Good morning ontd_political!
PLOUFFE MEMO: Heading into the Final Stretch
Plouffe's key points: It's a close race, but Obama has the homefield advantage because the debate is about change. Meanwhile, McCain-Palin have become nothing but a cynical, dishonest campaign of smears and lies.
Summary
With both conventions and the vice-presidential selections behind us, the campaign is now heading into the final stretch. The race has settled into a tight race nationally with Obama well-positioned in the key battleground states, a historic enthusiasm gap, and a debate being waged on Obama's home turf - change.
In recent weeks, John McCain has shown that he is willing to go into the gutter to win this election. His campaign has become nothing but a series of smears, lies, and cynical attempts to distract from the issues that matter to the American people. But as Barack Obama said earlier this week "enough is enough." This election is too important and the challenges too big to spend the next 54 days talking about trivial non-issues.
Today is the first day of the rest of the campaign, and today we are releasing two new ads that go directly at the fundamental issue in this race: John McCain is out of touch with the American people and unable to address the challenges facing the country in the 21st century and bring about real change, and that Barack Obama is the candidate who will bring about change that works for the middle class.
We will respond with speed and ferocity to John McCain's attacks and we will take the fight to him, but we will do it on the big issues that matter to the American people. We will not allow John McCain and his band of Karl Rove disciples to make this big election about small things.
Senator Biden will be integral to that effort, both in pushing back on the lies that we'll continue to see from our opponents, and in keeping the debate focused on delivering for everyday Americans. After all, that's what Joe Biden has done throughout his career: passing the Crime Bill to put more cops on our streets, passing to the landmark Violence Against Women Act, and serving as a steadfast voice every day for those more concerned about the price of gas and saving for retirement than the latest political charade in Washington.
A Change Election with Two Converts
For the entire general election campaign, the McCain campaign has insisted that years in Washington should be the yardstick by which Americans measure their next President. But in recent days, and with his selection of a running mate with no Washington experience, Senator McCain has abandoned his core argument. Now he and his strategists have belatedly come to the realization that, after eight disastrous years, the American people are demanding change.
So the candidate who just months ago was openly boasting that he has been a faithful supporter of George W. Bush's policies, and would continue them as President, now is improbably scrambling to offer himself as the candidate who will deliver the change America needs - even as President Bush holds a fundraiser for him today in Oklahoma.
This is a debate we welcome. It is the debate America needs.
For two decades, Barack Obama has challenged political insiders and outworn thinking to bring about real, meaningful change that helps people, not special interests. From welfare reform, to tax relief for working families, to health care for children of working families who lacked coverage, Obama has been at the forefront of fights that have made a difference in the lives of everyday Americans.
In Washington, Obama has been a consistent opponent of the Bush policies that have hobbled our economy and weakened the middle class, and his proposals for the future would steer us away from that disastrous course.
He's challenged leaders of both parties by passing landmark reforms that took dead aim at the campaign contributions and favors through which corporate lobbyists have rigged the system. He worked across the aisle to pass laws reining in no-bid contracts and opening the budget process to the American people.
And Obama has lived by those principles in this campaign, refusing the contributions of Washington lobbyists and political action committees and imposing those same rules on the Democratic National Committee. Lobbyists don't run his campaign. And when he's President, they won't run his White House.
But what about John McCain?
Can we really expect change from a Senator who supported the Bush policies 90 percent of the time? Who has said the Bush policies have brought about "great progress economically" and who just three weeks ago proclaimed the economy fundamentally strong?
The fact is that while he mouths the word "change," Senator McCain's record and proposals scream "more of the same." His plans for the economy, energy, health care, education and Iraq barely stray from the Bush policies that are in place today.
And can we really expect change from a candidate whose campaign is being run by some of the most powerful corporate lobbyists in Washington?
While Senator McCain loudly declares that he will tell the special interests in Washington that their day is "over," they are working overtime to elect him.
Seven of the top officials in his campaign are lobbyists. Between them, they have lobbied for Big Oil, the drug and insurance industries, foreign governments-even Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. His campaign manager routinely lobbied for corporations who had business before the Senate Commerce Committee that McCain chaired.
Corporate Lobbyists and PACs have contributed millions of dollars to his campaign and the Republican National Committee on his behalf.
Does anyone believe they are spending their time, money and energy to put themselves out of business?
That is not change. It's more of the same.
