Obama Opts out of Public Funding of Election

It is a smart idea for Barack Obama not to fall for McCain's hypocritical call for staying within the public funding of the presidential campaign. The Illinois Senator has an enormous advantage in fundraising relative to the Republican candidate. It would tantamount to unilateral disarmament for him stay within the public funding of the campaign. Wouldn't McCain done the same thing if he were in the same position and not Obama. Historically Republicans have had the upper hand. This time around the Democrats are in a superior position:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Thursday he has decided to forgo public financing of his election campaign against Republican John McCain.

The decision frees him up to collect money privately, which could be a help to him strategically ahead of November's election. During the Democratic primary, Obama smashed records for fundraising, largely on the success he achieved in raising money over the Internet.

"We've made the decision not to participate in the public financing system for the general election," Obama said in a video statement emailed to reporters.

Transcript: ABC News Interview of Barack Obama (6-16-08)

Read the entire transcript. Some excerpts below:

TAPPER: You talked about the need to change the status quo in education today.

OBAMA: Right.

TAPPER: But one of the ways that proponents of school choice say that the best way to change the status quo is to give parents, inner-city parents a choice. Why not?

OBAMA: Well, the problem is, is that, you know, although it might benefit some kids at the top, what you're going to do is leave a lot of kids at the bottom. We don't have enough slots for every child to go into a parochial school or a private school. And what you would see is a huge drain of resources out of the public schools.

So what I've said is let's foster competition within the public school system. Let's make sure that charter schools are up and running. Let's make sure that kids who are in failing schools, in local school districts, have an option to go to schools that are doing well.

But what I don't want to do is to see a diminished commitment to the public schools to the point where all we have are the hardest-to-teach kids with the least involved parents with the most disabilities in the public schools. That's going to make things worse, and we're going to lose the commitment to public schools that I think have been so important to building this country.

TAPPER: So it would help some kids, but overall it would be bad for the system?

OBAMA: I think it would be overall bad for most kids.

On National security:

TAPPER: Speaking of the Supreme Court, you applauded the decision that the Supreme Court made last week. The Bush administration says, no matter what people think about other programs, other policies they've initiated, there has not been a terrorist attack within the U.S. since 9/11. And they say the reason that is, is because of the domestic programs, many of which you opposed, the NSA surveillance program, Guantanamo Bay, and other programs.

How do you know that they're wrong? It's not possible that they're right?

OBAMA: Well, keep in mind I haven't opposed, for example, the national security surveillance program, the NSA program. What I've said that we can do it within the constraints of our civil liberties and our Constitution.

Obama opposes same sex marriage. Which is a courageous stand to take within in the Democatic Party:

TAPPER: OK, last one, and that is same-sex marriage is now going on in California.

OBAMA: Right.

TAPPER: You oppose same-sex marriage.

OBAMA: Yes.

TAPPER: Do you think that the fact that this is now going on in California, does that cause you to re-think your pledge to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act?

OBAMA: No. I still think that these are decisions that need to be made at a state and local level. I'm a strong supporter of civil unions. And I think that, you know, we're involved in a national conversation about this issue.

You know, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I also think that same-sex partners should be able to visit each other in hospitals, they should be able to transfer property, they should be able to get the same federal rights and benefits that are conferred onto married couples.

And so, you know, as president, my job is to make sure that the federal government is not discriminating and that we maintain the federal government's historic role in not meddling with what states are doing when it comes to marriage law. That's what I'll do as president.

TAPPER: Does it bother you, what California's doing?

OBAMA: No.

Pew Survey: What the World Thinks of the US

The Bush disaster might've done irreparably damage to the image of the United States worldwide:

This year's edition of the Pew Global Attitudes Project — a worldwide survey that has been around since 2002 — polled more than 24,000 people in 24 nations on a wide swath of topics, from their opinions on Iran and its nuclear program to which nation they think is doing the most damage to the environment (answer: We are. Also China.). Many of the report's conclusions are fairly obvious — the majority of countries surveyed describe their economic conditions as bad, and many citizens in Muslim nations consider America to be their enemy.

First, the important question — what does the world think of America? For the first time since the commencement of the Iraq War, there was a slight uptick in favorable attitudes towards the U.S., with positive views increasing since 2007 in half of the countries for which comparative data was available. Such statistics are good news for the nation, but perhaps not so much for George W. Bush, whose departure from the White House next January is the likely cause for the increases. Only three nations — Tanzania, Nigeria, and India — had majorities who expressed confidence in Bush's handling of world affairs. Each of the other 21 countries, by wide margins, held little to no confidence in President Bush.

