Both parties' candidates just had a foreign policy briefing--a standard practice used to bring the next president up to speed. What isn't standard is a candidate shooting his mouth off after the briefing. Biden's warning: (My emphasis throughout.)

"Mark my words," Biden said in San Francisco last Saturday. "With the next, first six months of this administration, if we win, they're going to — we're going to face a major international challenge. Because they're going to want to test him, just like they did young John Kennedy. They're going to want to test him."

Was that just Biden being Biden? But then, he said it again! This time Biden piped up at a Seattle fundraiser: 

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy." 

This part of his chat was really strange:

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right." 

And this was the guy who was supposed to lend gravitas to the Obama ticket? He went on to give more cautions and warnings--both about the economy and international problems:

"Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my ... why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?' We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years..."

Biden emphasized that the mountainous Afghanistan-Pakistan border is of particular concern, with Osama bin Laden "alive and well" and Pakistan "bristling with nuclear weapons."

"You literally can see what these kids are up against, our kids in that region," Biden said in recalling when his helicopter was forced down due to a snowstorm there. "The place is crawling with al Qaeda. And it's real."

"We do not have the military capacity, nor have we ever, quite frankly, in the last 20 years, to dictate outcomes," he cautioned. "It's so much more important than that. It's so much more complicated than that. And Barack gets it."

When I first heard about Biden's remarks, I immediately thought about Iran blasting Israel off the face of the earth--after all, Iran has talked about it and Obama was vague about his response. 

If you were Iran, would you be more apt to attack Israel with McCain as president or Obama?

But after looking at the last section of quotes, I'm wondering was Biden hinting about needing a military draft? Bombing Pakistan? Who knows.

Speak softly and carry a big stick is usually thought to be a deterrent to foreign aggression. The big stick being military might and cutting edge military technology. It has served us well in the past.

Biden began his warnings by comparing Obama to JFK, but Joe forgot one very important thing about his running mate: Unlike JFK, Obama has stated he wants to put a end to that military technology.

The complete IBD Editorial is worth the read or listen--the link is on this page. It is very sobering.

I'm digging out some photos you might find interesting for a future blog: Obama, JFK, technology, and the Cuban Missile Crisis...chilling

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Yup, it is true. Former President Bill Clinton appeared on Good Morning America this morning and defended John McCain. (Politics makes strange bedfellows!)

ABC News' Nitya Venkataraman Reports: Former President Bill Clinton defended Sen. John McCain's request to delay the first presidential debate, saying McCain did it in "good faith" and pushed organizers to reserve time for economy talk during the debate if the Friday plans move forward.

... 

"We know he didn't do it because he's afraid because Sen. McCain wanted more debates," Clinton said, adding that he was "encouraged" by the joint statement from McCain and Sen. Barack Obama.

Clinton also commented on the Democrat's accusation that this problem came out of nowhere--we had nothing to do with this. He admitted some responsibility in this mess lies with the Democrats in Congress. (About half way through the clip)

Well... ...the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put in some standards and tighten up a little with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [He also blamed the Up Tick rule.]

I really hope the Congress acts in good faith and not in their typical political way, as in the NO Drill Bill. When Sen. Obama originally stated that he would not come, that "If you need me, call me." if he was needed, I wondered how that would have gone over with the Democrats if Pres. Bush had done that with Hurricane Katrina.

GOPUSA's piece, Bailing out the Bailout, talks about Sen. Reid's flip flop on McCain's presence and what some conservatives hope McCain can do, 

...Until McCain's announcement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seemed inclined to support the $700 billion bailout bill -- provided Democrats could lard it with their own goodies -- but only if McCain (and other Republicans) would support the package and provide the Dems with political cover.

"I got some good news in the last hour or so ... it appears that Sen. McCain is going to come out for this," Reid announced Tuesday evening.

...

Reid's office promptly released a statement that said, "We need leadership; not a campaign photo-op." So the bailout is worth spending $700 billion of other people's money -- but not worth McCain flying to Washington to broker a doable deal? Get the feeling Reid is completely out of touch?

Now, what if McCain could reduce the size of the bailout? (That is a tall order, but hope springs eternal with me.)

If, however, McCain can broker a more fiscally responsible plan -- read one with a price tag about half of the original's size or less, and with a cap on executive pay -- he just might be able to broker a deal that can pass muster.

McCain is taking a huge chance here. Even just going to Washington to vote on this measure is a risk. One has to wonder if Obama hoped he could duck the whole thing by not going to the Senate to vote at all--a variation on voting, "Present."

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Have you noticed that the mood of the country has changed regarding energy?

Last year, THE solution was all about growing our own energy by using ethanol. The emphasis was on reducing our carbon footprint and dependence on foreign oil, regardless of the cost.

But rising food prices and the fact that ethanol was a boondoggle (using as much energy as it supplied) caused ethanol's reign to slip from political popularity.

