Amidst the festivities of July 4th, apparently the press thought it was no big deal that Obama has now effectively flipped on withdrawal from Iraq. During the primary season he made a huge deal of a speech he made in 2002 — with nothing on the line - objecting to the Iraq war. He then leveraged the anti-war left to raise money and garner support on the idea that he would immediately withdraw from Iraq upon taking the oath of office. That was exactly the message his anti-war, netroots activists wanted to hear and they bought it.

Now he’s saying he’ll evaluate the situation on the ground and take counsel from military commanders before rushing to leave Iraq. In other words, we’ll stay until the job is done, there’s stability in the region and we can leave as victors. Hmmm — sounds like McCain’s policy to me. I get that Obama is tacking to the middle here figuring his left wing base won’t foresake him in November and he needs the moderate voters to beat McCain, but once again he’s proving to be every much the pandering politician that he claims not to be. Remember John Kerry getting blasted for “I voted against the war before I voted for it?” He didn’t get away with it. But, now Obama is saying “I spoke out against he war, campaigned on ending it, but now I’m for it because it’s politically expedient.” If that isn’t Washington politics as usual I don’t know what is.

And, by the way, what credentials does Obama have to evaluate the situation on the ground and understand the advice the military commanders give him? I guess being a comunity organizer.

Finally, if Obama’s own supporters who are to their credit proving tough on him and the press somehow give him a pass on his Iraq flip flop, let’s just remember that McCain advocated a surge policy that was totally against the political winds, stuck with it, and has said all along we’ll get troops out of harms way and leave when the job is done. That’s called leadership.

Neil Hare, Founder, www.IsupportThisMessage.com

Wow, the liberal commentators are really hammering Obama on his broken promise to accept public funding for his campaign. Today it was Ruth Marcus in the Post with Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Bundlers. She writes:

I don’t take issue with Obama’s decision to opt entirely out of the public financing system. That was bound to happen eventually. Obama is smart to exploit his fundraising advantage over McCain. The political price of his about-face will be negligible. Likewise, I don’t begrudge Obama his bundlers — or Clinton’s bundlers, for that matter.

What’s galling is Obama’s effort to portray himself through this entire episode as somehow different from, and purer than, the ordinary politician. Different might have been coupling the announcement with a self-imposed limit on the size of donations. Different might have been — it could still be — taking the big checks but acknowledging that, since bundlers will be bringing in even bigger hauls, disclosure should be adjusted accordingly, to reveal not only who raised $200,000 but also who brought in $500,000, who $1 million.

Obama’s not the first politician to break a promise. He may be the first to do so in the guise of John Hancock, exuberantly signing the Declaration.

Again, the issue for me, Marcus and probably millions of voters is that Obama has portrayed himself as some different kind of politician wrapped in “hope and change.” He set that bar with soaring rhetoric that during the primaries voters and the media bought. Now he has to live up to that standard or he looks far worse than the ordinary politician changing his or her position. This is doubly worse for Obama because he is young and has a very short record of service. We have no idea what he stands for and what he’ll live up to. Sure the speeches sound good but what about principal? For me it is far, far worse to sell the American people a bill of goods on hope and change and then become a flip flopper. It’s kind of like finding out that Santa Claus isn’t real.

Neil Hare, Founder, www.IsupportThisMessage.com

I don’t often agree with Richard Cohen, the liberal Wasington Post columnist, but he really nailed it in his column today: McCain’s Core Advantage in which he wrote the following:

But here is the difference between McCain and Obama — and Obama had better pay attention. McCain is a known commodity. It’s not just that he’s been around a long time and staked out positions antithetical to those of his Republican base. It’s also — and more important — that we know his bottom line. As his North Vietnamese captors found out, there is only so far he will go, and then his pride or his sense of honor takes over. This — not just his candor and nonstop verbosity on the Straight Talk Express — is what commends him to so many journalists.

Obama might have a similar bottom line, core principles for which, in some sense, he is willing to die. If so, we don’t know what they are. Nothing so far in his life approaches McCain’s decision to refuse repatriation as a POW so as to deny his jailors a propaganda coup. In fact, there is scant evidence the Illinois senator takes positions that challenge his base or otherwise threaten him politically. That’s why his reversal on campaign financing and his transparently false justification of it matter more than similar acts by McCain.