Majorities in 39% of nations polled believe that whoever replaces Bush will change U.S. foreign policy for the better, though in 20 out of 23 nations surveyed, more people have confidence in Sen. Barack Obama than in Sen. John McCain. America also scores high ratings for the quality of its democracy. Majorities in two-thirds of countries surveyed say that the U.S. respects the personal freedoms of its citizens.

That's the good news. The bad news is that, "with few exceptions, the American economy is now seen as having a negative impact on national economies, both large and small, in all parts of the world," according to the study's authors. Additionally, the majority of nations included think that the U.S. is extremely influential in their nations — and that such influence is not a good thing. More than half the nations polled see the United States as the world's top polluter — and Americans are considered among the least concerned about the effects of global warming. The nation most trusted to "do the right thing in protecting the world's environment" — Germany.

We're not alone in the hate, though, because China parallels the United States in several of these categories: it too is criticized for its unilateralist approach to foreign affairs and its hands-off approach to environmental issues. China, though, is knocked for its anti-freedom attitudes, many of which have been brought to greater light in recent months as a result of this summer's Beijing Olympics. And most Asian and Western nations express skepticism and concern over Chinese-made products, many of which have been subject to recall in the past year.

Obama Won't be Able to Change Washington Despite Promises

Barack Obama is a decent and sincere politician. And he promises to change the ways of Washington. Unfortunately his aspirations won't be enough. He is one man. Obama will not be able to change a system that is ruled by a moneyed elite that been running things many decades. As long as he is a member of the two-party system he will never be able to change things. John McCain despite his dishonest talk about being a maverick is up to his neck in playing the Washington game. We need a revolution. And that doesn't come from above but the people. This article is from Newsweek:

I went to a party last Sunday night given by a friend, a well-known journalist, who is well connected in Washington and friends with various movers and shakers, particularly in the legal world. The conversation, after the expression of shock about the loss of Tim Russert, turned to Jim Johnson, the "consummate Washington insider," as the papers called him, who had been ousted as Barack Obama's veep vetter. The people I talked with seem to think Obama had been unwise to hire someone who had profited so mightily from his Washington contacts. Still, the general assumption seemed to be, of course, any new president will need to hire people who know the town, who are "wired" and get around.

Someone in my little group did try to wonder what it would be like if a president only hired outsiders, but he was quickly drowned out. Jimmy Carter had tried to go around the usual powers-that-be with his Georgians; to a lesser degree, Bill Clinton had tried that with his Arkansans, and before long his team was forced to bring in Lloyd Cutler, the late super lawyer and Washington wise man who seemed to enjoy rescuing rookie presidents from their neophyte mistakes. Besides, someone in the group asked, would it really be an improvement if Obama brought in a bunch of political fixers from Chicago?

There was a certain amount of worry that the Washington establishment was about to embark upon one of its periodic acts of cannibalism and start questioning the client relationships or legal involvements of other Washington insiders close to Obama--notably Eric Holder, another veep vetter who, as deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration, took part in the Marc Rich pardon. One of the lawyers at the party noted that few big-time lawyers could (or would wish to) withstand such guilt-by-association scrutiny. We all agreed it would be unfortunate if, say, Greg Craig was disqualified from taking a top job with Obama (whom Craig advises on foreign policy) because he has, necessarily, represented some shady types over the years as a white-collar defense lawyer at the law firm of Williams and Connolly.

[...]The fact is that Washington is largely dominated by people, some of them very smart, who get well paid to represent the status quo and fairly narrow interests.

These people are not by any means wicked or unjust or venal--some of the guests at the party had performed significant public service in one way or another. Many of them were Democrats who will vote for Obama. But I am sure that if you took a poll and asked them whether Obama could really change Washington-could really close loopholes on energy companies and raise taxes on the rich, reform the health-care system and significantly scale back the ill effects of global warming, substantially improve public schools or get us out of Iraq anytime soon--the answer would have been no, probably not. These "realists" might even want such changes, or most of them. But they know how Washington works. They might argue that Obama will need insiders if he really wants to change Washington (think of FDR hiring stock speculator Joseph Kennedy to be the first head of the Securities and Exchange Commission). But at the same time they have a strong appreciation for congressional gridlock and the countervailing powers of influence peddlers. They know that money--perfectly legal money--can trump idealistic campaign promises in a city thick with more than 30,000 lobbyists.

McCain Too Old to be President?