A debate about delivering change is a debate we're happy to have. Because no matter how many times McCain and Governor Palin use the word "change" or try to reinvent their own records, one thing stays the same: the fact that when it comes to the economy, education, Iraq, or the special interests' stranglehold on Washington, they both are stubborn defenders of the past eight years and they both promise more of the same.
One final note:
Senator McCain has called the news media "his base" because of the friendly treatment he has received. And he undoubtedly is counting on his "base" to overlook the gulf between his newly minted "change" message, and the realities of his record and campaign.
His lobbyist-manager said Sunday that Governor Palin would only submit to questions about her record, statements and views when they determine that the news media will treat her with due "deference"-a startling and arrogant new standard for public officials in our democracy.
But we trust that the obvious conflicts between their rhetoric and records, their promises and their plans will not go unreported in the last 53 days of this campaign.
Source
No victory in Iraq, says Petraeus
The outgoing commander of US troops in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, has said that he will never declare victory there.
In a BBC interview, Gen Petraeus said that recent security gains were "not irreversible" and that the US still faced a "long struggle".
When asked if US troops could withdraw from Iraqi cities by the middle of next year, he said that would be "doable".
In his next job leading the US Central Command, Gen Petraeus will also oversee operations in Afghanistan.
He said "the trends in Afghanistan have not gone in the right direction... and that has to be addressed".
Afghanistan remained a "hugely important endeavour", he said.
Earlier this week, President George W Bush announced a cut of 8,000 US troops in Iraq by February - with some 4,500 being sent to Afghanistan.
Gen Petraeus took up his role in Iraq in February 2007, as President Bush announced his "surge" plan.
He has overseen its implementation, including the deployment of nearly 30,000 additional troops to trouble spots in Iraq.
In an interview with the BBC's Newsnight programme, Gen Petraeus said that when he took charge in Iraq "the violence was horrific and the fabric of society was being torn apart".
Gen Petraeus said the Iraqis were standing up as US forces stood down
Leaving his post, he said there were "many storm clouds on the horizon which could develop into real problems".
Overall he summed up the situation as "still hard but hopeful", saying that progress in Iraq was "a bit more durable" but that the situation there remained fragile.
He said he did not know that he would ever use the word "victory": "This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade... it's not war with a simple slogan."
He said al-Qaeda's efforts to portray its jihad in Iraq as going well were "disingenuous". It was, in fact "going poorly", he said.
Of his strategy of establishing joint security stations in key locations, Gen Petraeus said that "you can't secure the people if you don't live with them".
He said it was now fair to say that the Iraqis were standing up as US forces stood down. The confidence and capability of Iraqi forces had increased substantially, he said.
Gen Petraeus did not confirm reports in the media that the US was preparing to withdraw all troops from Baghdad by next summer, but he did say that consideration was being given to removing US forces from a number of cities, including the capital.
Source
Bush: Iranians Are ‘Assholes’
While serving as CentCom commander between March 2007 and March 2008, Adm. William Fallon consistently pressed the Bush administration for more engagement with Iran and criticized the calls for another war. “This constant drumbeat of conflict is what strikes me which is not helpful and not useful,” Fallon told al Jazeera last year.
In his new book “The War Within,” Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward details a telling White House meeting on Iran in spring 2007 (p. 334)
“I think we need to do something to get engaged with these guys,” Fallon said. Iraq shared a 900-mile border with Iran, and he needed guidance and a strategy for dealing with the Iranians.
“Well,” Bush said, “these are assholes.”
Fallon was stunned. Declaring them “assholes” was not a strategy. Lots of words and ideas were thrown around at the meeting, especially about the Iranian leaders. They were bad, evil, out of touch with their people. But no one offered a real approach.
Fallon’s advocacy for diplomatic engagement irritated administration officials, who were enamored with Gen. David Petraeus. Fallon - a “fan of transition” in Iraq - repeatedly challenged Petraeus’s personnel requests. According to Woodward, the commander was trying to ensure that the United States didn’t “send any more than necessary to the war zone” (p. 343).
In a March interview with Esquire, Fallon said that he was in “hot water” with the White House for meeting with Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak. Fallon noted that such meetings were essential to making sure that regional leaders don’t get “too spun up” by the administration’s war rhetoric. In “The War Within,” Woodward writes that as soon as that article came out, Fallon offered his resignation (pp. 408-9):
Fallon was in Baghdad on March 11 when the article was made public. He realized instantly the uproar it would case. Fallon knew he already was on shaky ground. Days earlier, he had warned Gates that the article was coming. But now he called again.