Then came Newt with his Drill Here.Drill Now.Pay Less. campaign. While I am surprised that he never did get those 3 million petition signers, he certainly started the conversation that we must start producing more oil domestically.

It was a conversation the President and House Republicans were willing to listen to. Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats, however, were not. In fact, she shut down the House for 5 weeks!

During that 5 weeks off, around 130 House Republicans kept the heat on the discussion in the House. See YouTube

Also during the summer, the polls started showing that 67% of Americans favored domestic drilling.

John McCain responded to that fact by embracing offshore drilling. Certainly his picking Palin indicates he is looking at domestic oil and increasing natural gas. The Republican ticket has an "All of the above" approach. (Oil, clean coal, natural gas, tidal, hydro, hydrogen, geo-thermal, nuclear, wind, solar, etc.)

Barack Obama wouldn't go that far, but did promote getting off foreign oil dependence by increasing clean coal, natural gas, and safe nuclear as additions to the usual wind, solar, etc.

But while all this new domestic energy posturing was going on, Pelosi and the House Democrats were not available until this week. On Monday:

"House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Monday morning that the newest Democratic energy bill will be brought to the floor under normal rules and will be subject to a vote on a Republican alternative that is likely to call for even more drilling than Democrats are prepared to swallow.

So finally, she and the House Democrats are willing to allow a vote on drilling!

"Pelosi miscalculated in her heavy-handed tactics before the recess.  She attempted to push through her own plan under suspension of the rules, a tactic she decried in 2006, which kept Republicans from offering an alternative.  When it failed, she adjourned Congress, hoping to put off the debate until after the conventions … and her book tour.

"Instead of regrouping, the Democrats found themselves routed by an angry electorate and motivated Republicans.  The House Oil Party kept the issue in the media eye, at least to an extent, but high gas prices kept it on the minds of voters while Democrats took their summer vacation.  It was as poor a political calculation seen in recent years, and the sudden shift in generic Congressional ballots and in party identification has been the result.

"Pelosi and Harry Reid may have finally figured out that they could lose this election on energy policy.  Will this be enough to stanch the bleeding? (My emphasis)

This vote would have never happened without public pressure. We tend to forget that fact. But don't jump for joy just yet.

The next hurdle will be, what kind of energy bill gets passed? Will it be a real energy bill that truly increases drilling opportunities and new energy sources? Or will it be just all show and no go? as a token attempt by Democrat Congressmen and Senators up for reelection to appear sympathetic to energy prices?

But House Republicans called the Democrats' proposals "gimmicks," and instead have insisted on a stand-alone vote on oil drilling.

"Speaker Pelosi's so-called 'energy' bill will do nothing to help our energy crisis," said Rep. Michele Bachmann, Minnesota Republican. "It will multiply red tape and make it almost impossible to lower already skyrocketing oil costs." (My emphasis)

Stay tuned! 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post.

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

Last week Michelle Obama did it again. She said something that revealed who she is and how out of touch she is with the average American's economic circumstances.

The Washington Times reported that each campaign needed to rein in their surrogates:

The same day a John McCain surrogate dismissed economic woes from a nation of "whiners," Barack Obama's wife quipped that the $600 tax stimulus check could be used for a pair of earrings.

I would not classify Michelle Obama in the same "surrogate" category as McCain's economic adviser Phil Gramm, however. McCain can dump Gramm, but Michelle Obama is part of the package. She will be First Lady if Obama is elected. Whenever she says something controversial, an image of her serving tea to an important dignitary while making "small talk" pops into my mind.

Mrs. Obama does not come across as a happy camper. I think the first time I heard her interviewed was last February when the Obamas were in town before our primary. She talked about how women struggled just to get through each day, and she included herself in that group. I was surprised by her remarks because they sounded like those of an unhappy wife.

Michelle mentioned the usual complaints: husbands go off to work and leave all the responsibility of home and children to the wife. She spoke about how she is the one who must take the kids to the doctor or stay home if they are ill, etc. At the time I thought she was not painting her husband in a very good light. To hear her talk, you would think they were impoverished and had no options to hire a baby sitter, helper, or housekeeper.

As the campaign continued, I found out the Obamas lived quite comfortably. Comfortable enough to think nothing of $600.  

"You're getting $600 - what can you do with that? Not to be ungrateful or anything, but maybe it pays down a bill, but it doesn't pay down every bill every month," she [Michelle] said. "The short-term quick fix kinda stuff sounds good, and it may even feel good that first month when you get that check, and then you go out and you buy a pair of earrings."

A reader's response to the Washington Times article summed it up well,

Someone who suggests spending the $600 rebate on earrings is not living the same way the rest of America lives.

We put our stimulus check in the bank, saving it to pay for our property taxes due in December. It required belt tightening now, but I am grateful we were able to do that. (Still wish we did not go down the stimulus road though.) 

Click here to sign the DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS domestic drilling petition and see the latest links to related oil news (updated every day).

Drill Here is now over the 1.3 million mark. The goal is 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican Conventions. 

Links: