Watching the debate tonight I kept hearing the chatter on the had the best exit strategy from Iraq, who would have kept us out of Iraq and who is better able to deal with the war we have in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

John won the exit strategy from Iraq, Barry won on who would have never gotten us into Iraq in the first place and it was a tie on who would best handle the Afghanistan Pakistan war. But there is one question that we have not explored in this debate and I believe is the most telling of the best person to lead us in this dangerous time.  Look at both of these men and ask yourself this single question -

Who would have had the guts to invade Afghanistan if they were in the White House on 9/11/2001.

I am certain that John McCain would have gone after the terrorists as soon as W did. He would have employed the much the same strategy. He demonstrated that by looking at the facts he was presented and voted to act to eliminate the threat in Iraq.

How many liberals were for the invasion?

Maybe 1 in 1,000 – what are the odds that Barak was the one?

Barak acts as if there was no question that we should have invaded Afghanistan, I am looking for a definitive statement from him on this issue in 2001. I know Barak and everyone else was for the invasion of Afghanistan in 2002 when we had been able to declare victory. That is an easy stance to take, looking in hindsight to see where we won and agree with that action.

    The fury with which that Barney Fran k and Chris Dodd are attacking the House Republicans you would think they had just taken food out of the mouths of their children. Well, maybe they did… Or possibly the House Republicans have a spine and are willing to use it to walk upright.

Great news for middle America. The House Republicans have stopped the Democrat express from rolling President Bush on this bail out. Clearly President Bush knows that urgent action is needed, and he has presented a possible solution that his advisors believe is in the best interests of the country. However it is clear that the Democrat leadership has been busy adding additional social programs that will turn a risky investment scheme into a spending bill in addition to adding necessary taxpayer protections. The portion of the agreement that Lindsey Graham disclosed that would funnel 20% of the payback into ACORN is just one of the unacceptable additions to this bill.

It should also be noted that it is very unusual to see the Democrat leadership aligned and willing to take a proposal by President Bush and pass legislation without making a significant political point. This should give anyone looking at this the impression that the Democrats can see the real possibility that Main Street will blame them for this mess. They want to make sure this gets off the front pages and do not want this to drag out just before the election.

The talk of the 2008 presidential campaign is the shutdown of John McCain’s campaign on Wednesday. Was it politics?, did he back stab Obama?, or was it country first in a time of crisis?

I believe it was a little of all of the above. Mostly though, it was the winning move in a political fight that Obama and Harry Reid were orchestrating. McCain received a call from Obama early on Wednesday asking if McCain would like to join him in publishing a joint set of principles on the bailout bill upon which the 2 of them agreed. McCain was calling multiple leaders of both parties and the administration to gauge the progress of the negotiations and status of the bill when Harry Reid informed McCain that he had a press release ready to announce the publishing of the Obama/McCain principles. Say what you want about McCain, but his political instincts that have been sharpened by 26 years in politics knew he was being played by the orchestrated efforts of the Democrat leaders in the Congress and the Obama campaign.

McCain did the right thing to take decisive action on this campaign and his involvement in the bail out bill. The Democrats did not want him in Washington and there is only one reason – they wanted Obama to own the economy. By pressing this bailout, the President and his administration own the problem. The only item left that has any political value is the “Solution” and “Leadership on the economy.” Since the solution is unpopular, the Obama campaign was more than willing to remain out of town to let the Congress craft the solution and gain politically from the “taxpayer protections” amendments that are being added to the administration’s proposed legislation.

That left “Leadership on the Economy” as the remaining item with political value. The best way for Obama to maintain that was to have both McCain and Obama remain out of Washington and by default that leaves Obama as the leader since he has that at present. What would we think about President Bush if he was in Florida preparing for a political debate or flying off to a political fund raiser right now? Who in their right mind would say “Well, a President has to have the ability to focus on more than one thing at a time.” That is ridiculous and this quote will come back to haunt Obama when the discussion comes on leadership of the economy question. He will have to say “As a sitting Senator and Presidential candidate, I was willing to let Chris Dodd, Harry Reid Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi fix the single biggest financial crisis in my lifetime.” Now that is lack of leadership we can believe in.

It is about country first, John McCain is willing to go into a political firestorm to rescue this country. If he were making a pure political calculation his campaign could have convinced any other politician that the benefit of fighting to leadership on the economy was not worth the potential risk of embracing this issue and it’s unpopular solution. I can imagine McCain sitting in New York pacing, calling, just itching to get into this issue with his colleagues back in Washington. Then to be pushed out by a freshman Senator and his ally Harry Reid was more than McCain could take. John McCain is running toward the fire in this country, not just sitting by because someone told him things would be better if he just stayed back.

