6/6: Flippity Floppity

Barack Obama and John McCain are both being accused of flip-flopping today. First, Obama made waves when he declared in his speech to AIPAC that Jerusalem "must remain undivided." After his statement was criticized by Palestinian leaders (as well as several liberal bloggers), Obama clarified his remark, saying that it would be up to the Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate Jerusalem's status. Conservative bloggers immediately accused Obama of "backpedaling" and "cav[ing] to Hamas".

McCain is having his own troubles, however. Last December, in an interview with The Boston Globe's Charlie Savage, McCain suggested that the President does not have the constitutional authority to conduct warrantless surveillance in violation of a federal statute. However, one of McCain's advisers recently said that McCain believes President George W. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program was lawful -- which appears to contradict the sentiments expressed by McCain in December. Liberal bloggers are accusing McCain of changing his position and embracing the Bush administration's controversial theories of executive power. Mark Kleiman writes: "As with torture, so with warrantless wiretapping: McCain was against it before he was for it."

OBAMA VEEPSTAKES: Nunn For Me, Thanks

Now that ex-GA Sen. Sam Nunn supports a review of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy (which he helped push through the Senate in '93), liberal bloggers are discussing the idea of Obama choosing Nunn as his running mate:

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis is not a fan of Nunn: "Sam Nunn is the primary reason we have the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy banning gays from serving in the US military. [...] It's nice that Nunn is now saying 'gosh, maybe we should revisit the policy' just in time to become Obama's possible VP (there's been talk of Nunn for the job). But give me a break. Did Nunn reverse himself on the policy? Is he now in favor of gay servicemembers serving openly in the US armed forces? Did he write an op ed for the New York Times proclaiming his mistake? No. Nunn's big 'epiphany' is to suggest that the Pentagon do another study of the policy. Yeah, good idea. Wonder how that'll turn out."
• The Washington Note's Steve Clemons thinks Nunn needs to clarify his views on gays in the military: "Senator Nunn is recommending a 'review' of the policy he helped fashion fifteen years ago, but he is not indicating whether his own views have changed. [...] So despite my sincere respect for many of the good things Sam Nunn has done, I also think it is important for those whispering about the possibility of putting Nunn in the VP slot on the Obama ticket -- or in Obama's cabinet -- to realize that this blog and many others will not stand for someone who still harbors long standing, institutionalized discriminatory views against gay men and women, particularly in the arena of national security when we should be applauding any who want to serve this country. It's time for us to be asking Sam Nunn what his views on gays in the military now are -- and he should tell us. Let's move to 'Ask and Tell.'"
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias is surprised that Nunn is being considered for VP in the first place: "I'd heard Nunn's name tossed around for a potential appointment in an Obama administration, but I'd seen that as mostly idle talk -- Nunn seems to me to have reached that semi-retired eminence grise phase in his career where he co-chairs panels of various sorts and gets mentioned sometimes as an example of The Kind of Statesman We Don't Have Any More. Efforts to reposition his profile on gay rights, though, seems to indicate that he really would like to get a job. But I'm not even sure what kind of job that would be. He seems like one of several people (Chuck Hagel also comes to mind) who would be a good choice for a position as some kind of high-level nuclear proliferation stopping guy. Something like that, with a narrow-but-important portfolio would be a good post for a conservative Democrat or a moderate Republican who was smart on the relevant issues, the kind of thing that would be all about putting disagreements on various other issues aside to focus in on this one grave problem."

OBAMA VEEPSTAKES II: What's With All The Ex-Senators?

dday touts ex-FL senator Bob Graham as a potential running mate for Obama: "I think the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee in the run-up to the war, the guy who knew that the Bush Administration was lying and told his colleagues all about it, who voted against the authorization, is someone who would amplify that message on the war. He's beloved in Florida and that might help there, but that's not the point. Graham is very intelligent and provides an authoritative voice on foreign policy issues. I don't know that he's the best campaigner, but again I think that stuff is kind of overblown."

Ezra Klein doesn't understand Graham's appeal: "I've never really understood the Bob Graham boosterism. Back when he was a popular politician in Florida, I could see the argument. But the guy is an awful campaigner, comically obsessive compulsive, and has been out of the game for years now. In 2004, when he was running for president and was still an active politician, he was one of the first to fizzle out in the primaries -- and this was against a field dominated by such charismatic orators as Joe Lieberman and John Kerry. He's certainly knowledgeable about national security, but he's not forceful in talking about it, and I think it's hard to look at Kerry's experience in 2004 and say that knowledge and resume are themselves sufficient. So what gives?"

OBAMA: Pander To AIPAC? Yes, We Can!