Obama won't say it but I will. The job of being President requires vigor. We cannot afford to elect someone who could be too weak physically to do the job. His mental lapses raises serious questions. John F. Kennedy might have been too sickly to be President in 1960. Reagan showed signs of Alzheimer's while in office. It is a legitimate issue:

According to a new poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, voters who do not like John McCain feel that way not because of the type of person he is, but because of his beliefs.

John McCain’s negatives among registered voters hit an all time high of 34 percent in a recent NBC/Wallstreet Journal poll.

The recent Pew Research Center poll asked voters to describe McCain in one word. The poll found the most common word voters associated with McCain was “old”. “Maverick”, “reformer”, “change”, and “independent” were not the words that came to voters minds.

McCain some how did manage to get voters to say; "honest," "experienced," "patriot," and "conservative".

Obama was able to use Hillary Clinton’s experience in the primary as a negative and could potentially use it against McCain as well. Voters do not see McCain as the change candidate and his experience in Washington could be used to show he is just another insider.

This from CNN:

Listen to some Democrats, and you'll think the 71-year-old Arizona senator is a man lost in a perpetual fog. He is "confused" and has "lost his bearings" or is "out of touch."

Listen to the McCain campaign, and you'll be convinced that Democrats are using those terms to exploit concerns that the presumptive Republican nominee is too old to effectively serve as president.

For his part, McCain tends to answer questions about his age with quips such as, "I'm older than dirt and have more scars than Frankenstein, but I've learned a few things along the way."

The first salvo of the general election's age war may have been launched in May, when Sen. Barack Obama argued in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer that McCain had "lost his bearings" while pursuing the Republican nomination.

The McCain camp claimed that Obama's use of that phrase was "a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue."

Last Wednesday, the issue reemerged when McCain appeared on NBC's "Today" Show and argued, as he has before, that "it's not important" when troops return from Iraq as long as casualties are held to a minimum.

Sen. John Kerry, an Obama supporter, said in a hastily arranged conference call that McCain is "unbelievably out of touch" and that it "is really becoming more crystal clear... that John McCain simply doesn't understand [the conflict]. He confuses who Iran is training, he confuses what the makeup of al Qaeda is, [and] he confuses the history ... of what has happened between Sunni and Shia."

Susan Rice, one of Obama's top foreign policy advisers, said that McCain had demonstrated a "pattern of confusing the basic facts and reality that pertain to Iraq."

When asked if he was trying to highlight the age issue through his choice of words, Kerry said it was "unfair" and "ridiculous" to make such an assertion. Rice said she was simply highlighting the fact that, in her opinion, McCain has his facts wrong.

Democrats in Congress Cave-in to Bush on Iraq War Funding

Once again the Democrats cave-in to Bush on the Iraq war. They've broken the vow that swept them into power in November of 2006. But did we really expect anything less. Congressional Democrats are motivated by winning the next election. It was always comes down to that. Even if it means compromising principal or breaking a vow:

Democrats in the Congress, who came to power last year on a call to end the combat in Iraq, will soon give President George W. Bush the last war-funding bill of his presidency without any of the conditions they sought for withdrawing U.S. troops, congressional aides said on Monday.

Lawmakers are arranging to send Bush $165 billion in new money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, enough to last for about a year and well beyond when Bush leaves office on January 20.

"It'll be the lump sum of money, veterans (funding) and that's it," said one House aide familiar with the negotiations on the legislation.

The aide was referring to the funding for the unpopular Iraq war, now in its sixth year, and a measure being attached to expand education benefits for combat veterans.

A House of Representatives vote on the war-funding bill was expected this week. Anything the House passes would have to be approved by the Senate before the legislation is sent to Bush.

With the Pentagon running out of money to continue fighting the two wars, Congress is trying to approve new funds before its July 4 holiday recess.

With this bill, Congress will have written checks for more than $800 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with most of the money going to Iraq.

Since January, 2007, when Democrats took majority control of the House and Senate, they have tried to force Bush to change course in Iraq, mostly through troop withdrawal timetables and requirements that U.S. soldiers be more thoroughly trained, equipped and rested before returning to combat.

And while various versions have passed each chamber since then, there have not been enough votes in Congress to enact the war conditions over Bush's objections.

The result is that the 110th Congress will wrap up most of its work this fall, before November's congressional and presidential elections, without forcing any changes to Bush's open-ended war policy, the defining issue of his presidency.

