No one could have anticipated that the Washington Post and Associated Press might completely over-read and misinterpret something that a Democratic candidate said. No one.

I guess the best thing for Obama right now is that there's no recording of him saying the equivalent of "I was for it before I was against it".

The Corporate-pig media wants a close race.

They see the apoplectic reaction from the left toward Obama on FISA, so they creat a "new controversy" in hopes of whipping up more discontent toward Obama from his base, while at the same time, trying to paint Obama as a "flip-flopper" to undermine his core message of change.

fortunately, it's the 4th of July weekend already, and most people are paying scant attention.

Right now, Obama's having a second press avail according to Mark Halperin at The Page to correct this misreporting.

Well, well, more distortions and making-shit-up from the MSM. Good thing we have TPM & Election Central to debunk the bullcrap.

Meanwhile, if anyone wondered what Barack is really planning on doing on the day of the big Senate vote on FISA, here is his schedule for next Tuesday evening, July 8:

"The candidate is then scheduled to participate in two events in Washington within the span of two hours on Tuesday. At 6 p.m., Mr. Obama is to attend a dinner at the home of Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, where guests must spend $28,500. At 7 p.m., he is expected at a V.I.P. photo reception at a nearby hotel, where the ticket price is $23,000."/

That is from this NYT piece talking about all the big-dollar fundraising Barack is doing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/us/politics/03donate.html?pagewanted=print

A little bit of John Solomon will forever linger at both institutions.

If I may make a suggestion, Greg, how about putting this on the TPM front page?

As if by magic, Barack just posted this over on HuffPo about three minutes ago:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/my-position-on-fisa_b_110789.html?view=print

He says, among other things, the following:

"Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down." *** [snip] "Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course."

Oh great, here's another media hack calling Obama's "refine" comment "ill-advised".

There was nothing wrong with Obama said - it's the idiotic media reaction that's the problem here.

The AP constantly gets the facts wrong, particularly where Dem candidates are concerned.

I can't stand Obama, as some of you may know, BUT - he ain't McSame, and I hope to hell he wins. Let's just hope he continues to defuse this kind of crap every time it comes up.

Giving Obama his due, I don't think it's a flip or a flop if he refines his position here. The situation in Iraq won't remain static; it would be silly for Obama's stance to remain so. It sounds like he knows that. Good on him.

And no, thanks. I'm not thirsty. ;)

Interestingly, Fox News appears to have the most reasonable and accurate headline:

Obama Willing to ‘Refine’ Iraq Withdrawal Plan

www.elections.foxnews.com

I guess even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

Well, the MSM is doing what it does. Obama needs to demonstrate what he and his campaign team is made of. Come out and make your position clear. Where do you stand? What can the electorate expect of you? Is he going to let the spinmeisters define him?

Obama is showing his inexperience. He's doing nothing except making problems for himself these days.

He might have been the media's darling during the primary, but the Press are out to bring him down now and he needs to learn how to deal with it and that means not speaking unless he absolutely has to.

It's really ridiculous, McCain has outright contradicted himself at least a dozen times and gets a free pass (outside of youtube vids).

With this much garbage being hurled at Obama today, I won't even have to send out my newsletter, Ha Ha Haaaa!

Cheers!

FUCKING REPORTERS!! LAZY PIECES OF GARBAGE!

The media has this all wrong. I have listened to every statement Obama has made on Iraq -- not only today, but throughout the campaign.

He has been consistent. His exit strategy has not changed -- it was 1 to 2 brigades a month then, it is 1 to 2 brigades a month now. He said then he would listen to commanders on the ground, he says now he will listen to commanders on the ground.

If you see or hear someone (like the mostly agreeable Michael Smerconish on Hardball) suggesting there is a difference between what Obama said in Feb 2007 (where he mentions a plan to have troops withdrawn by March of 2008) that plan was a BILL he submitted to the Senate, to establish a timeline of withdrawal. The Senate failed to secure enough Republican votes to ANY bill on withdrawal. Smerconish has it wrong, chose the wrong sound bite to illustrate his inaccurate point, and even listening from this morning to this afternoon, cannot show where Obama has changed his position on Iraq. He hasn't. As the saying goes, you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. You can make a tasty doggie treat.

