America needs to get fit or go broke

I write this post as I prepare to head to the high school track for a jog. I'm an avid jogger. Moreover, I'm religious about exercise (perhaps the only thing I'm actually religious about). I've reached a point in my life where I'm more fit than I've ever been. Whatever I'm doing day-to-day, exercise has to be part of my routine. It's a must. But this isn't how it's always been.

This post was stimulated by an article in the New York Times about taxing people more for being overweight. With the health care reform debate all over the news, perhaps one of the most important--but oft-overlooked--factors is prevention. Health care costs are rising exponentially, and will continue to do so, threatening our economy and crushing the middle class (which is why reform is essential). Yet "reform" is really about reforming the insurance industry. Rising costs are due to people becoming sicker. Another recent article in the Huffington Post reported that we spend $2.1 trillion a year on medical care, 95 percent of which treating diseases already occurring, 75 percent of which are largely preventable (diabetes, heart disease, obesity).

If we are talking about serious reform, and if we want the whole country in on the game, we've got to start having conversations about becoming a healthier population. Americans are notorious consumers. We don't just eat, we overeat. We don't just drink, we binge. Americans love excess. And yet it's killing us.

The Times article reports that people over 50 weigh 20 lbs more today than they did in the 1970s. People are eating more and exercising less. This has a lot to do with people's daily routines. With work and childcare, exercise is difficult to pencil-in. And with the economy in recession, folks are forced to live on the cheap. Fruits and vegetables happen to be more expensive than snacks, soda, and fast food. It's a painful reality.

And yet, the logic is sound. In an insurance system, you pay more for risky behavior. If you get in a car accident, your insurance goes up. The assumption is you might be a reckless driver, and higher insurance acts as a deterrent. Shouldn't it be the same for health insurance? If you purposefully make yourself unhealthy, by smoking or eating poorly (and yes, they are similar) shouldn't you pay more?

Someday I'd like to write a book called How to Live a Happy Life. Now, I'm not claiming to be an expert on health or wellness, but I feel healthy. I feel fit. And I don't get sick often. Making exercise and fitness an integral part of your life, I would recommend, is absolutely essential.

As I said at the start, I haven't always been fit. I used to weigh over 200 lbs in high school (now I hover around 188). I was never an active kid. Finally, because I felt left-out, I joined the track team in my sophomore year. I can remember the first day of practice. We did a 3/4 mile warm-up. I can remember how painful it was for me. My head was pounding by the end. It was awful. Everyday after that I told myself I couldn't keep it up. I'd think, "Tomorrow I'm going to quit." But remarkably I didn't.

That was it. Since then I've been hooked. Today I'm very fit, but it's taken me a long time and a lot of persistence to get to where I am.

Whenever I talk to friends who are unhappy with their weight or bodies, and they tell me "I want to lose weight," my response is only ever, "You can." Yes genetics are involved, but exercise is more than about physical appearance. It's also about improving your cardiovascular system and making yourself stronger. If you jog or bike regularly, your heart will be so much healthier.

But it also seems to me there are some folks who go to the gym and waste time. If you're serious about becoming healthy--and I think becoming healthy requires both diet and exercise--then working out should be difficult. I still go jogging and have to push myself. It's important you become your own coach. When you're running and you begin to lag, you need to keep yourself going. It has to be a challenge. Do one more lap. Sprint the last straight-away. If you go to the gym and do the same thing everyday at the same speed, you might not be helping yourself. You've got to sweat. And sometimes, It's got to hurt. It's a total cliche, but it's absolutely true: no pain, no gain.

Practical considerations matter, of course. Physical impairments like knee problems etc. It's important that you're conscious of those things and that you don't make them worse. But there are ways to still remain healthy, like doing a lower impact exercise like biking or the elliptical.

So I think I've ranted too much here already. My main point is this: if you want to lose weight and get healthy, you can. But you have to be serious. Pay attention to what you eat. Healthy food and unhealthy food are easy to recognize. And exercise. I've reached a point where if I don't work out, maybe for a few days, I get depressed. My body starts thinking, "What's wrong? This isn't normal." Working out absolutely has to be part of my daily routine. But you can only reach that point if you're persistent. It will take time (as it did for me) and that depends on the individual.

If you exercise more, the improvements will come. Your self-image will improve, you will have more energy, you'll be sick less, you'll never get depressed, and you'll be an overall more productive individual.

