My experience of Barack's speech today was a little unusual. I was on the road, drving to Northern California (I'm blogging from the lobby of some hotel in Santa Rosa), and the only station I could find broadcasting the speech was on the freakin Rush Limbaugh show. He didn't play the whole thing but what he did play he spoke over intermittently with cranky commentary, as though he was one of those robots in Mystery Science Theatre 2000 critiquing a really bad film. So when Barack said "I come here as a fellow citizen of the world" Rush chimed in "citizen of the world? I'd like to see that passport." And when Barack said

The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand.  The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand.  These now are the walls we must tear down.

Rush complained that Barack was channeling Ronald Reagan except the walls Barack spoke of were "imaginary."

Oh, and I can't leave out that Rush consistently referred to the speech as "the messiah's sermon." And you'll be shocked to learn Rush didn't like the speech much. He was "disappointed" and felt it ran a bit short. Thanks for your concern, Rush.

But what struck me the most was a comment Rush made in some post-speech analysis: that Obama and Democrats in general "just don't understand American exceptionalism." In other words, this speech just reinforced the right's meme about Barack that he's un-American, despite the fact that it's actually quite a patriotic speech.

Now, I don't know Rush well enough to know the difference between when he actually believes something and when he's just spewing talking points, but this whole "American exceptionalism" thing struck me as a particular passion of Rush's and many of his callers.

For example, when Barack said:

Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen - a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.

Rush saw this as an insult to America because by declaring himself a citizen of the world, he was rendering his US citizenship as secondary.

And when Barack said:

Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law?  Will we welcome immigrants from different lands, and shun discrimination against those who don't look like us or worship like we do, and keep the promise of equality and opportunity for all of our people?

Rush considered this a blatant slam against America and George W. Bush. Who re-constructed Europe, Rush demanded angrily, who is the one country doing more for Africa than any other!?  

But what Rush and the whole "American exceptionalism" crowd don't get is that our outrage about what's happened over the past 8 years isn't about hating America, it's not about bashing America or our president. Rather, it's about the profound disappointment at what America has become under this president based on the deep belief that we are exceptional, that we are better than this and we should start acting like it.

As many have noted, John McCain's latest Iraq gaffe came in a doozy of an interview with CBS News wherein the presumptive Republican nominee either lied about the timing of the surge or didn't actually know the recent history of what's going on in Iraq. You pick which is worse.

From The New York Times:

Mr. McCain bristled in an interview with the "CBS Evening News" on Tuesday when asked about Mr. Obama's contention that while the added troops had helped reduce violence in Iraq, other factors had helped, including the Sunni Awakening movement, in which thousands of Sunnis were enlisted to patrol neighborhoods and fight the insurgency, and the Iraqi government's crackdown on Shiite militias.

"I don't know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened," Mr. McCain told Katie Couric, noting that the Awakening movement began in Anbar Province when a Sunni sheik teamed up with Sean MacFarland, a colonel who commanded an Army brigade there.

"Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others," Mr. McCain said. "And it began the Anbar Awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history."

Since that interview, it's been widely reported that the Anbar Awakening actually was in full effect during the fall of 2006 and Bush hadn't even announced the escalation of forces commonly referred to as "the surge" until January of 2007. Here again we have an episode in which John McCain demonstrates that he clearly doesn't understand that which he's supposed to be an expert at.

Cue one of McCain's patented explanations and clarifications. But this time he didn't go down the well-trodden "out of context" path, rather he simply completely redefined the meaning of the surge. Check this out:

McCAIN: ... Prior to that they had been going into places, killing people or not killing people, and then withdrawing. And the new counterinsurgency 'surge' entailed going in, and clearing and holding, which Col. MacFarland had already started doing. And then of course later on, there were additional troops. And Gen. Petraeus has said that the surge would not have worked and the Anbar Awakening would not have taken place -- successfully -- if they hadn't had an increase in the number of troops. So, I'm not sure, frankly, that people really understand, that a surge is part of a counterinsurgency strategy, which means going in, clearing, holding, building, building a better life, providing services to the people, and then, clearly, a part of that, an important part of that, was additional troops to ensure the safety of the sheikhs, to regain control of Ramadi, which was a very bloody fight, and then the surge continued to succeed in that counterinsurgency.

REPORTER: So when you say 'surge' then, you're not referring to just the one that President Bush initiated, you're saying it goes back several months before that?

McCAIN: Yes.

But, of course, this is completely revisionist as even McCain himself has on numerous occasions defined the surge as synonymous with the escalation in forces. Ilan Goldenberg takes us for a trip in the wayback machine:

Just two months ago McCain came under attack for saying this:

"I can tell you that it is succeeding. I can look you in the eye and tell you it's succeeding. We have drawn down to pre-surge levels."