To me that is Obama’s biggest weakness and one I don’t think he can overcome. How do we know that what he says will be anything close to what he does? What exactly in his background proves his character or that his word will mean something? He recently told a group of Jewish Americans at an AIPAC meeting he stood for Jerusalem as the undivided capitol of Israel — the next day he recanted. His rhetoric on NAFTA and an Iraqi pullout where also tempered by aides who know very well we’ll do neither. He talks of bipartisanhip as they way he’ll change Washington — when has he shown that? McCain has a long record of reaching across the aisle often to the chagrin some in the GOP. Obama says he’ll sit down with leaders of rogue nations — does he mean it or not?

Once again, I don’ have a problem with politicians pandering, especially to their base. But, I do have a problem with a politiican running on slogan of changing the very things he is doing in his campaign. I find that much worse than a politician who just says, “I changed my mind and here’s why.” And, yes, McCain has done that several times.

I think when voters are alone in that ballot box they’re going to thing about which candidate can be most trusted to live up their campaign promises and the answer is pretty clear.

Neil Hare, Founder, www.IsupportThisMessage.com

I’ve never bought into Obama’s line of changing Washingtonm and I’ve been stunned to see it mesmerize voters like a snake charmer’s music to the cobra. But, now at least and thankfully well in advance of the election (imagine if the Jeremiah Wright story came out pre-Iowa!) we see Obama pulling the same moves of expediency that most politicians employ. First, he broke his pledge to use public financing after stating that he would use it as John McCain pledged to. He backed out claiming he needed to defend against 527 attacks that may appear. That doesn’t pass the laugh test and he knows it. Rather it was a cold calculation that he needs the money to “reintroduce” himself to the American voters who still don’t know who he is. I’m sure his advisors said it’s better to take the heat on this than risk votes later. I don’t disagree with the decision, but let’s be honest and say it’s politics as usual. He wants to win at all costs just like he will if he wins. That’s not exactly the message of working across party lines that he’s been using.

Second, Obama has rejected McCain’s idea to do joint town hall meetings over the summer without the media. I thought this was a novel idea that showed an effort on McCain’s part to run a different election where ideas mattered most. He even suggested they fly to the events together. Again, Obama rejected the offer mainly because he doesn’t do well in town halls and debates and prefers to give speeches. Again, I don’t disagree with the decision but where’s his implementation on change? Non existent.

Third, the New York Times reports today that Obama is closely linked to the pro-Ethanol lobby, which has provided him with advisors and money. Illinois is the second biggest corn producing state. Not surprisinly Obama is pushing ethanol hard in his energy policy. Again, I don’t have a problem with that — Senators have to represent their states and lobbying is part of our system. But, don’t talk about keeping special interests out of politics. Our democracy functions on interests groups advocating on behalf of their constituents — it always has and always will. There would be no other way to get discreet voices heard in Washington. Obama will not nor should he change this concept.

We will keep a list of these types of moves on Obama’s part. I argue that if you remove the smoke and mirrors of the “hope and change” rhetoric, you’re left with an inexperienced and naive politician who gives a great speech but isn’t ready for the Oval Office.

Neil Hare, Founder, www.IsupportThisMessage.com  

The entire ISTM team was saddened to learn about the passing of Tim Russert today. As political junkies we couldn’t wait for Meet the Press each Sunday. Tim always gave a thoughtful interview that was just tough enough without striving for “gotcha” politics. He was an institution in Washington, D.C., a leader in the community and well liked by all. As we get caught up in this election and who will win and partisanship, a moment like this puts things in perspective. No matter who wins in November we are all Americans and we will strive and thrive together as we always have. What is most important is to be a part of the system, to participate in our democray and to have your voice heard whether your candidate wins or not. Tim Russert understood that and was a valuable member of the democratic process. He will be missed.

Neil Hare, Founder, www.IsupportThisMessage.com

Hillary should make a public stance of declining the VP spot before it is even considered.

There’s a ton being reported on why Obama should or should not pick Hillary as his VP. I think if he were smart and really wanted to win he would pick her and be thankful he had her and, yes, Bill out their campaigning for the ticket. If he isn’t strong enough to “control” them once he wins then he isn’t ready to be president.

