As a retired military officer, a low-ranking one, the highlight for me of the Democratic National Convention in Denver this summer was what I called “the galaxy of stars,” dozens of retired generals and admirals that appeared on the INVESCO Field stage in support of Barack Obama the night of his nomination.

In my post on this event, I also noted that the Obama campaign listed more than 70 retired generals and admirals from all four services who were supporting and advising Barack Obama on national security, aerospace programs, energy and other issues, including retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Gration, retired Army Lt. Gen. Donald Kerrick, retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, retired Adm. William Owens, Retired Adm. John Nathman, and “at least one former service chief; several service vice chiefs, a former head of the National Guard Bureau, a former commander of U.S. Fleet Forces Command and a former operations director for the Defense Intelligence Agency.”

I concluded, “Can such a galaxy of ’stars’ with a total of around 2,100 years of honorable, distinguished service to their country be wrong? ”

Apparently not.

Barack Obama won this battle and will be the 44th President of the United States. I am sure he owes part of his victory to these military officers.

However, another battle is yet to be fought, and won.

As I have repeatedly asserted, I support full equal rights for gays and lesbians.

I also support full equal rights for our gay and lesbian troops serving honorably, effectively and, in many instances, heroically in our armed forces.

I have written several columns (for example here and here) and many Letters to the Editor on the subject of gays serving in the military and, in particular, about the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that has been in effect for 16 years

In one of my posts, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the integration of the armed services, I wrote:

But even President Truman’s 1948 Executive order, commendable and progressive as it was, left “without regard to sexual orientation,” out of his promise that ”there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services.”
It is this omission that our legislators are now addressing in the hearings on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” And, predictably, the same tired and repudiated issues and arguments that were used 60 years ago are now being raised again to prevent gays and lesbians from enjoying “equality of treatment and opportunity …in the armed services.”

In another discussion on this subject, I wrote:

The future of the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy will not be decided based on my personal views. Rather, it may be decided on what a majority of the American people feel is the right thing to do. I say, “may” because even though several reputable recent polls have found that a vast majority of Americans feel that homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military, there will be other powerful factors and factions at play.

One of these will be the judgment and recommendations of present and recent military leadership in our country. While many high ranking and prestigious military officers, both active duty and retired, have expressed their views on this issue, it is not clear yet which way the pendulum will eventually swing.

Well, today, according to CNNPolitics.com, another galaxy of stars has come out in support of ending the “don’t ask-don’t tell” policy.

Read the rest of this entry »

Sabato’s Crystal Ball’s Rhodes Cook on OBAMA’S NEW LOOK AT THE MAP

This is the time of the presidential campaign for “game-changing” moments, whether it is a huge outdoor acceptance speech in the shadow of the Rocky Mountains or the vice presidential selection of a largely unknown young female governor from Alaska.

It is a potentially pivotal time in an historic election.

But what the campaign of Barack Obama is ultimately looking for is a “map changer,” a path to an Electoral College majority that they hope will take them through plenty of Republican terrain….

MORE

ALSO:

Michael Baudinet’s CONVENTION COMPARISONS

Isaac Wood on MCCAIN’S MESSAGE OF MODERATION

A flag is a symbol. At the highest level, a flag is the unique and proud emblem of a nation-state. The national flag symbolizes, represents and, in many ways, is the nation, and thus is inviolable.

In the United States, we hold the Stars and Stripes in such high esteem, honor and prominence that it commands not only our love and respect, but also our allegiance. In fact, in our national “Pledge of Allegiance,” the first expression of allegiance is “to the Flag of the United States of America.” Then we add, “and to the Republic for which it stands.”

Starting with the Grand Union flag unfurled defiantly by George Washington’s troops at Prospect Hill, followed by several versions of the Stars and Stripes flown in battlefields throughout the world, up to today’s 50 stars, 13 stripes flag carried by our troops into battle in Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands upon thousands of our brave men and women have given their lives…for that Flag.

“That Flag” is not the flag of the Democratic Party, or the Republican Party, or of any party, group or individual. It is the flag of the United States of America and of its people–all its people.

It thus deeply saddens, and angers, me when I see, hear or read how the American flag, our flag, is manipulated by groups or individuals for purely political, partisan purposes.

I am talking about the use of that sacred symbol to imply or to outright claim that one party is more patriotic than the other. I am talking about those who would turn the American flag into a wedge issue–use it to divide our nation, rather than to unite it. I am talking about those who almost literally wrap themselves or their politics in the American flag. I am talking about the flag lapel pin and many other flag related “scandals.” And, yes, I am talking about the latest, widely reported “flag scandal” at Invesco Field.

While, at worst, it appears that the manner in which one or two individuals handled the thousands of flags, left for pickup or for storage at a shipping dock at Invesco Field, may not have been the most appropriate way, the response by some has been disproportionate and offensive. Again, the flag is being used to question the loyalty, the patriotism of not only the Democratic Convention organizers, but also of Senator Barack Obama and of the entire Democratic Party and, consequently, of one-half of the American people.

Call this incident stupid, call it thoughtless, but don’t call it “unpatriotic!”

I mentioned how we pledge allegiance “to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands.” The words that follow and conclude this solemn pledge are: “One Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Those concluding words—especially the “indivisible” part—would be meaningless if “that Flag” belonged only to one half of a divided nation, or if “that Flag” were to be used to pit American against American.

Calvin Coolidge perhaps said it best:

We identify the flag with almost everything we hold dear on earth. It represents our peace and security, our civil and political liberty, our freedom of religious worship, our family, our friends, our home. We see it in the great multitude of blessings, of rights and privileges that make up our country.

Our flag is identified with too much, represents too much, means too much for it to be turned into a cheap political football.

SEE THE UPDATE BELOW: It is now claimed that the story below resulted from a some dirty tricks and the flags were destined for other events, but stolen.

UPDATE AGAIN: Sources from Fox News (Yes… I know) are disputing the claims in the update and say that the flags were definitely found “stored” in Hefty Bags “near a dumpster.” Odd storage if true, but apparently the game is afoot on this one.

Here is a picture from the Denver Post (with a hat tip to Hot Air) which I missed earlier today but seriously got my blood boiling. It was taken at Invesco Field, the site of the Democrats’ big party for Barack Obama’s speech, after the lights went down and everyone left. You can click through the links for the entire story, but it seems that this was the fate of hundreds of flags used at the field for the speech.

We have flags at my home and at our camp and other places among our family. I was raised by an honest-to-God WW2 war hero, (make of that what you like) but we learned that one has respect for the flag, and this is not it. I’m not alone in this, and you’ll find plenty of people across red and blue America who feel the same way. This is simply not done.

Am I saying that you don’t have the right to treat a flag this way? Not at all. The protection of your rights to free speech are clear in my book. You can actually burn a flag in the streets if that’s your choice to express your opinion about the government. You can also put a white sheet over your head, cut a couple of holes in it for your eyes, and march down the street chanting about how evil the “darkies” are. I’ll defend your right to do it, but I’ll also call you a hateful, ignorant ass.

Let me be very clear that I am not personally blaming Illinois Senator Barack Obama or Delaware Senator Joe Biden for this. But there was somebody in charge of the planning and logistics for this event who should have known better and done better. This is completely unacceptable to me, and they should find that person and hold them accountable. It’s not just stupid, unpatriotic, wrong and stupid, but it’s a political disaster as well. They should have at least realized that much if they didn’t actually care about their country’s flag.

UPDATE: The Democrats in charge of the event claim that the flags were STOLEN and were heading for another site. They probably could have been stored better, but if this is the case, then there was at least one GOP operative playing a VERY VERY VERY dirty trick.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: See the top of the article. This article disputes the dispute, if you will, and claims that the Democrats’ claims are inaccurate and the flags were found in Hefty Bags near a dumpster, which would be odd storage indeed if true. We’ll keep digging on this one.