Several bloggers are accusing Obama of pandering to the more hardline members of the Jewish community during his speech to AIPAC:

• The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg thinks Obama's speech should have had "about ten percent more nuance": "I think Obama's performance at AIPAC was designed specifically to placate those Jews who believe that any criticism at all of Israel is illegitimate. I wish that Obama's speech had about ten percent more nuance in it."
• The Nation's Robert Dreyfuss: "Virtually every speech ever delivered to an AIPAC conference, going back 54 years to the first AIPAC conclave, is a litany of pro-Israeli shibboleths. Obama didn't disappoint. [...] If you were listening for Obama to say anything about the suffering of the Palestinian people, well, that will be in a different speech."
• Ezra Klein: "Obama offered yet more military aid for Israel, more isolation of Hamas, more insinuations of war against Iran. All in all, a bit disappointing for a candidate who prides himself on speaking tough truths in front of the audiences that need to hear them (he brags often about telling auto executives they need to transition off of oil and investment bankers that they need to curb their greed). The speech, which you can read here, is much more about proving Obama's commitment to a hardline vision of supporting Israel than exhorting our allies in Jerusalem to cease constructing settlements so they have a stronger case to make to the world community. Sigh. Maybe after the election."

Liberal bloggers were particularly critical of Obama's assertion that Jerusalem "must remain undivided":

• TAPPED's Gershom Gorenberg: "The text of [Obama's] speech indicates that he's navigating between his own belief in diplomacy and his perceived need to mouth 'pro-Israel' cliches that are to the right of a none-too-leftist Israeli government. So he correctly argues that the war in Iraq empowered Iran and made Israel less secure. But he also asserts that in a two-state solution, 'Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.' That's exactly the line that made Hillary Clinton's position paper on Israel surrealistic, as I've argued before. In most respects, Jerusalem is already a divided city, and recognizing this politically is the key to precisely the kind of agreement that Obama says he'd like to reach. Alas. 'Yes, We Can' pander to AIPAC."
• Yglesias: "Nobody thinks this is a smart position for the U.S. government to take on the merits, and I suspect a healthy swathe of AIPAC knows it's the wrong position too, but they'd like to see American politicians be willing to say it, and American politicians are very willing to do what AIPAC wants in this regard. Meanwhile, 6 million Palestinians, plus hundreds of millions of other Arabs and Muslims around the world, are watching the candidate of 'change' in American politics outline a patently unreasonable vision for the final status of the Israel-Palestine conflict. And all for what? Would it really have been so horrible from a 'pro-Israel' point of view if Obama had proclaimed himself absolutely committed to Israel's security and just not mentioned anything in particular about Jerusalem?"

OBAMA II: Backtracking On Jerusalem?

Conservative bloggers are accusing Obama of flip-flopping after he "clarified" his statement that Jerusalem "must remain undivided":

"Facing criticism from Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged today that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future peace talks, amending a statement earlier in the week that Jerusalem 'must remain undivided.' [...]

'Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations,' Obama said when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.

Obama said 'as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute' a division of the city. 'And I think that it is smart for us to -- to work through a system in which everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in Old Jerusalem but that Israel has a legitimate claim on that city.'"

• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "People may disagree over whether or not Jerusalem should be divided, and about whether it should be an issue in the American presidential election. But regardless of one's views on the issue, here we have an example of Obama going before a constituency and telling them what they wanted to hear, only to reverse himself when his statements got criticized by another group, in this case, Hamas."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Barack Obama had to backtrack on foreign policy yet again today, this time on Jerusalem. He tried to outdo John McCain at AIPAC yesterday by insisting that Jerusalem remain the undivided capital of Israel. The Palestinians erupted in anger at that statement, and by the end of the day they had Obama backpedaling. [...] Unfortunately, in learning a lesson on foreign policy, Obama managed to anger both parties and forced them into making public demands that only make diplomacy more difficult later. This is what happens when candidates with no experience in diplomacy and foreign policy think themselves experts in both."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "If further example is needed that Obama lacks experience (Did he not know what current American policy was, or did he not believe the Palestinians would notice his comments? Did he mean to be bold and then think better of it?) and the clarity to steer foreign policy, this is it. He managed to confuse and annoy just about everyone with this one."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "The good folks at AIPAC seemed to appreciate Obama's speech, and are way to classy to boo, groan, hiss, or murmur for any line in a speech they find implausible. But they ought to make note when a visiting politician's applause lines have an expiration date."
• RedState's Soren Dayton: "Let's make this very clear. Under pressure from Palestinians and terrorists, Obama caves on perhaps Israel's most fundamental issue. Not a good sign for those meetings with [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad."

On the left side of the blogosphere, Yglesias welcomes Obama's modification of his statement: "Looks like Obama's not as unreasonable on the final status of Jerusalem as he tried to imply when talking to AIPAC."