“I think I need to be gone,” Fallon said.
“Okay,” Gates said.
Fallon said he would have stayed if Gates had “offered a vote of confidence and backed his commander”; that, however, never happened.
Source
Vote on offshore drilling appears likely
For months, House Republicans have demanded a vote on legislation that would give coastal states the right to decide whether to allow offshore oil and gas exploration.
It now appears Democrats will give them that opportunity.
Democrats circulated an outline of energy legislation on Wednesday that would go much further on offshore drilling than many anticipated, giving Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) the chance to put her political adversaries in a tight spot on the biggest issue of this campaign season.
The bill itself may never become law - Democratic leaders were still tweaking it Wednesday night - but, as a political vehicle, the legislation could give Democrats cover on a potential liability for the party this November.
According to the outline, the legislation would end a moratorium first established in 1981, allowing states to decide whether to lease drilling sites 50 miles off of their coastline. The bill would also open all federally protected water 100 miles from shore.
The rub, Republicans argue, is that the legislation would not include revenue sharing for the states, removing a major incentive for residents and local politicians to open their coastal zones for underwater oil and gas exploration.
“Democrats are going to pretend to ‘open up’ a large portion of the outer continental shelf for energy exploration - but without giving states any of the revenue for the oil and gas off their coasts,” House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement released Wednesday night after the Democrats’ bullet-points made the rounds on Capitol Hill.
There were also preliminary concerns that the 50-mile limit would close some of the most promising drilling sites, particularly those off the coasts of Alaska, California and the western shores of Florida.
The area off Florida’s coast, often referred to as the Eastern Gulf, has become a crown jewel for the oil industry because of its proximity to pre-existing pipelines and refineries along the Gulf Coast.
And finally, critics argue that the 50-mile limit forces companies to drill in the deepest water - at a high initial cost that could slow development.
But the fact remains that this legislation, in many ways, mirrors that offered by Republicans in 2006, making it more difficult for the GOP to oppose.
That complicates the Republicans’ election-year drive to paint Democrats as the “do-nothing” party on domestic energy production - a mantra that has become their calling card in the halls of Congress and out on the presidential campaign trail.
And to make matters worse for the GOP, the speaker would also include other priority legislation in this bill, like a package to fund renewable energy investments by rolling back $14 billion in royalty relief and other tax breaks for some of the biggest oil companies that drill in the Gulf of Mexico. Thirty-six Republicans backed a previous version of that legislation in the House. It remains stalled in the Senate.
Pelosi would use some of that increased revenue to fund a popular home-heating assistance program, making the legislation more enticing to potentially vulnerable Republicans in the Midwest and Northeast whose constituents regularly clamor for such help.
Other Democratic priorities in the draft outline of the bill include: new requirements for energy companies to relinquish unused leases, mandates on the administration to speed the permitting process for leases in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve and a directive to release a small portion of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to dampen speculation in the commodity futures markets.
Democratic aides said the speaker and other leaders have been working with members of the environmental community for months to convince them that a compromise was the only way to protect any coastal zones three miles off the country’s shorelines.
In a nod to the environmental community, the legislation includes environmental protections to permanently ban oil and gas exploration in select marine sanctuaries.
The bullet points released Wednesday also mention two big pilot programs backed by a pair of prominent Democrats.
One, pushed by Virginia Rep. Rick Boucher, would fund programs to study the sequestration of emissions from coal-fired power plants.
The other, authored by Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, would create tax credits for car owners and gas stations to convert vehicles, pumps and home-heating fixtures to pump natural gas into more automobiles.
Emanuel and his staff were scrambling to get a Congressional Budget Office score on this legislation, a reflection of how scattered this process has become for party leaders in the final weeks of the legislative session.
Source
The Anger Factor
The media are getting mad.
Whether it's the latest back-and-forth over attack ads, the silly lipstick flap or the continuing debate over Sarah and sexism, you can just feel the tension level rising several notches.
Maybe it's a sense that this is crunch time, that the election is on the line, that the press is being manipulated (not that there's anything new about that).
News outlets are increasingly challenging false or questionable claims by the McCain campaign, whether it's the ad accusing Obama of supporting sex-ed for kindergartners (the Illinois legislation clearly describes "age-appropriate" programs) or Palin's repeated boast that she stopped the Bridge to Nowhere (after she had supported it, and after Congress had effectively killed the specific earmark).