Gore Endorses Obama as a Solver of Problems

This was the final missing piece of the puzzle that gives Obama total legitimacy as the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party:

Former Vice President Al Gore made his debut appearance in the presidential campaign here Monday evening, offering a vigorous endorsement of Senator Barack Obama and urging Democrats to keep in mind the consequences of not taking the general election with grave seriousness.

“Looking back over the last eight years, I can tell you that we have already learned one important fact since the year 2000,” Mr. Gore said. “Take it from me, elections matter. If you think the next appointments to the Supreme Court are important, you know that elections matter.”

Mr. Gore and Mr. Obama strode onto the stage arm in arm to thundering applause from a crowd of nearly 20,000 people at a downtown arena. As Mr. Gore ticked through a long list of challenges facing the nation, he hailed Mr. Obama as “clearly the candidate best able to solve these problems and bring change to America.”

Mr. Gore had purposefully stayed on the sidelines during the long Democratic primary fight. He announced his endorsement of Mr. Obama a few hours earlier on Monday in a message to supporters on the former vice president’s vast e-mail list. Their appearance here touched off a flurry of curiosity among Democrats, with many quietly asking if Mr. Gore would be on Mr. Obama’s list of prospective running mates.

“When I am president,” Mr. Obama said, “I will be counting on Al Gore to help me lead the fight for a clean energy future here in the United States and around the world.”

Since Mr. Obama opened his presidential bid in January 2007, the two have talked frequently, including in a meeting last fall at Mr. Gore’s home in Nashville. Mr. Obama said Monday that the former vice president had been helpful throughout the primaries, lending his ear and his thoughts, but always taking care to stay impartial.

[...]“For America to lead the world through the dangers we’re facing, to seize the opportunities before us, we’ve got to have new leadership,” Mr. Gore said. “Not only a new president, but new policies. Not only a new head of state, but a new vision for America’s future.”

Hillary Clinton Defeat Fuels Divorce Rumors

The Clintons have had a political arrangement for many years. In exchange for Hillary looking the other way while Bill engaged adultery, Hillary developed a political career in the State and White House--with the President's help. Now that Bill no longer serves a purpose the Clinton marriage is pointless. The charade will finally be over:

Hillary Clinton is licking her wounds, relaxing at an undisclosed location with her husband, Bill, and daughter, Chelsea, doubtless pondering the causes of her failure to win the Democratic presidential nomination.

Yet as the New York senator considers her future in American public life, there are new claims that she is also considering the future of her marriage. The First Post, an irreverent online news magazine, last week alleged that some of those around Mrs Clinton believe that her failure to beat Barack Obama has weakened the cement in her marriage.

The argument goes like this: Mrs Clinton stood by her man despite his serial philandering in exchange for his support for her own political ambitions. Now that the 42nd president is himself partly blamed for her losing the nomination with his often-incendiary public comments, their relationship will go the same way as her candidacy.

Not only did Bill Clinton not help Hillary during her presidential run but he was a major reason for her defeat. If Hillary runs in 2012 she would be better off without Bill:

The First Post quoted a source close to Mrs Clinton's staff saying: "Why on earth would she stay with him now? It's over. The feeling is that she can do better in the Senate without him, and better if she wants to take another shot at the White House in 2012."

[...]A devastating portrait of Mr Clinton in this month's edition of Vanity Fair, for instance, claims that Mrs Clinton's staff have grown concerned that, since leaving the White House, Mr Clinton has continued to enjoy the company of women other than his wife, as well as the friendship of billionaire Ron Burkle – whose private jet is dubbed "Air F*** One". Mr Clinton dismissed the author, Todd Purdum, as a "scumbag", while the actress Gina Gershon threatened to sue the magazine for implying that she had an improper relationship with the former president.

Transcript: Energy Debate on 'FOX News Sunday'

Read the entire transcript:

WALLACE: Let's start with the most obvious solution, domestic drilling. And as prices soar, public opinion is turning around on this subject. According to a recent Gallup poll, as you can see there, 57 percent now favor drilling in areas that are off-limits.

Senator Dorgan, if we started drilling in ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, if we started drilling offshore, if we started mining shale rock out West, over time we could dramatically reduce the price of energy and our dependence on foreign oil.

Why are Democrats blocking drilling as part of the mix of solutions?

DORGAN: Well, first of all, I don't believe that statement is true. I mean, we have opened up at least 181 in the Gulf of Mexico, substantial oil and gas reserves.

I and Senator Bingaman joined Senator Domenici and then Senator Talent as the four people that offered the legislation to open that up.