In the end, easier said than done. Again, we don't have a culture in the United States that encourages being healthy. There are all kinds of obstacles. But if we don't do something, if we don't have these kinds of conversations, as harsh as the topics may seem, then we'll continue to become less healthy. We can get coverage for the 46 million uninsured, but the system will never improve and never become less expensive if folks don't start taking responsibility for themselves.

Watch Carlos Watson

I'm officially a fan of Carlos Watson. I mentioned him in my last post about the town hall protesters. His comments, as I said, were "shrewd and accurate." Clearly, Carlos is a thinker, and I like thinkers. He also seems to be a little bit of a provocateur, which is even cooler. I love people who love controversy (exactly why I love Bill Maher).

Watson is the anchor of MSNBC Live at 11 AM Monday through Friday. He also appears on Morning Joe a few mornings a week (which I'll tout as the best morning show on cable news). In addition, as I recently discovered, he created The Stimulist (thestimulist.com).


Described by Watson, The Stimulist is as "original take on the daily news: a tasty mix of rising stars, provocative ideas, and inspiring stories." It's billed as "The Optimist's Daily Brief." I love it! I think Watson is one to watch. And if he keeps offering insightful nuggets like his recent N-word remarks, then consider me a lifetime subscriber.

Not to mention he's a sharp dresser.

They're as mad as hell...

Today I watched a live stream from a town hall meeting held by Senator Arlen Specter. Specter is a trooper. He's 79, and he's held four town halls in the past four days. These town halls are infamous for the angry citizens in attendance. They're boisterous, vocal, and holler out-of-turn. And they're just PISSED about proposed health care reform.

Or are they...

Let me say that I don't believe the "mobs" as they're called are all being rounded-up and sent out by right-wing organizations funded by lobbyists and former Bushies (though many are). A lot of them are actually springing up from the grassroots.

But what is it exactly that they're angry at? Listening to these town halls, it's clear folks do not understand what health care reform actually entails. Senators and members of congress attempt to explain and dispel rumors, but many people won't listen. They whip "LIAR" right back into their representatives faces. Many members (mostly Dems) aren't holding town halls. Some have degenerated into violence. Some have received death threats.

Some (and by some I mean very few) have speculated on where this anger is coming from. Some, of it surely, is pure racism. I am not saying that opposing health care means you are a racist, but listening to folks spew about socialism, "their America" slipping away, it's clear there's something amiss. They aren't just concerned about health reform. There's a contingent of the population that feels threatened, if not under siege. Many are older. Many of them are white. It just so happens we just recently elected an African American to the highest office in the land. And his name isn't 'Colin Powell' or even 'Michael Steele' ...it's Barack Hussein Obama.

Carlos Watson recently mused on MSNBC that "socialism" in some cases might be code for the N-word. And while Carlos also doesn't intend to label all those opposed to health care reform as racists, his point is shrewd and accurate. But it's obvious the post-racial society we were dreaming of during the '08 election is far from a reality. Racial animus exists. Right-wingers aren't helping by ginning up fear about what Obama's government is planning for our future.

The anger and venom at these town halls is like nothing I've ever seen. A woman at one of Specter's town halls said "You've awoken the sleeping giant." I wonder what it will do next..

For some context, here are Carlos Watson's comments on MSNBC:

Latest Potter flick might be best so far

Lately it seems impossible to get my friends to go out to a movie. I suppose at our age, most us of us prefer to go to the bar (admittedly, a trip to the bar is hard to turn down). And it's understandable. Movies aren't really social activities. And they're expensive. A trip to the movies can run you maybe 15 to 20 bucks after popcorn, candy, slushee etc. (I happen to love slushees).

That aside, it really depends on the movie. Some movies are more like "events." It wasn't hard to convince ANYONE to see The Dark Knight last summer. It's rare you meet a person now who hasn't (and if you do, you can't help feeling sorry for whomever that poor sap might be).

The Harry Potter movies always seem to be just those kinds of "event" movies. But just my luck! Once again, I miss the boat. By the time I find time or inclination to go out and see it, nobody wants to or everyone already has. When I was asked by a coworker if I wanted to join some friends for a movie, I said HP was probably the only thing out I wanted to see. This particular person responded by saying it was "boring" and that a friend, who was an avid fan, thought it was the worst so far. I'd heard similar grumblings of displeasure--such things only heighten my interest.

