrets that his campaign has gone negative and that it's all Obama's fault for not agreeing to do townhalls!

Perhaps it was his elitist, spoiled upbringing that resulted in his having actually got to the grand old age of 72 without seeming to have the most basic understanding that any counsellor could ground him in - blaming other people for your own cock-ups is pathetically infantile.

`He made me do it.`

Jeez....

From one who used to drink with him at his favourite watering hole, he loved to tell jokes, and

`A few minutes listening to the racism, bigotry and homophobia of the Arizona Congressman told me all I needed to know.

McCain loved to tell jokes about lesbians, blacks, Hispanics and the Vietnamese community that occupied a large section of Arlington County, Virginia, just south of the District of Columbia.

Of course, McCain didn't use polite language in the jokes: He used names like "fags" or "queers" or "dykes" or "niggers" or "spics" or "wetbacks" or "gooks."

Check out the link, Doug Thomson,  `McCain: racist, bigot & homophobe
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/10086

Thomson references a book written by Irwin A. Tank, author of Gook: John McCain's Racism, which notes a long and sordid history of racism from the presumptive GOP nominee.   If the Obama campaign had its wits about it, it would pay that publisher to do a reprint.

My God, this candidate actually talks about tar babies!

Here's a favourite  joke of his about Hispanics, which is so damned hypocritical if one thinks of his latest ad geared at Hispanics,  (criticising Obama for not including them in his Berlin speech)

Question: Why does Mexican beer have two "X's" on the label?

Answer: Because wetbacks always need a co-signer."

I'd given up reading Jay Cost's articles because I'd concluded he was biased (to the right) and he thoroughly t'd me off during the primary.   But today Poblano (fivethirtyeight) recommended a blog of his on the RCP page -  incentive enough to check it out.

I'm glad I did - well worth the read.  It's analysing Obama's speeches, his website.   It may well infuriate people who can't bear any critiques of Obama or his campaign that aren't solely fulsome praise, but I hope his campaign reads it and at least thinks about it.

As Poblano points out,  "A greater problem is that Obama can come across as aloof and arrogant -- or messianic, in the right's favorite phrasing.

It's a thoughtful analysis:  worth checking out since it's not just a  hit-piece, it has some ideas for combating it as well as discussing the ways in which the campaign is reinforcing this favourite GOP meme..

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/07/on_obamas_message.html

Was there anything that you saw on this trip that changed your mind? John McCain, as you know, is saying, "Well, he already knew what he was going to think before he got there."

Well, I thought John also suggested that I'm always changing my mind, so he's got to make up his mind about what he says about my mind.

(Interview with Karen Tumulty - Time

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1825738,00.html?xid=rss-politics-cnn

I don't know if anyone here saw Rachel Maddow & Olbermann tonight talking about McLellan's revelation that Bush's White House feeds Fox with talking points.  It was a terrific segment and among other things Rachel was categorical about stating that it was illegal for the White House to be engaging in propaganda.

How is it illegal? 

According to today's Guardian (UK)

"The Democratic hopeful has promised to give "a clear message that America intends to continue to show leadership, but our style of leadership is going to be less unilateral, that we're going to see our role as building partnerships around the world that are of mutual interest to the parties involved".

I hope the message is going to be that `if he is elected, then...`

If anything's going to bring him down on this trip it's going to be hubris.  Rove et al are determined to pin this image on him - the last thing they need is his cooperation.  He already  made on gaffe in that interview in Jordan talking about himself as President before he corrected himself and said `if`

Go here:

http://www.dailykos.com/hotlist/add/2008/7/20/202056/115/displaystory//

Click on expand and go down just a few messages in the thread for one of  the most beauuuutiful photos you'll see in this campaign.

It's simply priceless!  

How about that for a stunning headline?
 
"Gordon Brown prepared the ground for a historic realignment in the "war on terror" yesterday by setting out a four-point plan for withdrawal of British troops from Iraq by the end of next year."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/brown-plans-to-withdraw-troops-as-he-backs-obama-over-war-on-terror-872388.html

I suppose the gazillion dollar question is whether  or not it gets the play it deserves in the US?

Recently in the WSJ he argued

`Democrats don't have the same large volunteer pool the GOP does with its Federated GOP Women, College and Young Republicans, and local party committees. In the primaries, Mr. Obama instead moved hordes of volunteers from state to state. It was a brilliant tactic, but Nov. 4 is different. The volunteers adequate for primaries held over five months will simply not be enough to compete in 51 separate elections (all 50 states plus the District of Columbia) all on one day.`

Now check out what Obama's doing: the title's misleading - the diary covers a lot mroe ground than just Colorado.
Groundgame Obama Colorado Office openings draw 1,200 supporters
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/17/185526/033/108/553158