Yes, McCain is playing politics with this issue. However he just one upped his opponents political gamesmanship. Yes, McCain realizes he is in a knife fight with a gang of political thugs and if they turn their back on you there is only one place to stab them. Yes, McCain is “Country First” and his desire to be part of an unpopular solution is proof of that.

   During a discussion in the day following the eruption over the Obama speech where he used the lipstick on a pig analogy I was stunned when Chris Matthews insisted that each guest tell him whether the guest could find Barak guilty of calling Sarah Palin a pig. I had never heard Chris demand this level of certainty with any other topic. Hey Chris, since slander is a civil matter the burden of proof to establish guilt is “preponderance of the evidence.” so let’s have a mock trial to see if we can prove guilt or will Barak not be liable.

There are 2 defenses for Barak on this charge.

• First Barak’s defenders say that he was referring to the mantle of change that the John McCain was adopting – i.e. John McCain can say he will bring change, He can put lipstick on a Pig (his change), but it (his change)is still the same old thing. They will point out that Palin wasn’t mentioned until later in the speech so it could not have been Palin that he was referring to.
• Second, Barak’s defenders will say that this is a common phrase, even being used by John McCain when describing Hillary’s Health Care plan. Plus Barak’s defenders will run all of the different uses of this phrase by other political figures.

Now for the prosecution – For the record, let’s restate what Barak actually said that day. “The other side, suddenly, they’re saying ‘we’re for change too’. Now think about it, these are the same folks that have been in charge for the last eight years. You can put lipstick on a pig.(pause for response) It’s still a pig. You can wrap up an old fish in a piece of paper and call it change. It’s still going to stink after eight years. We’ve had enough,”

The prosecution will prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Barak was talking about McCain and Palin and then called them and pig and an old fish. There is only one reasonable interpretation is that Palin is the pig and McCain is the old fish. Further the delivery pattern of the comment indicates that Obama knew that the audience would get the joke and paused at the intended punch line after he referred to Palin as a pig.

• Barak was talking about McCain and Palin, not about the mantle of change the lipstick was going on.
• Barak said “They are for change…” Who is THEY? Is it likely THEY = McCain and Palin? Yes it is likely. Then Barak said, mocking whoever THEY were, “we’re for change too…” Who is the we in this sentence? Is it likely that we = McCain and Palin? We has to refer to McCain and Palin or the whole sentence doesn’t make any sense for a campaign speech. The only way that this is not McCain and Palin is if Barak suddenly cannot use the English language correctly.

We must conclude that the first part of the comment was focused on McCain and Palin. This indicates that there is a reference to the 2 Republican candidates and their description as the people that can bring change. Clearly Palin is in the conversation at this point. Which removes the defense that she is not mentioned until later in the speech.

• Then Barak focused on the persons that are “They” and “We” in the start of the comment “…these are the same folks…” No mention of change, only comment of the people. If the defense wants to equate Barak’s use of lipsick on a pig to McCain’s earlier use of lipstick on a pig then they will have to reconcile this important difference. It is at this point in the John McCain discussion on Hillary’s health care that he spoke directly about the health care plan. John McCain was clearly talking about the health care plan not Hillary.
• After the descriptions of “…these are the same people…” the pig comment immediately followed by the old fish comment. One damning point - Barak uses two analogies not one– Why? Is he talking about 2 people – that is the only conclusion that makes sense. So who is the pig and who is the fish?
• Let’s look into the “old fish wrapped in a piece of paper and call it change.” The big question is what is being called change? It could be the old fish and the paper, or it could be the piece of paper. If you were talking about the old fish and paper then the paper is change and the old fish is McCain or Palin. Does it make sense if the paper is change? Not really, so we are left with the conclusion that there is an old fish wrapped in paper and it is being called change.

I would conclude beyond a reasonable doubt at this point that Barak is referring to the McCain/Palin ticket as a pig and an old fish. Who is the pig and who is the old fish… I haven’t seen John McCain in lipstick and I would not call Palin old – that leads me to conclude that Palin is the pig and McCain is the old fish.

Is the jury still not convinced? Well there are 2 other telling items in the delivery of the comment by Barak.

• Why the pause just after the phrase “…you can put lipstick on a pig…(pause)” Why would Barak think that the punch line is at that point? In every other instance of delivery of this analogy the punch line is after “…it is still a pig!” If this was calling the mantle of change as the pig, there would not have been a punch line until the end of the pig comment.
• The other telling point about Barak using this phrase is that his use of this phase prior to this speech is non-existent. The addition of the old Fish combined with the pig comment makes this even more unusual.

Message to Chris Mathews: Barak Obama has been found guilty of libel in calling his opponent a pig. This libel is exacerbated by the reluctance to admit his libel and the lack of apology for his actions.