Well, I'm happy to report, now having finally seen the movie, it is in fact NOT boring and probably the best film so far.

I think the problem with the Potter movies, which is often pointed out by critics, is that it seems the filmmakers struggle to make a film to please casual moviegoers as well as avid fans of the books. The first two films were pretty straightforward page-to-screen adaptations. Just a visual representation of the books--no interpretation necessary. Efficient is a good word for them. And they were good. Very fun and great-looking. But it was easy to see that there was potential with these movies that wasn't being tapped.

Half-Blood Prince is perhaps the most organic of all the movies. It feels like a film in its own right, and less like a "version" of something else. It's also the most mature, dark, and melancholy of all the films. It's understandable why some would find it dull. But I actually enjoyed every second. The visuals are great. And despite the gloom and doom, it's occasionally very funny, especially in scenes featuring the principal trio.

The cast is brilliant as usual. The three young leads have clearly grown into their roles and are better than ever. They're refreshing to watch. And the roster of British talent continues to grow. The latest addition is the great Jim Broadbent as Slughorn. His performance is one of the best things about the movie.

A note on Michael Gambon as Dumbledore: I think there have been mixed feelings ever since the passing of Richard Harris, but Gambon does an excellent job. Some critics find his portrayal too aloof, his connection to Potter lacking. But I think it's right. Gambon is admittedly less warm, and more mysterious than Richard Harris. But given Dumbledore's fate, I think it's appropriate.

The Potter films, like the books, seem to only get better. As times goes by, and the characters grow and mature, so do the stories. As the subject matter becomes darker, more complex, it becomes that much more interesting.

Obama’s FDR moment: time for a new New Deal?

Seventy-six years ago, Franklin Roosevelt struck a New Deal with America. His first term as president ushered in a new era of sweeping progressive reform. He restructured the country’s financial systems and established audacious programs like Social Security to lift America out of the Great Depression. His ideological opponents equated him with Marx and Lenin. But the country embraced Roosevelt and his agenda. They still do.

Today the United States find itself once again in the midst of economic turmoil. Financial markets are crashing. Unemployment is rising. Americans are losing their homes and their healthcare. They can’t pay the bills, pay for food, or fill up the gas tank. Everyone is feeling the squeeze. Economic security seems nonexistent. The people want action.

The election of Barack Obama seems to signal that the country is desperate for change. The hands-off, laissez-faire attitudes of the past just won’t cut it. Americans want relief, not someone telling them tough it out—better to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Obama is not unlike Franklin Roosevelt in what he proposes to address the crisis. In fact, the president-elect and his staff are currently studying-up on FDR’s first hundred days. America might just be headed for another new era of progressive reform. Obama can strike a new New Deal.

The change would be wholly welcome.

With the country facing such peril, and with such possibility at our fingertips, there is an opportunity to go even further than Roosevelt was able. Not just to change habits, but change ideas. And that’s exactly what FDR wanted.

Even in the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt was adept enough to recognize that the country was changing. The economy was changing. In a speech to Congress in 1944, FDR acknowledged America’s growth since its founding “under the protection of certain inalienable rights” like free speech, press, and worship. “They were our rights to life and liberty.” But with the advent of industrialization, “these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness,” he pressed.

Ultimately Roosevelt asserted, “true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.” By what means do we have the mere ability to exercise political freedom in absence of economic standing? The answer is none. “Necessitous men are not free men,” the president quoted.

Roosevelt, though, was perhaps to presumptuous in declaring “these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident.” He assumed the country had embraced these ideas, and might go so far as to codify them as a second Bill of Rights, “under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all - regardless of station, race, or creed.” He was mistaken. A second bill never materialized. FDR’s speech has largely been forgotten.

What is truly striking is how prescient FDR’s words are today. Once again the country is changing. The economy is changing. Indeed, the world is changing. The old ways of doing things won’t suffice. Perhaps it’s worth taking a second look at FDR’s second Bill of Rights.

Barack Obama is currently riding a wave of support on the heals of his landslide electoral victory in the presidential election. Polls suggest overwhelming confidence in the president-elect to deal with the economic crisis. Even in 2004, with the country sharply polarized, George W. Bush claimed political capital from his narrow re-election victory that he intended to spend. Obama has an even more legitimate claim, and even greater spending power.

