He needs to remove his criticisms now...
because he's planning a trip to Iraq soon...
this way he can speak out of both sides of hit mouth...

... again

I just rethought my post. Of course this rewrite will fool some gullible people. Maybe a lot of gullible people. So yes, Obama knows his base well.

His people are foolish enough not to care... they want CHANGE!

:: pant pant slobber pant pant pant slobber pant ::

Welcome to the newest “Barack Obama is too old to be President” routine, on the heels of
McCain surrogate Carly Fiorina telling us it revises history to say John McCain endorsed the way President prosecuted the Iraq war.

Too old tactic? By changing his stance at the drop of a dime?
It's amazing how everybody cheers for a team when they're winning!

Obama's Magic Bandwagon...

:: P O O F ::

... and now it's different!

This is a transparently cynical game.

Failing to acknowledge whatever success the surge achieved would be attacked as blind and foolish stubborness (we've seen a little of that and it's not pretty); any acknowledgment of it will be attacked as supposedly inconsistent flipflopping.

Attack, attack, attack. Ho-hum. Try again.

Kind of like Fiorina's retroactive editing of history, eh?

"To say that John McCain was aligned with President Bush on the prosecution of the war in Iraq is to change history."

I won't even go into items that have been purged from McCain's website, except to say that 15 minutes' Googling found a quick half-dozen examples.

They're all Big Brother, tossing things down the memory hole.

Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel, except that it shouldn't. Damned syntax, always tripping Obama up.

This would be amusing if not so serious:

Which video is the big fat lie?

Barack Obama is far too old to be President.

Plus which he keeps throwing gum wrappers on people's lawns.

After years of:

"I misspoke"
"I misstated"
"I should have been more candid"
"I don't recall"
"It can mean a great many things"

and, during this very campaign,

"I never said that"
"I'm certainly not going to discuss that"
"I will be glad to debate a lot of things, but not that one"

and, to be fair, the infamously bad

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is",

I'm really not going to get too fired up and start calling things the "big fat lie" as the result of semantic games. I suspect that many persons have become so inured to the word games that they are simply taken for granted. We can come up with a laundry list of such things for just about any politician out there.

Either he believes Jerusalem should be the undivided capitol of Israel, or he doesn't. Since he has recently taken both positions quite clearly, plus another one disingenuously in between, it's entirely appropriate to say that he is lying.

And once more, let me mention that it's not possible to defend Obama by bringing up McCain's problems. This is not a zero sum game.

I'm not defending him. He plays as many word games as any other politician. In that sense, it IS a zero-sum game. As we've both pointed out, this is yet another hold-your-nose election for all but the True Believers (tm) on either side.

I just don't think it consistent that you say (if I may paraphrase) "a lie is a lie, big or small" yet only seem to castigate one side for each "big fat lie."

The alternative, incidentally, is that no one ever changes a position, once that position is stated. I don't think that healthy, either.

I'd also point out that, in terms of being straight with the voters, I'd rather have someone who talks about their position (even if that position has changed) instead of someone who just says "I'm not going to talk about that" or "I'm not going to debate that" when confronted with their self-contradictions.

You mean you're NOT gonna vote for McCain? {shock and awe} <g>

I'm going to hold my nose and vote for one of them. Whether you believe it or not, I haven't decided which one just yet.

When all the American people want to hear is that Washington is doing what it can to lower gas prices i.e shelve the ban on offshore/ANWAR drilling,"Wrong Way Corrigan" is talking about how the surge in Iraq isn't working. LOL. I understand the reluctance of Barrack to explain how more oil is bad for America. No one gives a shit anymore if they ever did what Barrack Obama thinks about the surge. He was wrong on the surge and now he is wrong on the ban for off-shore/ANWAR drilling. What's the over/under on him changing his position on this one too? He is so far out of line with American priorites for gasoline price relief it's comical but serious since the dems feel compelled to nominate this dimwit,

But he sounds so articulate when he changes his position

"Titanic is a lousy movie and won't make any money."

"Titanic is a good movie and made a lot of money."

"Titanic is a lousy movie that made a lot of money."

"If anyone thinks those statements are contradictory, they just haven't been paying attention."

--Barrack H. Obama, being articulate

Hey, TM, I note that price of crude dropped $10 on just the hint of lessened US demand. Did you catch that? No drilling, no alternative power, no nothing, and it just magically dropped!

Some of us expected the prices to drop on such an announcement. The markets tend to drop on bad news, rise on the good.

Red...

I'm still waiting for the classic... "I voted against the war in Iraq before I voted for it".

"I expressed myself as for the troop surge before I advised against it."

"I supported campaign finance reform before I raped and pillaged it"

YEAH... Barrack Obama in 2008!!

Wes;

Demand has been dropping for gasoline for nearly a year now. What's going on is there a real and non-reversable trend for the U.S. to start developing our own natural resources. Psychology my friend. It plays a HUGE part in futures trading.That's what will drive oil down.

Wes, you just made the case for drilling now.

Wes, somehow I doubt you'll pencil in McCain.

just a hunch I have

No, Redbeard, I made the case for greater exploration now; that doesn't necessarily mean offshore/ANWR drilling. (laugh)

I found an article that references current estimates for those fields:

The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would produce a total of about 10.4 billion barrels. The U.S. Environmental Information Agency approximates there are 16 billion barrels of oil on the outer continental shelf currently off-limits to drilling.

Global oil demand is around 86 million barrels (1 barrel equals 42 U.S. gallons) per day (31.3 billion barrels per year), with the U.S. responsible for a quarter of that demand (21 million barrels per day, or 7.7 billion barrels per year). Because of growing demand from Asian economies, especially India and China, coupled with the increased use in the U.S., by 2015 oil use is projected to reach 98.5 million barrels per day, or 36 billion barrels per year.

I still think we should go with the oil shale first, as well as further exploration of known ground reserves, such as the Bakken formation. I'm also in favor of increased use of nuclear power.

Zoy's point was well taken, Wes. Anticipation of increased supplies will drive costs down in the near term, before a drop of new gasoline reaches the pumps. Your post about dropping prices just seemed to confirm that principle.

I didn't argue Zoy's point at all. Of course, some will be suggesting that mandated conservation/rationing would drive the price down even further. (shudder)

I just don't see the importance (or, should I say, preeminence) of offshore/ANWR when such would be, effectively, a three-year "quick fix" at current rates of consumption. Let's concentrate our efforts where the largest reserves are; if we want to fund a ton of geological research into better extraction methods, that's fine...