But, I argue, that Hillary should not lobby or want to be his running mate this year. He is fundamentally a flawed candidate with little experience and a thin message. His appeal is really looks and oratory — strong weapons but not enough. The country is still at war and still a pretty conservative place. His coalition of young, urban and wealthy voters just doesn’t represent most of America. He also isn’t bipartisan and while John McCain needs to step up his charisma level, he truly is a better candidate for these times.

So, Hillary shouldn’t want to join a ticket with a tough chance of winning in November. She is well positioned for another run at the White House in 2012 or 2016 and she should wait for that. As Al Gore found out being a VP is not a clear ticket to the presidency and being on a losing ticket like Lieberman and Edwards is especially damaging. She ran a great campaign and has every reason to believe she can win it on her own.

Neil Hare, Founder, www.IsupportThisMessage.com

By all accounts, Obama will have the nomination sewn up tonight and the general election will effectively begin. I can’t think of two candidates as different as Barack Obama and John McCain and it will be interesting to see how this battle plays out. I give credit to Obama for identifying the key theme of this election, which is change in Washington — but the question now is which candidate represents true change. If the question is simply change of party then Obama wins just by being a Democrat — but I don’t think that will be enough. Is it a change from George Bush policies? Maybe, but I don’t think policies win elections. How many people have waded through the competing health care plans of each candidate? How many Americans can even describe in detail some of the programs already in place — No Child Left Behind, Medicaid, etc.?

I don’t even think the big change is on Iraq. Nobody believes or would even advocate bringing all the troops home within a few days of the next inauguration. America doesn’t do that, which is why we still have troops in Germany, Japan, Korea and other places. We had military bases in the Middle East before Iraq and we’ll have them there after the war is “over.”

The real change we seek is on unity. The defining moment of this last presidency was September 11. Right afterwards Bush had a chance to bring all Americans together and the entire world together. Bush had a 90% approval rating and our allies were open to working together to combat terrorism. That opportunity was wasted both on the foreign policy front with Iraq and the domestic front with heavy handed partisan politics. Remember Bush saying he had political capital after the 2004 election and he was going to spend it? That went up in smoke along with plans for social security reform. Bush basically kept going with the Tom Delay/Karl Rove tactics of never working with Democrats or even bringing them into the discussion. And, now in tough times, Americans are sick of those kind of political tactics.  They want to know who is going to lead us all out of this — together. The change is more bipartisanship and leadership of all America not just Republican or Democratic America.

So, which candidate can offer that? Forget about party labels for a minute and just look at backgrounds and track records. Which candidate can unite Americans again to tackle the issues we face from energy and the environment, immigration, terrorism, the economy. Who will give us our confidence back as we’re back on our heels a bit. Who cares more about American than they do about their party? For my money that is clearly John McCain. He’s shown that in his Senate career working with Democrats and he lived it in Vietnam serving his country — Obama just talks about it. McCain needs to hammer that message home and while he may lose the Rush Limbaugh crowd he will win in November.

Neil Hare, Founder, www.IsupportThisMessage.com

What strikes me about McCain’s offer to join Obama in Iraq for an inspection of conditions on the ground is that it shows his willingness to engage the opposition party. Now it may be a ploy, but I have no doubt McCain would take a trip with Obama just like he would hold town hall meetings with him. If there is one politician in Washington who has shown a willingness to work with the the other side it is McCain — see McCain-Kennedy on immigration and McCain-Feingold on campaign finance reform among others.

Once again, Obama has campaigned on changing Washington with absolutely no basis for doing it except by the sheer force of his personality and background. McCain on the other hand as been doing it for years even in the face of complaints from his own party — many in the GOP base are still upset about the two pieces of legislation above. But, McCain tried to show leadership and bi-partisanship for the greater good. Obama has no track record on either account.

McCain is really onto something by engagin Obama in this way. If Obama refuses he looks scared and not willing to engage a Republican on a meaningful level, which once again undercuts his paper thin message of hope and change. And the GOP who is looking to rebrand itself should look to McCain to lead the way. The country is still conservative but the people are sick and tired of petty partisan politics. McCain and the party should craft an agenda that attracts the center and would compel centrists Democrats in congress to support it on issues like energy, immigration, taxes and national security - and leave the issues of gay marriage, abortion, and religion alone for the time being. That could be a winning formula in November.