AND ANOTHER: This source from Colorado contines providing two sides to the story with the DNC saying the flags were “stored and stolen” and the GOP saying they were “rescued” after being found in trashbags near a dumpster. Nothing definitive yet that I can see.

JUST KEEP CHECKING FOR UPDATES AS THEY DON’T SEEM TO END: Courtesy of both people in comments and Ed at Hot Air, the original author has updated his story with even more information which is making the DNC defense look more thin.

I just spoke with the person at Invesco who found the flags and he thinks both sides are exaggerating a bit. The person claims the majority of the bags with flags in them were near the trash, on a dock, and would have been thrown away. The person thinks it was probably an “oversight” by the Democrats rather than any nefarious plot against the flag. But the person doesn’t believe anyone was coming to get them: “The flags were there for a week and a day and no one came looking for them.”

Having spoken to the person who found the bags, it’s difficult to believe that anyone was coming to get them a week after the convention. If so, who was it? I’ve sent a query asking that question.

It seems like some poor intern or volunteer probably made a mistake and McCain campaign used it to pull a gotcha.

This keeps on rolling out, but it’s looking more and more like somebody at the DNC screwed up and put the flags out with the trash. Did some McCain supporters try to capitalize on this? Not out of the question at this point.

Views of Sarah Palin from the British, Australians and New Zealand press have been generally, but not universally, skeptical. Here we have the views of O Globo of Brazil’s chief international columnist William Waack - which is far less skeptical and far more impressed by McCain’s role of the dice.

Waack writes in part:

“John McCain’s choice for a young (by political standards) female governor as his running mate was an extraordinary political occurrence for Republicans. It genuinely relegated to the history books the speech given the night before by Barack Obama - of which much of the press instantly stopped talking about just twelve hours after it had been called ‘historic.’”

“At 72 years of age, John McCain isn’t exactly a triathlete. To answer this, the Republican candidate himself has always said that it’s just as important to know the Republican Vice Presidential candidate as it was to know him. And what a Vice! … It was a brilliant political play. The name that most people had been talking about for the vice presidential slot was entrepreneur-governor Mitt Romney - competent, successful, monotonous. Even McCain had a half-smile when he announced Sarah Palin - the smile of an old man when he receives praise from a much younger woman.”

And how does Waack think it should end?:

“These U.S. elections are the most fascinating for at least three generations. The American electorate - and the world, we could say, given the consequences of the decisions that are taken by the United States, like them or not - is confronted with a real choice. And it’s not easy to decide between one and the other.”

Read the rest of this entry »

I know we are quite-properly focusing on Gustav, but CNN just announced the release of a new poll on the Presidential race.

The survey was taken after the Democratic Convention and after the Palin announcement so, presumably, Friday/Saturday and part of today.

For reference, prior to the convention CNN had the race tied 47-47

The new poll has Obama ahead 49-48.

So, at least with that poll, it does not seem there was much of a bounce from the convention (nor does any seem likely from the GOP convention).

Again, our main focus should be Gustav but just an interesting side-note as life does go on.

In what I consider to be not only a politically-wise but a generally-classy decision, the McCain campaign has announced that they will suspend all but necessary procedural activities for Monday. There will be no political activities at the session, just those required by the rules in place.

I am sure that there will be some on the hard left who will try to make political hay of this but hope that most of us join together in supporting the people of the Gulf Coast.

I would love to see the Obama campaign also suspend activities tomorrow and let us all direct our efforts to those in harm’s way.

A new Gallup Poll indicates Democratic Presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama’s acceptance speech went over well with the public and was better received than the speeches of recent past Democratic Presidential nominees and Senator Hillary Clinton:

Fifty-eight percent of Americans give Barack Obama’s speech a positive review, including 35% who describe it as “excellent.” Both marks surpass those given to the 2000 and 2004 presidential candidates, with the excellent ratings for Obama’s speech 10 percentage points higher than any other recent candidate has received.