Indeed, it is high time the country’s leadership acknowledged what FDR found so painfully obvious. In times of change and uncertainty, Americans have an irrefutable right to demand economic security. The free-market capitalist mentality of the United States has long prevented us from declaring any fundamental economic rights. It’s time we did.

Obama can do it. Like Roosevelt, he’ll be called a socialist and a Marxist. Indeed, he already has. The same opponents who level attacks against the new president-elect espouse the same ideology as those who attacked FDR. New Deal policies were considered too audacious—many free-market thinkers still condemn the establishment of the welfare state. FDR’s public works programs put millions back to work. Social Security gave seniors the ability to retire with dignity. Roosevelt would be re-elected by landslide margins three times. Who did the people trust?

It rights FDR specifically referred were, fundamentally, the right to a “remunerative job,” the right to provide for a family, the right to a “decent home,” “decent medical care,” and a “good education.” Should we, as Americans, as citizens of the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth, be able to take those things for granted? The answer is an unequivocal yes. These are things most of take for granted, but things that are also denied millions of Americans. It’s an outrage.

It would be silly to think of those things as anything but rights. But the fundamental principle still must be recognized: economic rights and political rights are inextricable. Period. The issue is both normative and practical. We can no longer cling to outdated notions, asserting that alleviating poverty is a matter of personal responsibility. We can no longer claim that economic mobility is a guarantee. We can no longer deny that some are simply denied mobility by no fault of their own.

Obama can do it. Obama should do it.

Cass Sunstein provides explicit retorts to the inevitable arguments against a second bill in his book The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More Than Ever (2006). Inevitably there will be those who claim, “the second bill would destroy people’s incentive” and “give citizens an unhealthy and even destructive sense of entitlement.” The U.S. was founded on the notion of self-reliance, and any system of welfare is antithetical to that very fundamental principle. But Sunstein points out that Roosevelt was well aware of this. The bill does not guarantee welfare rights, merely rights to opportunity. Roosevelt wanted protection of these rights “based fundamentally on free enterprise.”

It obvious that the rights in the second bill might be viewed as foreign with respect to the traditional conception of rights, as Sunstein points out. Many would point out that the original Bill of Rights is comprised of “negative rights,” or protections from government intrusion, while the second includes “positive rights,” or guarantees of government help. Sunstein negates the distinction, pointing out that the rights in the original bill “are rights to government help too.” Is there any doubt that one’s freedom of speech is not enabled by access to public space, which is maintained and policed by government?

Still, there are those who conceive of rights in an entirely different way. Perhaps they view the original bill as including rights conferred by God. Indeed, the text of our founding documents references a “creator.” Sunstein’s response here is slight, though it is sufficient given that these objections are as arbitrary as one’s assertion that the rights in the second bill as also natural or God-given.

Sunstein also quells concerns that a second bill might lead to a European-style “full-blown commitment to a welfare state,” the results of which, he suggests, “Roosevelt himself might abhor.” Implementing policies such as those suggested by the second could lead to massive over-regulation of markets, some fear, as has been seen abroad. Sunstein points out carefully that “the second bill specifies certain ends; it is agnostic about how to achieve them.”

Finally is the classic objection to redistributing wealth. Barack Obama was attacked heavily by his opponent toward the end of the campaign for wanting to “spread the wealth around.” His tax policies were labeled “redistributive” and socialistic. Sunstein points out the second bill means to advance liberty—by way of ensuring economic freedom—not equality. Roosevelt himself wanted the private economy to secure resources. But he did indeed seek to take from those with means to provide for those who are “in desperate need.” Sunstein asserts that government enables all wealth—even of the wealth. But Susnstein also ensures the Roosevelt did not mean to establish a “tyrannical” government bureaucracy. Wherever possible, free markets solutions would be preferred, and regulation should not be feared.

Sunstein’s responses are clearly answer the concerns of those who would object to the underlying ideals of a second Bill of Rights. The answers, inevitably, will be insufficient for some. But attempts at progress will always face dissenters.

What should not be ignored is that both Roosevelt and Obama believe in the free market. Obama himself has stated frequently that nobody expects government to solve all their problems—nor do the people expect it. What the two men agree on is that government has a role, and it can be an effective one. There are some things the free market cannot, and will not provide. Government can step in, in these instances.