You started with ANWR, which everybody always starts with, but even John McCain has voted against drilling in ANWR. He said, "We ought not drill in the Everglades, we ought not drill in the Grand Canyon, we ought not drill in ANWR."

I believe we need to do a lot of things, including additional production, including offshore production, but we also need to move dramatically toward renewable energy as well.

And one final point. In North Dakota we have just had the largest assessment — North Dakota and Montana — in what's called the Bakken shale field, the largest assessment of recoverable oil reserves that was ever issued in the lower 48 — over four billion recoverable barrels of oil.

So there is a lot of drilling going on, and I hope that we see more in the right places.

WALLACE: I just want to follow up with you for a second before I bring in your colleagues here. ANWR — and let's take a look, because we have a map of ANWR.

In a refuge the size of the state of South Carolina, we're talking about drilling in an area the size of Washington's Reagan Airport. ANWR contains 10 billion barrels of oil. Can we really afford to put that off limits?

DORGAN: Well, there's far more oil in the Gulf of Mexico than in ANWR, far more oil there. And I'm someone who believes we ought to be drilling in a portion of that.

But as I said, even Senator John McCain has voted against drilling in ANWR. Don't lay that just at the feet of Democrats. That is a large area set aside in legislation signed by Dwight Eisenhower. To suggest that ought to be the hood ornament for what we do in terms of solving our energy problem is just wrong.

We need additional drilling. We need renewables. We need conservation, efficiency — all of those things in a very aggressive way.

McCain, Wife Owed $225,000 in Credit Card Debt

Do we want someone owing that kind of money as president. If McCain can't balances his own finances how we expect him to run an economy effectively. An elected official anywhere with personal finance issues is susceptible to corruption:

Senators John McCain and Barack Obama released their Senate financial disclosure statements on Friday, revealing that Mr. McCain and his wife had at least $225,000 in credit card debt and that Mr. Obama and his wife had put more than $200,000 into college funds for their daughters.

The bulk of the McCains’ obligations stemmed from a pair of American Express credit cards that are held in Cindy McCain’s name. According to the disclosure reports, which present information on debts in a range rather than providing a precise figure, Mrs. McCain owed $100,000 to $250,000 on each card.

Another charge card, held by what was described as a “dependent child,” had also accumulated debts of $15,000 to $50,000. In addition, a credit card held jointly by the couple was carrying $10,000 to $15,000 in debt, the filing indicated, at a stiff 25.99 percent interest rate.

Under Congressional reporting rules, spouses of senators need not specify the exact amount of income they earn from employment, only whether that money exceeded $1,000. Neither Mrs. McCain, an heiress of the Hensley beer distribution company, nor Michelle Obama, a lawyer turned hospital administrator, provided additional information on their salaries in the disclosure form.

Land sold at $1 million profit
Mrs. McCain’s filing, however, indicated that she had substantial holdings in property and stocks — including shares in Anheuser-Busch, which this week became the target of a takeover bid that is expected to send its value climbing. Her land holdings included parcels in Arizona and California, one of which was sold last year for a profit of more than $1 million.

In other filings, the McCains have reported total household assets of $24.6 million to $39.5 million. In recently releasing a summary version of her 2006 tax return, Mrs. McCain reported income that year of more than $6 million, some $300,000 of which was derived from her salary as the chairwoman of Hensley, which was founded by her father.

Olbermann Special Comment Transcript on McCain (6-12-08)

Olbermann blasts McCain on his "not important" remark. Read the full transcript:

Thoughts, offered more in sorrow, than in anger. For two full days now, the Senator and his supporters have been outraged at what they see as the subtraction of context from this extraordinary remark.

This is, sadly, the excuse of our time, for everything. Still. If the Senator claims truncation, we will correct that, first.

"A lot of people," Matt Lauer began, "now say the surge is working."

"Anybody who knows the facts on the ground say that," the Senator interjected.

"If it’s now working, Senator," Lauer continued, "do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?"

"No," answered McCain. "But that’s not too important. What’s important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany.

That’s all fine. American casualties and the ability to withdraw. We will be able to withdraw. General Petraeus is going to tell us in July when he thinks we are. But the key to it is we don’t want any more Americans in harm’s way. And that way they will be safe, and serve our country, and come home with honor and victory — not in defeat, which is what Sen. [Barack] Obama’s proposal would have done. And I’m proud of them, and they’re doing a great job. And we are succeeding. And it’s fascinating that Sen. Obama still doesn’t realize it."

And there is the context of what Sen. McCain said. Well, not quite, Senator.