Of course, U.S. forces hadn't drawn down to "pre surge" levels.  They are only now just getting back to 140,000, which is still above pre-surge levels.  But that's besides the point.  What was McCain referring in that moment?  Was he saying "We are drawing back down to where we were before Colonel McFarland started using counterinsurgency tactics in Anbar as part of the Anbar Awakening."  No, that is completely and patently absurd.  He meant that we are coming back down to pre-January 2007 numbers when the "surge" actually began.

In fact, he added later:

"The surge, we have drawn down from the surge and we will complete that drawdown to the end -- at the end of July. That's just a factual statement."

According to this statement John McCain is basically asserting that the surge is over.  But based on his own definition today the "surge" actually equals the counterinsurgency strategy.  So, is the counterinsurgency strategy over?  I think that might be news to General Petraeus.

John McCain: confused, now with an added dose of desperate.

What's going on tonight?

The just released poll has Obama up 6, identical to June's numbers.

Obama 47
McCain 41

The spin of Gregory's Road To The White House, which just broke the poll, is "no Middle East trip bump for Obama", since the poll was taken from Friday to Monday. More spin: why isn't Barack Obama further ahead? Hacks.

More enthusiasm gap from the poll:

Supporters' Views: Excited to Vote for Candidate

Obama 44
McCain 14

Ouch.

Update [2008-7-23 19:9:51 by Todd Beeton]:More from Hardball:

Top priority for federal government?

Jobs/Economy 23% (27%)
Energy/Gas 20% (18%)
Iraq War 16% (24%)

Chuck Todd bringing a dose of reality:

It's going to take a week or two to see if he gets a bounce out of [his Middle East trip.] We're not going to see it in an instant poll.

Update [2008-7-23 19:31:49 by Todd Beeton]:Link poll results is HERE. Jonathan called to alert me to this interesting result, which actually reflects more accurately what people's choices will be on the ballot in November:

Obama 48
McCain 35
Nader 5
Barr 2

Sshhh, don't tell David Gregory, his head might explode.

McCain has jokingly referred to the media as his base, but he may have singlehandedly lost that base this week. One of the more remarkable things about the success of Barack Obama's Middle East trip from an optics and media message perspective is how it has coincided so magnificently with a McCain meltdown. Even more remarkably, the media gets it and they are not pulling punches.

Hat tip to Al Rodgers whose dailyKos diary provides an excellent collection of cartoons, videos, transcripts and newspaper covers to document John McCain's worst week ever, from which I borrow liberally below:

On McCain's confusion, yep, it's official, linking it to his age is no longer taboo. Here's David Gergen on CNN:

Anderson, where I think this story is probably going to go is toward the issue of age.  

John McCain is nearing his 72nd birthday, which is coming this August.  You know, in the last few days, he has confused the border of Iraq and the border of Afghanistan.  Not long ago, he confused Somalia with Sudan.

And what you're going to do is find his critics arguing the age issue.  

And we have already -- already, on "LARRY KING" tonight, for example, there was a vigorous argument, about his age.

And what about McCain's attempt to gain points for being "right" about the surge? Here's Jack Cafferty ripping McCain:

Look, the surge is over.  The surge is over.

McCain needs to stop whining about the surge.

An interview saying if you'd known then what you know now, would have, could have, should have is totally irrelevant to what we do now with Iraq. [...]

So, you know, I'm tired of listening to McCain whine about he won't "say he was wrong about the surge," [mocking tone, original].

It just doesn't matter at this point!

And finally, in response to McCain's offensive claim that Barack Obama would prefer to lose a war to win a presidential election than win it, here is a disgusted Gergen:

Anderson, I do think it's a mistake, but I think the bigger mistake today was arguing, as you said earlier -- John McCain said twice today that that Senator Obama would rather lose a war than a campaign. That's a very tough charge.

...with which Joe Klein concurs:

But what he said today -- and David Gergen is absolutely right about this -- what he said about Barack Obama being willing to lose a war to win an election IS THE MOST SCURRILOUS THING THAT I HAVE HEARD A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SAY IN THE NINE ELECTIONS I HAVE COVERED.  [emphasis original].

About time.

At Take Back America this spring, Women's Voices Women Votes' Page Gardener discussed the importance of the unmarried women vote in 2008. One of her main points was that for the first time ever, there are almost as many unmarried women as married women, both at around 26% of the voting age population. Not only is this one of the fastest growing demographics in the country (10 million more unmarried women today than there were in 2000), but they turn out in smaller numbers than their married counterparts and are traditionally more likely to vote Democratic if they do turn out. For example married women voted for Bush over Kerry in 2004 55-44 whereas unmarried women voted for Kerry 62-37.