Neil Hare, Founder, www.Isupportthismessage.com

I know, there are a bunch of reasons why this is a bad idea but let me throw out a few why it’s a great idea. First, this is still a “change” election. Obama beat Clinton with a thin message of “change politics as usual” despite her obvious superior command of policy. Obama cleary proved this message works and I don’t see that changing by November. So, while McCain does have his “Maverick” label working for him, it likely won’t be enough because so far his ideas aren’t different enough from President Bush. His economic policies are similar to Bush’s — notably making the Bush tax cuts permanent — and his Iraq policy is largely stay the course. While there are clearly differences below the surface, they will not be readily apparent to the average voter. Newt on the other hand, is a Republican who did, in fact, change Washington. His contract with America brought Republican rule that is only now starting to falter — it was a change of ideology and message that resonated with the voters. And, if you listen to Newt speak these days he has a clear agenda of change for the Republican party and America.

Second, McCain blows Obama away on experience and gravitas but he loses on the charisma factor. The fact that Obama is such a great speaker overcame the obvious flaws in his message that he can somehow change Washington. McCain will have a tough time winning the battle of perception — remember most people don’t retain what they hear but do notice the quality of the speaker. Newt is one of the best public speakers out there with a witty style that engages audiences. This will offset to a certain degree the Obama factor.

Third, McCain still has a problem with the base of the party and they love Newt. His presence on the ticket will energize the party like no other person especially some of the names being floated like Governor Pawlty from Minnesota. While the base will likely begrudginly vote for McCain, Newt will get out the vote and ensure no apathetic voters stay home.

Fourth, McCain’s age and health is a factor whether anyone will admit it. Voters will genuinely consider his running mate as a very likely successor over the next 4-8 years. Therefore, I think McCain needs a known quantity — not someone the voters will have to get to know after election. He needs a name brand politician and there probably isn’t a better one in the GOP than Newt (maybe Arnold if he could run but he can’t). The party and many voters will feel comfortable knowing Newt would be the heir apparent if something where to happen.

Fifth and related, Newt was close to running this year and sources tell me he will almost certainly throw his hat in in 2012. If that is true, give him the head start now to either take McCain over the top or get back into the public eye if Obama were to win.

Finally, McCain needs some buzz. Obama has a rock start quality and his campaign against Hillary has sucked up all the oxygen in the media for months. In order for McCain to get some of that back he needs a rock star running mate and there is no better than Newt. Even some of Newt’s skeletons will serve to get the attention away from Obama and Newt’s policies and charisma will certainly gain attention. His presence on the ticket will shake things up in a way McCain desperately needs to win in November.

Remember, you heard it hear first.

Neil Hare, Founder, www.IsupportThisMessage.com

Well, based on the results last night the Democratic Party elites can now comfortably support Obama despite his obvious weakness. Now, I get the delegate math — I can count too — but all this talk about “game changing” versus “close the deal” does make me scratch my head. Yes, a win in North Carolina for Hillary plus Indiana would have really but Hillary in almost a frontrunner position, but I think her Indiana win alone albeit a small margin of victory is a game changer. If I’m a Democratic party leader I’d be nervous as a cat that Hillary has now won a wide swath of the biggest states — New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and now Indiana. That is a huge patch of real estate and oh by the way, they’re all swing states except New York. If you throw in Florida in her column your basically turning your back on the candidate who has the best chance of winning the states that will matter in November. It should also worry the party that over half of Hillary supporters say they won’t vote for Obama if he is the nominee — uh oh.

Now I posed this question last night to some Democratic operatives: Why has the party turned its back on the best and most successful brand they’ve had in 50 years in favor of a candidate with a fluffy message of hope and change? Cause they don’t like Hillary was the answer — I guess they never left high school. I concede that Obama will get the nomination but when he loses more swing states than Kerry did and goes down hard to McCain they’ll be scratching their heads.

Neil Hare, Founder, www.IsupportThisMessage.com