Obama is widely praised for his rhetorical skills, so perhaps his positive reviews are not surprising. His speech was rated more positively by Americans than Hillary Clinton’s Tuesday night convention speech, which also was highly regarded by the public

Democrats give Obama’s speech rave reviews, with 62% saying it was an excellent speech and another 21% describing it as good. A majority of independents rate Obama’s speech as either excellent (27%) or good (25%), but Republicans were less impressed (12% excellent and 25% good).

The poll also found that 45 percent who watched said they’re more likely to vote Democratic after watching the convention, versus 29 percent who are less likely.

What does all of this mean?

1. Obama had a huge audience — perhaps the audience of his lifetime except for the first debate with rival Republican Sen. John McCain — that could watch him without interruption or any media analysis filter. He connected with many of them. This will make it somewhat harder for Republicans to define him.

2. McCain immediately knew he had to plan to run a different kind of presidential race and adjusted his Vice Presidential pick accordingly. See a post that will be posted above this post soon. Obama had hammered on the message of change and McCain had to do something to appear more than a standard GOP candidate with a candidate from the Republican primary ranks.

3. It raises the bar on McCain’s acceptance speech. Various reports say a top speechwriter has been working on this speech now for several weeks. Just as Obama faced the trap of turning his speech into yet another “Yes we can!” speech noting how historical his nomination is, McCain now faces the trap of overdoing his own narrative. Obama addressed issues and rebuttal points many had felt he had to make. McCain has to address the change issue when he gets the audience of his life.

Democratic Presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama had a massive viewership for his acceptance speech Thursday night in a convention that got the highest ratings in televised U.S. political convention history, the New York Times reports:

At least 40 million Americans watched Senator Barack Obama accept the Democratic nomination for president Thursday night, a record for convention viewership that exceeded even the expectations of his aides.

The historic speech by the first African-American presidential nominee of a major political party reached 38.4 million viewers on 10 broadcast and cable networks, Nielsen Media Research said Friday. PBS estimated that an additional 3.5 million had watched its prime-time coverage.

…..Despite Republicans’ advance ridicule of the enormous venue, Invesco Field, and the set, an elaborate, columned backdrop, Democrats went to bed having heard terrific reviews of the final night of their convention. Indeed, the backdrop, initially derided as resembling a Greek temple — playing into the Republican line of attack that Mr. Obama’s supporters had deified him — turned out to be something of a hit; television reviewers and commentators praised the overall staging.

The ratings set new records:

The four-night convention was the most-watched since 1960, when Nielsen began measuring the events. The 10 p.m. hour, Eastern time, from Monday to Thursday was viewed by an average of 22.4 million households, Nielsen said, surpassing by half a million the Republican convention of 1976, previously top-rated.

The Times notes that there are some other factors that need to be considered, such as convention coverage now being shown on more channels. But even so, getting taht huge an audience for a convention is not easy.

The television audience for Mr. Obama’s speech was half again as large as the viewership for the acceptance speeches by President Bush and Senator John Kerry in 2004.

The biggest network winner: CNN which topped the list.

The lowest: Fox News and MSNBC — personality and ideology emphasizing networks that have started to resemble each other in tone, only with different political viewpoints — were the lowest.

What does this mean for the Democrats and Republicans?

Read the rest of this entry »

How do the French see the results of the Democratic convention and Obama’s strategy to win?

Philippe Gelie, Le Figaro’s chief Washington correspondent, writes on part:

“Long divided between Obamistas and Clintonites, the Pepsi Center arena in Denver definitively shook Wednesday night, in one of those theatrical political coups the Americans are so fond of. … Barack Obama leaves the convention in Denver with the keys to the Democratic Party. He has 67 days to convince Americans to give him the keys to the country.”

Read the rest of this entry »