The importance of the unmarried women vote for Democrats in 2008 is underscored by the stunning results of a new poll conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner for the Women's Voices, Women Vote Action Fund of 1,004 unmarried women in battleground states. The states polled included Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

The results via press release:

A poll released today shows Obama leading by 32 points over McCain with unmarried women, with Obama besting McCain 61 to 29.  The poll demonstrates the importance of marital status in political choices - Obama leads by only 1 point with married women (polling 49-48 against McCain), a "marriage gap" of 31 points.  The poll, conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for Women's Voices Women Vote Action Fund, also shows no significant drop in support for Obama among unmarried women after Hillary Clinton left the race.

Obama has a particular advantage among unmarried women on the issues they care about:

When presented with each candidate's policies, unmarried women favor Obama over McCain on equal pay for women (73-19, a 54 point difference), on Iraq (67-27, a 40 point difference), and on access to abortion services (66 to 27, a 40 point difference).  Other distinguishing issues are health care (unmarried women favor Obama's policies 59 to 25, a 34 point margin), the economy (60 to 29, a 31 point margin), and gas prices (53 to 34, a 19 point margin).

And post-primary, while unmarried women have largely united behind Obama as the Democratic nominee, there is still significant room for growth among Hillary's core constituencies:

Among unmarried women, Obama is weakest with white seniors and white women without a college education.  While 56 percent of white senior unmarried women are Democrats or lean Democrat, only 48 percent are backing Obama, an eight point margin.  Among unmarried white women with no college education, 54 percent are or lean Democratic, but 44 percent back Obama, a 10 point margin.

Greenberg's conclusion:

Sometimes politics comes down to simple math. Unmarried women represent the nation's largest progressive base group and, according to current data, will support Barack Obama by at minimum 2:1 in November. Increasing their turnout--as a proportion of the total electorate - by 3-points will increase Obama's vote share by 2 points, unless views on the candidates change. In other words, rather than comprising 22 percent of the vote share, they would make up 24 percent of the vote share. Recall that they make up 26 percent of the voting age population - this simple math suggests that in unmarried women we will likely see the biggest potential gain in the progressive base.

The fight for swing groups like married women is important, but any progressive's overall margin among women depends on the continued loyalty and enthusiasm of unmarried women.

Count unmarried women among the demographic sleeping giants that Democrats, in an unprecedented coordinated effort, are poised to turn out in record numbers this fall, which will benefit not only Obama but our Democrats running all up and down the ticket.

A couple weeks ago, the DCCC revealed the 31 races they're targeting with $35 million worth of ad buys this fall (so far the time is just reserved, not bought.) The list consisted of 11 Democratic incumbents and one Dem open seat where the committee would be going on defense; the rest are seats currently held by the GOP.

We really have an embarrassment of riches this year, especially considering how many seats we took last cycle, but thanks to a plethora of GOP retirements and a favorable political environment for Democrats, whereas the DCCC's 2007 goal was to put 35-40 GOP seats in play, the 2008 reality is that there are actually 62 seats the DCCC considers competitive. So, it is not surprising to see the list of races where the DCCC is reserving ad time expand by 20 seats for a total of $53 million in 51 districts.

From Swing State Project:

AL-02 (Open): $598K
AL-05 (Open): $678K
AZ-08 (Giffords - D): $705K
CA-04 (Open) & CA-11 (McNerney - D): $2.03M
FL-18 (Ros-Lehtinen - R), FL-21 (L. Diaz-Balart - R) and FL-25 (M. Diaz Balart - R): $1.4M
ID-01 (Sali - R): $349K
IL-10 (Kirk - R): $1.4M
IL-11 (Weller - R): $1.6M
IL-14 (Foster - D): $1.02M
LA-04 (Open): $714K
MO-06 (Graves - R): $798K
MS-01 (Childers - D): $1.06M
NJ-03 (Open): $1.7M
NY-25 (Open), NY-26 (Open), NY-29 (Kuhl - R): $2.7M
WA-08 (Reichert - R): $949,000

Chris Cilizza breaks it down:

When examining all 51 districts in which the DCCC has so far reserved ad time, 34 of the districts (66 percent) are Republican held while the remaining 17 are controlled by Democrats.

Unlike elections past, however, House Democrats are focusing as much on incumbents as open seats. Of the 34 Republican seats, 17 are open while 17 are held by members. That speaks to the treacherous national environment in which the GOP currently finds itself with a far larger number of incumbents in jeopardy than previous elections.

Great to see they intend to compete hard for Darcy, Charlie Brown and Eric Massa among others. And it's good to see the DCCC is as bullish on those 3 southern Florida seats as I am after meeting Annette Taddeo and Joe Garcia at Netroots Nation.

What's going on tonight?

Update [2008-7-23 4:20:58 by Todd Beeton]:National Enquirer? Really?