The McCain camp has already accused the MSM of trying to "destroy" the governor of Alaska. So any challenge to her record or her veracity can now be cast as the product of an oh-so-unfair press. Which, needless to say, doesn't exactly please reporters, and makes the whole hanging-with-McCain-on-the-Straight-Talk era seem 100 years ago.
As for the sudden insistence that Palin is a delicate flower who must be shielded from harsh rhetoric, take this example. Joe Biden, asked if Palin as VP would be a step forward for women, said: "Look, I think the issue is: What does Sarah Palin think? What does she believe? I assume she thinks and agrees with the same policies that George Bush and John McCain think. And that's obviously a backward step for women."
A typical political shot? Not according to the RNC, which said the "arrogant" remarks are "better suited for the backrooms of his old boys' club," while Palin is trying to break "the highest glass ceiling."
Of course, she wasn't picked because she is a woman, was she? And I'm sure if Hillary was the nominee, the RNC would be extremely respectful of her attempt to shatter an even higher glass ceiling.
The lipstick imbroglio is evidence that the Drudge/Fox/New York Post axis can drive just about any story into mainstream land. Does anyone seriously believe that Barack Obama was calling Sarah Palin a pig? What about the fact that McCain has used "lipstick on a pig" before? What about the book by that title by former McCain aide Torie Clarke? Never mind: get the cable bookers to line up women on opposite sides of the lipstick divide and let them claw at each other!
Obama, punching back about "phony outrage," knows where to point the finger:
"What their campaign has done this morning is the same game that has made people sick and tired of politics in this country. They seize on an innocent remark, try to take it out of context, throw out an outrageous ad because they know it's catnip for the news media. . . . See, it would be funny, it would be funny except, of course, the news media decided that was the lead story yesterday."
"Remember when Senators John McCain and Barack Obama promised a kinder, gentler presidential race?" asks the Boston Globe. "They said the issues would be front and center, the nasty personal attacks kept at bay, and they even floated the quaint notion of traveling the country together to engage voters in a respectful competition of ideas.
"Goodbye to all that.
"With less than 60 days to Election Day, the rival campaigns are at each other's throats. In the last two days alone, put-downs have flown like daggers: McCain's campaign called Obama's 'disturbing,' 'desperate,' 'offensive,' and 'disgraceful.' Obama's campaign fired back with 'pathetic,' 'perverse,' 'dishonorable,' and 'shameful.' Though McCain has more often been the aggressor, the back-and-forth -- to borrow a recent McCain campaign description of Obama running mate Joe Biden -- has reached 'a new low.' "
The greatest anger I see is among liberal pundits who were once McCain admirers. I know the conservative indictment is that it was easy to back Mac against Bush in a primary, but harder when the opponent is their liberal love Barack. Still, I sense some genuine disappointment.
Time's Joe Klein is particularly exercised:
"Back in 2000, after John McCain lost his mostly honorable campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, he went about apologizing to journalists -- including me -- for his most obvious mis-step: his support for keeping the confederate flag on the state house.
"Now he is responsible for one of the sleaziest ads I've ever seen in presidential politics, so sleazy that I won't abet its spread by linking to it . . .
"I just can't wait for the moment when John McCain -- contrite and suddenly honorable again in victory or defeat -- talks about how things got a little out of control in the passion of the moment. Talk about putting lipstick on a pig."
TPM's Josh Marshall can't resist an I-told-you-so:
"One of the interesting aspects of this campaign is watching the scales fall from the eyes of many of John McCain's closest admirers among the veteran DC press corps. I'm not talking about the freaks on Fox News or any of the sycophants at the AP. I'm talking about, let's say, the better sort of reporters and commentators in the 45 to 65 age bracket. To the extent that the press was McCain's base (and in many though now sillier respects it still is) this was the base of the base. And talking to a number of them I can understand why that was, at least in the sense of the person he was then presenting himself as.
"But over the last . . . maybe six weeks, in various conversations with these folks, the change is palpable. Whether it will make any difference in the tone of coverage in the dominant media I do not know. But it is sinking in.
"All politicians stretch the truth, massage it into the best fit with their message. But, let's face it, John McCain is running a campaign almost entirely based on straight up lies. Not just exaggerations or half truths but the sort of straight up, up-is-down mind-blowers we've become so accustomed to from the current occupants of the White House . . .