MCCAIN: I'm In Ur Phone, Listenin' To Ur Conversations

Liberal bloggers are criticizing McCain after one of his advisors said that McCain supports President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program (which appears to contradict the views that McCain expressed in an interview last December):

• Firedoglake's Cliff Schecter: "McCain: I'd Spy on Americans Secretly, Too. Good to know another Republican has so much respect for our Constitution. [...] As [McCain] said in his speech the other night, he's nothing like President Bush."
• Kleiman: "(1.) John McCain said last year that, with respect to wiretapping, the President had an obligation to obey 'laws passed by Congress, no matter what the situation is.' (2.) McCain's policy adviser says now that, despite statutes forbidding them, the warrantless wiretaps conducted under 'national security letters' were 'constitutional and appropriate,' and that 'most people except for the ACLU and trial lawyers' agree. (3.) McCain's press spokesman denied that his position had changed. I hope that's clear. As with torture, so with warrantless wiretapping: McCain was against it before he was for it."
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "[McCain]'s been back and forth all over the issue [of FISA] since it's become an issue, but now that he's running for Bush's third term, he's decided he'd better go all in, not only on warrantless wiretapping, but on the theory of a unitary executive to back it up. [...] That seems like a tailor made issue that the Democratic nominee for President could use against his opponent for the next five months. You've got a threefer in this one: McCain really is seeking Bush's third term, down to the unitary executive; yet another massive flip-flop ('I was for the Constitution before I was against it, really!'); and the fact that he and his campaign are nothing more than partially owned subsidiaries of the telcos. What more could Obama ask for in one issue?"
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "There are two critical facts to note from all of this: (1) whether McCain embraces the Bush/[Dick]Cheney/[John] Yoo theories of the omnipotent executive is, far and away, one of the most vital questions of the campaign, since the vast bulk of the radicalism and accompanying controversies of the last eight years -- from spying to detention to torture to extreme government secrecy -- arise out of those theories...and (2) despite how central these issues have been, McCain is simply incapable of forming a coherent position on what he thinks about any of this, switching almost from one day to the next depending on who is asking. This behavior, culminating in his embrace this week of the Bush/Cheney/Yoo theories, severely undermines the two attributes the media relentlessly uses to depict him -- his 'moderate' ideology and his straight-talking, principled independence."

MCCAIN II: The Sincerest Form Of Flattery

Liberal bloggers are mocking McCain after his campaign released a new slogan and website logo that resembled Obama's:

• The Huffington Post's Sam Stein: "Is John McCain trying to be the older, whiter, more conservative Barack Obama? On Tuesday, the Senator co-opted the slogan that has come to personify Obama's candidacy, taking the Illinois Democrat's 'Change You Can Believe In' and altering it into 'A Leader You Can Believe In.' [...] Now there is this. On Wednesday, the McCain campaign put out a new homepage, featuring his new, Obama-like slogan, and an image that seems uncannily similar to Obama's trademark campaign logo -- the red and white stripped valley under what appears to be a blue sun (or in McCain's case, blue sun rays)."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "McCain's new logo appears to be literally ripped off from Obama's logo -- much as his new slogan is. I think this is actually part of McCain's new plan to demonstrate leadership and demonize Obama by appropriating all his campaign iconography and slogans."
• Firedoglake's Swopa: "Following in the footsteps of Dubya's 'compassionate conservatism,' the supposedly principled maverick McCain is going to shamelessly mimic as much of Obama's message as he can get away with. Even though his actual philosophy is one of embracing failure, he'll try to embrace the rhetoric of hope and change, so people who aren't paying attention think there's no difference between the two candidates save for Obama wanting to leave Iraq (which, of course, may be enough to hand him the election anyway)."
• Daily Kos' Hunter: "Let's face it, John -- in this constant attempt to redefine yourself as the white, dull version of Obama, you're doing yourself a disservice. [...] You're copying not just his slogan, but even the graphic design on his website? Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but you're in danger of making your entire campaign subservient to his. And that's just bad form. Look, nobody's going to mistake you for the svelte black guy with new ideas -- you needn't worry. You need to focus on all those people that will be swayed by your charming ex-maverick status, your translucent Republican whiteness, your disturbing, Batman-villain grin whenever you've read one of your own punchlines off the teleprompter, and your encyclopedic ability to have, at one moment or another, every possible position on every issue of the last fifty years."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Obama Checks Cheddar Like A Food Inspector

Ezra Klein analyzes Obama's likely financial advantage over McCain:

"It's hard to appreciate the sheer size of the financial advantage Obama will enjoy over McCain. For Democrats, who're used to being effortlessly outspent, it doesn't even sound plausible. But McCain, with his lax fundraising and decision to accept public financing, will have about $85 million for the election, with another $40 million coming from the RNC, some of which will go to the McCain campaign, some of which won't. By contrast, a very conservative estimate for the Obama campaign's fundraising is $300 million. [...]

In a national election, money isn't everything. Free media matters too. That's why the McCain campaign is desperately pleading with the Obama campaign to do 10 televised debates and townhalls, the better to equalize exposure. But money is how you fund organization. It's how you fund field. It's how you fund ads. It's how you set the terms of the debate. It's how you make the other campaign spend defensively. Obama will be able to fully fund his campaign in every state he thinks he can win and most states he doesn't. And he'll be able to do so while raising the money passively -- unlike McCain, he won't have to waste [time] flying around to endless fundraisers."

LEST WE FORGET: Managing Expectations

Deep Thoughts By Jack Handey:

"Just because swans mate for life, I don't think it's that big a deal. First of all, if you're a swan, you're probably not going to find a swan that looks much better than the one you've got, so why not mate for life?"