The full context is that the Iraq you see, is a figment of your imagination. This is not a war about "honor and victory," Sir. This is a war you, and the President you support and seek to succeed, conned this nation into.

Yes, sir. You.

Cheney Admits Mistake in Claim of China Drilling Near Florida

Cheney is up to his old tricks. This White House really believes than can get away with disinformation because they succeeded in the case of Iraq. This time around they got caught:

Vice President Dick Cheney's office acknowledged on Thursday that he was mistaken when he asserted that China, at Cuba's behest, is drilling for oil in waters 60 miles from the Florida coast.

In a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Cheney said on Wednesday that waters in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, long off limits to oil companies, should be opened to drilling because China is already there pumping oil.

"Oil is being drilled right now 60 miles off the coast of Florida," the vice president said. "We're not doing it, the Chinese are, in cooperation with the Cuban government. Even the communists have figured out that a good answer to high prices is more supply."

He cited his source as columnist George Will, who last week wrote: "Drilling is under way 60 miles off Florida. The drilling is being done by China, in cooperation with Cuba, which is drilling closer to South Florida than U.S. companies are."

Congressional Democrats pounced on the vice president's remarks and were backed up by independent energy experts, who called the assertion hyperbole at best and a falsehood at worst.

Cheney's office said in a statement to The Associated Press that the vice president had erred.

"It is our understanding that, although Cuba has leased out exploration blocks 60 miles off the coast of southern Florida, which is closer than American firms are allowed to operate in that area, no Chinese firm is drilling there," according to the statement.

Cuba clearly is interested in developing its deep-water oil resources, estimated at more than 5 billion barrel, including areas within 60 miles of Key West, Fla., energy experts said.

Jorge Pinon, a senior energy fellow at the University of Miami specializing in Latin America, said Cuba has awarded offshore oil leases, or concessionary blocs, in its offshore waters to six oil companies — none of them Chinese — and soon may announce an agreement with Brazil's state oil company, Petrobras.

World Poll: Obama more Likely to 'do the right thing' Than McCain

Just another reason to vote for Obama and not McCain. The world is sick of the warmongering of Bush, and his Republican would be successor:

The matchup between John McCain and Barack Obama is close in nationwide surveys in the USA, but around the world it's no contest: Obama prevails.

A survey of 24 nations taken by the Pew Global Attitudes Project finds high levels of interest in the U.S. presidential election and broad optimism that American foreign policy "will change for the better" after the inauguration of a new president next year.

In all but three nations, those polled express more faith in Obama than in McCain to "do the right thing regarding world affairs." They were essentially tied in the USA. In Pakistan and Jordan, neither inspires much confidence.

"Obama obviously has an appeal that has crossed the waters," says Andrew Kohut, who directs the Pew project. "Some of it may have to do with his being associated with opposition to the war in Iraq, which is consistent with views of people around the world. Some of it may have to do with his charismatic qualities and the fact that he's different than the typical American presidential candidate."

Among the findings:
•Interest is high. Japanese are even more likely than Americans to say they are following the election closely. At least of half of those surveyed in Germany, Australia, Jordan and Britain say they are paying attention. In most of the nations surveyed, a third or more are tuning in.

However, the countries where people are paying the least attention include Indonesia, where Obama spent four years as a child. Just 15% of Indonesians say they're following the election closely.

•Optimism about a new president is broad. About two-thirds of those surveyed in France, Spain, Germany, Nigeria, South Africa and Tanzania predict U.S. foreign policy will improve after the inauguration. In 20 nations, more say U.S. foreign policy will change for the better than for the worse.

Supreme Court: Terror Suspects at Guantanamo Bay Can be Tried in Civilian Courts

This is a historic decision that will be debated for months and years to come. It is also a major defeat for Bush and the neocons:

Foreign terrorism suspects held at the Guantánamo Bay naval base in Cuba have constitutional rights to challenge their detention there in United States courts, the Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 4, on Thursday in a historic decision on the balance between personal liberties and national security.

“The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court.

The ruling came in the latest battle between the executive branch, Congress and the courts over how to cope with dangers to the country in the post-9/11 world. Although there have been enough rulings addressing that issue to confuse all but the most diligent scholars, this latest decision, in Boumediene v. Bush, No. 06-1195, may be studied for years to come.

The justices rejected the administration’s argument that the individual protections provided by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 were more than adequate.

“The costs of delay can no longer be borne by those who are held in custody,” Justice Kennedy wrote, assuming the pivotal rule that some court-watchers had foreseen.