If you recall during one of the myriad debates, Obama spoke of listening to commanders on the ground for their input and everyone in the media (along with a certain former candidate) went batshit crazy. There was no change in Obama's position. He has steadfastly said he would listen to the commanders on the ground. In the same interview where former foreign policy advisor Samantha Power used the "-onster" word, she was lambasted for repeating once again what had been Obama's position all along: that he would listen to the commanders on the ground to determine the rate of withdrawal, but that the goal would always be 1 to 2 brigades a month. Obama has always considered Afghanistan to be the priority. Getting troops out of Iraq will allow troops and resources to be redeployed to Afghanistan to catch Osama Bin Laden. You remember him, right? That 9/11 guy?

Do not be confused by the breathless media coverage of a "flip-flop" or "change in policy" or "new strategy." It is simply not the case. The media could use a case or two of Q-Tips.

There is no change, no flip-flop, no "nuance." He has been consistent, and you can count on that. This is the result of a very slow news day.

I just saw Obama has not taken on the idiots in the media for this kerfuffle, which of course they created, and instead turned it into:

"Obama says McCain camp mistates his Iraq policy."

Nice quick recovery by Team Obama.

It's funny how "alter" is a synonym of "refine",....but it's not the case in reverse order.

http://www.synonym.com

the MSM are a bunch of PIGS!

I started watching Hardball, some guy called Mike McConeofShit was subbing for Chris...He kept saying breaking news breaking news...etc.

MSNBC did not even have the nice RED breaking news thingy on, but he had his own breaking news moments for about 30 minutes!!! It was way funny, Simon from Politco was on with him, and he kept telling him that Obama was not changing his position on Iraq, and he would not do that, not on this kind of an issue...etc. But the bald host was not listening....He carried on with BREAKING NEWS, BREAKING BREAKING NEWS BREAKING NEWS...Blah blah blah

I'm the only one who is beginning to see Obama screwing this up? Badly handled.

Oh, give the news orgs a break. It is not as if we could expect fuckwits to understand English:

Refine:

1. To reduce to a fine, unmixed, or pure state; to free from impurities; to free from dross or alloy; to separate from extraneous matter; to purify; to defecate; as, to refine gold or silver; to refine iron; to refine wine or sugar.

2. To purify from what is gross, coarse, vulgar, inelegant, low, and the like; to make elegant or exellent; to polish; as, to refine the manners, the language, the style, the taste, the intellect, or the moral feelings.

Redefine:

1: give a new or different definition to; "She redefined his duties"
2: give a new or different definition of (a word)

Rather apropos on the MSM's part, actually.

Obama needs to learn the power of repetition. You say it exactly the same every single time--same words, same inflection, same facial expressions. Otherwise the press will accuse you of changing position. God, I'm sick of the B.S. There are about five competent reporters working in the United States today. The rest should find a line of work for which they are suited. Selling cars, perhaps.

Obama has, in the past few months, “refined” his previously-held positions on NAFTA, meeting unconditionally with our enemies, Reverend Wright, immunity for telecoms re: warrantless wiretapping, public campaign financing, the constitutional right to a handgun, whether the issue of gay marriage should be determined by each state, and now, the single issue that got Joe Lieberman ostracized from the Democratic Party…Iraq.

An open question for all Obama supporters:

Is there any policy position on which Obama could shift that would cause you to question or abandon your support for him?

The big problem for Obama is he now must play by the "Clinton Rules." That is, the media will lie, cheat and distort to make him look bad (remember the media narrative, Obama is young and inexperienced). And the worst ones will be the so-called "liberals" in the media. Such as Frank Rich, Gail Collins, Mark Shields, Richard Cohen, Chris Matthews, Margaret Carlson...on and on....

Here is my question: When did Barack Obama ever, ever shift his position on Iraq? To my knowledge the man has been consistent from the start. This is yet another example of poor journalism in America.

All the recent clips of Tim Russert have reminded me of a favorite tactic of his.

Senator, will you commit today to some action that would take place in the far-off future, and will you promise to never change your approach in any way, and if not, why?"

Haven't we already seen what five years of never changing your approach, regardless of the facts on the ground, can do to our country?

Any time you defend the press and blame Obama for turning the word "refine" into "change" or "alter"
then you contribute to the problem that plagues our system.

CN, anytime a woman files a rape charge while still wearing a halter top, did she screw up?