"So let's stopped being shocked and awed by every new example of it. It is undignified. What can we do? We've got a dangerously reckless contender for the presidency and a vice presidential candidate who distinguished her self by abuse of office even on the comparatively small political stage of Alaska."
Kevin Drum, now blogging at Mother Jones, looks ahead to a McCain administration:
"John McCain has obviously decided that he can't win a straight-up fight, so he's decided instead to wage a battle of character assassination, relentless lies, and culture war armageddon. So what happens on November 5th?
"If McCain wins, he'll face a Democratic Congress that's beyond furious. Losing is one thing, but after eight years of George Bush and Karl Rove, losing a vicious campaign like this one will cause Dems to go berserk. They won't even return McCain's phone calls, let alone work with him on legislation. It'll be four years of all-out war.
"And what if Obama wins? The last time a Democrat won after a resurgence of the culture war right, we got eight years of madness, climaxing in an impeachment spectacle unlike anything we'd seen in a century. If it happens again, with the lunatic brigade newly empowered and shrieking for blood, Obama will be another Clinton and we'll be in for another eight years of near psychotic dementia."
At Huffington Post, John Neffinger sees a turning point for Obama:
"This 'sex ed' ad the McCain campaign just launched is waaaay over the line. After a parade of out-of-context quotes, it shows Obama smirking naughtily as the voiceover talks about him wanting to provide 'comprehensive' sex education to kindergarteners. The voiceover by itself is hard-hitting, but together with the visuals, the ad basically paints Obama as a pedophile. (In reality, the legislation provides for educating younger children about the difference between good touches and bad touches to help protect them against pedophiles.)
"So this is it. This is Obama's Dukakis-and-the-death-penalty moment.
"Everyone who sees this ad can see how dirty it is. And if Obama wants Americans to respect him, they must be allowed to see him react with the kind of anger -- controlled, but still palpable -- that they would feel if somebody did that to them.
"That means Obama must address the issue, personally and promptly, and do it just right. He must talk about honor and shame, how he has young daughters, and how just like any parent, he wants to do everything he can to protect them from pedophiles."
In a more temperate post at the New Republic, Michael Crowley faults Obama:
"Here's the case for longer-term concern. It feels a bit as though Obama is out of steam, something that's happened before. The man needs big moments to rekindle his fire. Throughout the campaign, he's found those moments. His knockout Jefferson-Jackson performance in Iowa last December. That dazzling Kennedy family endorsement. Claiming the nomination on June 3. The unity event with Hillary. Invescopalooza. But what's left now? A killer debate performance, perhaps -- but anyone who remembers last fall wouldn't bank on that (even if he did improve with time)."
I hate to waste any bandwidth on this trumped-up lipstick thing, but it's interesting that some conservatives, such as Laura Ingraham, don't think that's the right road for the GOP. National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez detects a whiff of identity politics:
"Talking about Hillary Clinton and sexism at a women-and-leadership Newsweek forum earlier this year, Sarah Palin said it 'bothers me a little' to see Clinton running as a victim. 'She does herself a disservice to even mention it.' Palin added that any 'perceived whine . . . doesn't do us any good . . . women in politics, or women in general.'
"You go, girl. Who needs to play victim? Life's unfair. Politics gets ugly. So what? Fight on! To Palin's credit, she hasn't whined about sexism since becoming the Republican vice-presidential nominee. But her campaign has. . . . I know it resonates, but it honestly doesn't do anyone any good unless the purpose of this teaching moment is to mirror the Left's usual whining and hypersensitivity in order to demonstrate how silly the whole thing looks when you're on the other side. To have a GOP campaign actually whining about sexism . . . well . . . bothers me a little."
At Pajamas Media, Roger Kimball dismisses the episode:
"I really wish that former Gov. Jane Swift hadn't called on Obama to 'apologize' for the be-lipsticked pig is still a pig line . . . Was this a 'mega gaffe'? Maybe it will turn out to be, but I for one hope that the McCain camp gives it a rest. Of course it was a reference to Sarah Palin's line about the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull was that the hockey mom wore lipstick; and of course Obama intended some of that porcine unpleasantness to rub off on S. Palin, Governor of Alaska. He was doubtless also, I am reliably informed, alluding to the colloquial phrase about putting lipstick on a pig, i.e., 'slang for when someone tries to dress something up, but is still that something.' . . .