Today we find ourselves at a point in history much like that in the 1930s. FDR and Obama both recognize it. Obama has an opportunity to change the country, and beyond. He has an opportunity to succeed, perhaps, where FDR did not. There is no doubt Obama will pursue audacious progressive policies that will be embraced, I expect, much like the ones from the New Deal. But he can do more. He can finally put to rest, or at least adequately marginalize—just as FDR’s second bill was marginalized—the failed ideas of the laissez faire crowd.

I stop short of suggesting a second Bill of Rights be adopted as part of the existing Constitution. I agree with Sunstein—one wonders how it could be enforced. FDR didn’t mean for it to be adopted in that way either. But the fundamental principles are sound. As sound as they were in 1944. Americans have more claim to certain economic rights than ever before. And Obama should use this moment in history to assert them. And he can.

Yes, he can.

How change happens: lessons for any movement

“My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.” Gerald Ford said that in 1974 upon being sworn-in as president. The country had just endured the Watergate scandal. What’s remarkable is how salient his words are today.

For many Americans, the election of Barack Obama means the end of another nightmare: the presidency of George W. Bush. The outgoing chief executive currently polls less favorably than any president since polling began. The defeat of John McCain meant avoiding another four years of the same failed policies.

For many, there was a palpable sense of relief at 11 p.m. on November 4, when polls closed on the west coast. Obama had enough electoral votes to be declared president-elect. It was a moment some thought they would never see—one many had hoped for and nobody took for granted.

For gay Americans—myself included—the relief was overwhelming. There was much at stake in this election, for LGBTs in particular. Either we would have a president who could empathize with our community, or one more comfortable with pushing it further to the margins. That’s not to suggest Obama’s election means automatic equality, just like it doesn’t signal an end to racial discrimination. The road ahead is still a steep one, and there continue to be setbacks.

Just as Californians voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama for president—over 60 percent—they also narrowly passed Proposition 8—52 to 48 percent—denying same-sex marriage rights. Bans were also passed in Florida and Arizona by even larger margins. One step forward and three steps back, it seems.

Clearly there is still a ruling class in America, and their disposition is clear on the issue of marriage. But take a lesson from history. When the Supreme Court declared Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law unconstitutional in 1967, it was an affront to the values of most Americans. It’s a point same-sex marriage advocates press repeatedly. The courts exist to defend minorities from the tyranny of the majority. It’s a fundamental principle upon which the country was founded.

Obama’s election halts the Supreme Court’s rightward shift. For liberal activists, this issue was priority. Any new judicial appointment should be reliably liberal. Considering how the marriage issue is faring on the ballot, it’s more likely to come up in courts across the country—like it did here in Connecticut. Results may vary.

Still, there is no guarantee, despite a record more friendly to LGTBs, that Obama will be an ally to the community. During the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, both President Kennedy and President Johnson were sympathetic to the cause, though restrained in their actions and hesitant to intervene. Gay rights activists will simply have to forge ahead.

That lesson is timeless. As Dr. King wrote from his Birmingham jail cell, “Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability.” Yes, we can take Obama’s election as a signal of progress. He’s the first ethnic minority elected as head-of-state of any country in world history. It’s a testament to the spirit of America, a country that continues to reinvent itself, and surprise the world. But his election was never inevitable.

Obama repeatedly reminded supporters during the primary campaign of the unlikelihood of his candidacy. It was an appeal to keep working. He would talk about the uncertainty ahead, and the necessity of volunteers who never lose hope. Dr. King’s message was the same in his letter from the Birmingham jail. And it’s a lesson gay rights activists must cling to. Like those ‘60s activists, they will have to take their fight to the streets, to the courts, and all across the country.

Progress is only inevitable as long as there are people willing to work for it. They knew that in the ‘60s. We knew that throughout this election. Barack Obama declared in on election night, “It’s been a long time coming,” like the line from the old Sam Cooke song. But that night, Obama ended it with, “Change has come to America.”

As gay Americans, we can take solace that change will come. But we know we have to work for it. The road ahead is long and uncertain. But as long as hope is alive, work continues. And as long as work continues, change will happen.

Iraq P.M. says U.S. must go

George W. Bush once said, when the Iraqis want us to go, we'll go. Actually, the exact quote is, "If they were to say leave, we would leave." He said that last year (thanks HuffPost).