Joining Justice Kennedy’s opinion were Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter.

The dissenters were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, generally considered the conservative wing on the tribunal.

The 2006 Military Commission Act stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions filed by detainees challenging the bases for their confinement. That law was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in February 2007.

China Hacks Computers of U.S. Congressmen

This is very serious. It is a breach that threatens the lives of human rights activists within China, not to mention American national security:

China on Thursday dismissed accusations from two United States lawmakers that it had hacked their office computers as alarmist and unfounded.

U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf, a Virginia Republican, said his office computers had been compromised in August 2006 and that he was told by the FBI and other officials the source of the attack was inside China.

Rep. Christopher Smith, who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said his computer had also been attacked from China.

[...]Wolf said the computers that were targeted contained sensitive information about human rights in China, while Smith, a New Jersey Republican, said he had "every reason to believe" the Chinese government was to blame.

NY Landmarks for Sale to Foreigners, Including Flatiron and Chrysler Buildings

This is another example of America being sold out. It's a disgrace:

Is another New York landmark being sold to foreign investors?

The New York Post reported Wednesday that the Abu Dhabi Investment Council, a fund based in the United Arab Emirates, is in negotiations on an $800 million deal to buy a 75 percent stake in Manhattan's Chrysler Building. The report was based on information from unnamed sources.

Potential players in the deal weren't talking Wednesday. Theresa Miller, a spokeswoman for Prudential Real Estate Investors -- which owns a 75 percent stake in the building -- declined to comment on whether a sale was in the works.

The Post had reported that the Atlanta-based company TMW was the prospective seller, but Miller said TMW had been fully integrated into Prudential since the latter bought TMW several years ago.

An attempt to reach Abu Dhabi Investment Council was unsuccessful. Real estate company Tischman Speyer, which owns the remaining 25 percent stake in the building, declined to comment.

It's the second time this week that news has broken of a foreign buyer investing big-time in a prominent New York address. Time magazine reported on Tuesday that Sorgente Group, the company led by Italian real estate investor Valter Mainetti, has acquired a majority share of Manhattan's famed Flatiron Building, a historic structure known for its triangular shape.

Polls: Obama Beating McCain Among Women

McCain has a big problem on his hands. All this nonsense about Obama not winning workers, women, or hispanics is backed up by the evidence. In fact, Obama beats McCain in many categories of voters. The Republicans base of support seems to be dwindling:

Barack Obama has moved into double-digit leads over Republican John McCain in two new polls of women voters, suggesting he is drawing support from women who once backed Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Obama led McCain 51%-38% in Gallup polling of 2,263 registered female voters June 5-9. The 13-percentage-point lead among women was up from 5 points the previous week, before the Democratic nomination ended. Obama now matches Clinton's performance against McCain, Gallup said Wednesday.

The Gallup results mirrored Obama's 52%-39% lead among women in a Rasmussen Reports poll of 3,000 likely voters June 8-10. The polls' margins of error are +/— 2 to 3 percentage points. Clinton on June 4 signaled her intent to withdraw and officially suspended her campaign Saturday. Some of her supporters said they would never vote for Obama, and one man, Ed Hale, started a website for former Clinton supporters now backing McCain.

[...]Obama's gender advantage is larger than Democratic nominee John Kerry's 51%-48% showing against President Bush in the 2004 general election. But it is similar to a Gallup Poll in June of that year showing Kerry with 54% support from women to 39% for Bush.

Strategist Mark Mellman, who polled for Kerry and was neutral this year, said attacks on Kerry helped erode his standing — but his greater problem was that the "underlying fundamentals" of the race favored Bush. This year, he said, they "point pretty strongly to Democrats and Obama."

Mellman said he is not surprised to see women starting to coalesce behind Obama. Some Clinton supporters are angry, he said, including some members of his extended family. "There are such people," he said. "But they seem to be a distinct minority and over time they will be a shrinking minority."

Clintons Have Enemies List Want Revenge Against "Traitors"

This is typical of the Clinton mafia. They are thugs who happen to be politicians. Bill and Hillary are Bonnie and Clyde of American politics. The press seems not really comprehend that fact:

Mr. McAuliffe, who knows of Mr. Band’s diligent scorekeeping, emphasized that “revenge is not what the Clintons are about.” The accounting is more about being practical, he said, adding, “You have to keep track of this.”