"I think it is bad form for Republicans to play this silly game. I do not know Sarah Palin. But from what I know of her, I would guess that if she even noticed Obama's desperate little performance her first, and probably her last, reaction was to laugh."
But Power Line's John Hinderaker views the flap as a metaphor:
"I have mixed feelings about it. Watching the video, I think it's plausible for Obama to say that he wasn't talking about Governor Palin. On the other hand -- come on. Does he seriously believe, given all the water under the bridge, that he can use the words 'lipstick' and 'pig' in the same sentence without people thinking he's taking a shot at Palin? His audience certainly took it that way. Maybe it's just another example of Obama's lack of skill on his feet, when he doesn't have a teleprompter to tell him what to say.
"The more interesting question is whether Obama is starting to come apart at the seams. As his party's presidential nominee, he should be doing battle with John McCain, not Sarah Palin. But he seemingly can't help himself. Over the last couple of days, several generally apolitical people have told me that they think Obama has been melting down ever since Palin's nomination was announced. Hysteria does appear to be sweeping the Obama camp, with over the top attacks on both Palin and McCain. One wonders whether their internal polling numbers are really, really bad."
I raised the what-if question on Hillary yesterday, and now Politico examines what might have been:
"Republican Rep. Candice S. Miller says Barack Obama had only one shot at Palin-proofing the Democratic ticket -- and he missed it when he passed over Hillary Rodham Clinton as his running mate. 'Every woman in America knows what Barack Obama did to Hillary Clinton: He looked at her and thought, 'There's no way I'm doing that,'' said Miller. 'If Hillary was on the ticket, he'd be in a much better position to win women voters.' Sarah Palin's presence -- coupled with Clinton's absence -- may be altering one of the great verities of American politics: that women voters overwhelmingly favor Democrats."
A former Hillary adviser is quoted as saying that the "Obama people have got to be kicking themselves' for not putting choosing Clinton as his No. 2."
Source
Huckabee, Others Yuck It Up Over McCain Vetting
"Does anybody know what the difference between a bulldog and a hockey mom is?" Bob Barr, former Republican member of Congress and now the Libertarian presidential candidate, asks. "The bulldog gets vetted!"
Barr's joke elicits a roar of laughs and a couple of "oh's!" among the audience at the 15th Annual Funniest Celebrity in Washington Contest.
The annual fundraiser is an opportunity for pols, pundits and journos to challenge Washington's reputation as a stiff, self-serious town -- and also a good measure of what topics in the political zeitgeist are particularly ripe for ridicule at the moment. This year, John McCain's vetting process in his hunt for a vice presidential candidate was a repeated theme.
When Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas and Republican primary contender, took over the microphone, he joked that he was hurt by McCain's decision not to ask him to join the GOP ticket.
"John McCain didn't even vet me," Huckabee said. "But he didn't vet Sara Palin either."
Huckabee also poked fun at his onetime Republican primary rival, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. "Mitt has more positions than an underaged Chinese gymnast," Huckabee said.
At the end of the night, Huckabee was the winner of the funniest celebrity in Washington prize. But the producer of the event, Richard Siegel, says the aim of the evening is not the competition, but simply to bring people from all political sides together in a lighter setting. The evening also is a charity fundraiser, this year benefitting VSA Arts, a nonprofit organization that helps people with disabilities learn and participate through artistic expression.
"Oftentimes they have to be serious, they don't have the opportunity to be funny," said Siegel. "This gives them a chance to lighten up and give a humorous message." For a lot of the politicians and journalists, telling jokes is far from a typical part of their daily work. Riz Khan, a news correspondent for Al-Jazeera, said he used his stand-up routine at this event to poke fun at some serious issues, like "how difficult it is for a brown man with a Muslim name to go through security."
Khan joked about even former Secretary of State Colin Powell being "randomly selected" when he goes through security checks at airports these days. On stage, Khan asked the crowd, "So, who put me on the billing as explosively funny?!"
Source
Remember that huge stink at the RNC about how Obama was giving all these speeches without using the word "victory"??? Ummmmm yeah.
To quote TPM: "This is not to suggest that Obama and Petraeus are in agreement on Iraq. Rather, the point is that the simple-minded bromides and attacks coming from McCain and Palin are at odds with the analysis offered by Petraeus himself."