Well, they're saying it.

According to the Times Online, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is calling for a U.S. timetable for withdrawal. President Bush has long opposed the idea, and continues to do so, as does John McCain. Currently there are 145,000 U.S. servicemen and women serving in Iraq.

The Times reports al-Maliki's boasting that he has "crushed terrorism" in the country. Now he wants timetables.

John McCain has been echoing Bush in calling Iraq the central front in the U.S. War on Terror. He insists upon staying for "as long as it takes" and that we will be victorious -- statements that conflict with other statements that troops will be home at the end of his first term (sounds like a timetable to me...). He routinely lambastes Obama and Democrats for calling for timetables for withdrawal, calling such policies naive and precipitous.

Bush has always insisted that we will follow advice from commanders on the ground. The midterm congressional elections in 2006 forced Bush to reevaluate his "stay the course" policy, so he introduced the "surge" strategy, putting General David Petraeus in charge of operations. The new strategy was supposed to expedite a reconciliation process for the Iraqi government, offering breathing room to reach benchmarks, after which troops would draw down.

As has been the case before, Bush and others shifted goal posts. Soon there was little talk of political reconciliation, and more discussion of decreasing levels of violence. So-called "victory" has never been defined explicitly.

Though violence is currently down (even Democrats acknowledge it) only about half the U.S. established benchmarks have been met. But McCain and Republicans insist the strategy is succeeding and the U.S. is winning. Obama continues to call for a timetable.

I appears al-Maliki shares the sentiment. And as far as I'm concerned, we should take his advice. I have always felt we should leave immediately. Hopefully this story gives the strongest Iraq withdrawal proponents some much needed fuel. I want to see Bush held to the fire. I want to see McCain held to account. I want to know why we should remain because I haven't heard a good excuse yet.

And just following Bush's words last year ("...we would leave."), I think we can take that as sign enough to begin draw down immediately. And I think we must.

Maliki's exact statements on withdrawal were given during a visit to UAE: “The current trend is to reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to put a timetable on their withdrawal." Apparently, the Times reports, this stems from growing confidence of the Iraqi leadership. The U.S., as an occupying force, has strong influence. But friction exists. The Iraqi leadership prefers a Shia-dominant government, something the U.S. opposes. The U.S. also wants to eradicate Iranian influence. The Iraqi government presently has strong ties to the Iranians.

During his questioning of David Petraeus in the Senate this spring, Obama referred to Iran specifically, insisting that some Iranian influence is inevitable and questioned whether opposition to all influence is realistic.

Nouri al-Maliki's comments hint at future cooperation with Obama, the Times reports. I think we can expect close cooperation, especially if al-Maliki remains in favor of a timetable.

The Times reports al-Maliki and the Iraqi government's efforts to speed up reconciliations, such as agreements on long-term U.S. presence, which the Iraqi government and the Bush administration sometimes disagree on.

As a sign of defiance, and continuing stubbornness to "stay the course," the Times reports the Pentagon's response to al-Maliki's comments continued their insistance that timetables are "artificial" and that withdrawal will depend on "conditions on the ground." This is the same cryptic rhetoric we've heard before from Petraeus, Bush, and others.

Obama, I think we can expect, and as I said before, should be less stubborn, more willing to negotiate and conform to the wishes of al-Maliki -- which is not only appropriate, but exactly what we ought to be doing.

Now, I hardly expect a story like this to push Iraq back to center-stage, as I'd like it to be. Not this week, when McCain has introduced a new economic plan (really just a re-introduction of his old one) and the debate continues to focus on the economy. But hopefully we'll hear plenty from the netroots, liberal commentators and other progressive leaders (including Obama). Hopefully this story can give them fuel to renew calls for withdrawal (even John Murtha is highlighting decreases in violence).

The media of late seems to be purporting success in Iraq. Obama and Democrats must continue to resist even as they reconcile it's recession as a major issue.

My opinion remains the same: I thought we should have started withdrawing a year ago, even earlier. I still do. The sooner the better. And Obama is smart to focus on Afghanistan, insisting on its importance as the situation their continues to decline. He ought to be able to force McCain into a corner over his instance that Iraq as "central front." Also, recent polling suggests more than 60 percent of Americans favor withdrawal.

Good news for Obama.