Mr. Band, who declined to comment, is hardly alone in tallying those considered to have crossed the former candidate or the former president in recent months by supporting Mr. Obama. As the Obama bandwagon has swelled, so have the lists of people Clinton loyalists regard as some variation of “ingrate,” “traitor” or “enemy,” according to the associates and campaign officials, who would speak only on condition of anonymity.

Philippe Reines, a spokesman for both Clintons, said neither kept any specific catalog of those believed to have wronged them. “There is no list,” Mr. Reines said.

The lists maintained by supporters tend to be less formal documents than spoken diatribes, with offenders’ names spat forth in rants, gripe sessions and post-mortems.

Several names and entities are common among various list makers. The lineup invariably begins with A-list members like Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico; Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the House Democratic whip; Gregory B. Craig, Mr. Clinton’s lawyer in his impeachment and trial; David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s chief strategist; Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri; and several Kennedys. Some members of the Democratic Party’s rules committee, the state of Iowa and the caucus system in general are also near the top.

The news media have already focused on some list entries, including the online gossip purveyor Matt Drudge (who had the nerve to show up at Mrs. Clinton’s departure speech on Saturday), Todd S. Purdum of Vanity Fair (the author of a recent profile of Mr. Clinton) and the cable network MSNBC (whose hosts Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are charter list members, Clinton associates said).

The lists are also reported to include lesser-known Obama-supporting members of Congress (for whom the Clintons campaigned), former ambassadors (appointed by Mr. Clinton) or Clinton White House officials turned Obama advisers (like Anthony Lake, a former national security adviser, and Susan Rice, a former White House and State Department official).

These are people who should know better than to ask the former president or first lady for a job recommendation for a son-in-law.

Prominent list entries tend to be philosophical about their status. “When you’re on the losing end of a campaign, your sense of victimization is higher,” said Joe Andrew, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee (appointed by Mr. Clinton) who joined the lists after he switched his superdelegate allegiance from Mrs. Clinton to Mr. Obama just before the primary in his home state, Indiana.

Mr. Richardson, the former energy secretary and United Nations ambassador under President Clinton who endorsed Mr. Obama after leaning toward Mrs. Clinton, said, “I know they’re unhappy, but I’ve been on these lists before.”

While Mrs. Clinton has a short list of people who disappointed her, Mr. Clinton, who reportedly has an encyclopedic memory of all the people he has helped, employed or appointed over the years, apparently has a far longer one, the campaign officials said.

Federal Reserve Chairman may Raise Interest Rates to Stop Inflation

If the Fed raises interest rates to stop inflation that will worsen the recession. It's been tried before in the 70s and 80s and always led to a downturn in the economy:

Ramping up his tough anti-inflation talk, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is raising expectations on Wall Street and elsewhere that the central bank could boost interest rates sooner than anticipated if high oil and food costs threaten to spur a broader bout of spiraling prices.

Over the past week, Bernanke has been sounding the alarm ever louder about the threat of inflation.

In his latest remarks on Monday evening, Bernanke played down the May spike in the nation's unemployment rate, saying the danger that the economy has fallen into a "substantial downturn" has faded.

At the same time, Bernanke sent a fresh warning that the Fed will be on heightened alert against inflation dangers, especially any signs that investors, consumers and businesses think prices will keep going up and change their behavior in ways that will aggravate inflation.

The Fed "will strongly resist an erosion of longer-term inflation expectations, as an unanchoring of those expectations would be destabilizing for growth as well as for inflation," Bernanke said.

The Fed chief and his colleagues have been signaling that the Fed's rate-cutting campaign, started in September, is probably over given mounting concerns about inflation. And, little by little, Bernanke is preparing people for the prospects of higher rates down the road.

Christian Leaders meet Privately with Obama

This is another reason why McCain will lose in November. The religious right doesn't like the Republican nominee and are sympathetic to the more religious Obama:

Barack Obama discussed Darfur, the Iraq war, gay rights, abortion and other issues Tuesday with Christian leaders, including conservatives who have been criticized for praising the Democratic presidential candidate.

Bishop T.D. Jakes, a prominent black clergyman who heads a Dallas megachurch, said Obama took questions, listened to participants and discussed his "personal journey of faith."

The discussion "went absolutely everywhere," Jakes told The Associated Press, and "just about every Christian stripe was represented in that room."

Jakes, who does not endorse candidates and said he also hopes to meet with Republican presidential candidate John McCain, said some participants clearly have political differences with Obama. The senator's support for abortion rights and gay rights, among other issues, draws opposition from religious conservatives. Some conservatives have criticized Jakes for praising Obama.