Software spots the spin in political speeches

New Scientist Tech

BLINK and you would have missed it. The expression of disgust on former US president Bill Clinton's face during his speech to the Democratic National Convention as he says "Obama" lasts for just a fraction of a second. But to Paul Ekman it was glaringly obvious.

"Given that he probably feels jilted that his wife Hillary didn't get the nomination, I would have to say that the entire speech was actually given very gracefully," says Ekman, who has studied people's facial expressions and how they relate to what they are thinking for over 40 years.

It seems that Clinton's micro-expression gave away more about his true feelings than he intended. Politicians do not usually give themselves away so tellingly, and many of us would like to know whether they mean what they are saying. So how are we to know when they are lying?

Technology is here to help. Software programs that analyse a person's speech, voice or facial expressions are building upon the work of researchers like Ekman to help us discover when the truth is being stretched, and even by how much. "The important thing to recognize is that politicians aren't typically good at out-and-out lies, but they are very adept at dancing around the truth," says David Skillicorn, a mathematics and computer science researcher at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. "The 2008 election has so far given us plenty of chances to see them in action."

Skillicorn has been watching out for verbal "spin". He has developed an algorithm that evaluates word usage within the text of a conversation or speech to determine when a person "presents themselves or their content in a way that does not necessarily reflect what they know to be true".

The algorithm counts usage of first person nouns - "I" tends to indicate less spin than "we", for example. It also searches out phrases that offer qualifications or clarifications of more general statements, since speeches that contain few such amendments tend to be high on spin. Finally, increased rates of action verbs such as "go" and "going", and negatively charged words, such as "hate" and "enemy", also indicate greater levels of spin. Skillicorn had his software tackle a database of 150 speeches from politicians involved in the 2008 US election race (see diagram).

When he analyzed the speeches of John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, he found that even though the speeches were rehearsed, written by professionals and delivered by trained speakers, there were discernible differences between them. "It's clear that the speeches are still highly individualized," says Skillicorn. "This makes sense as the speeches have to, in some manner, reflect the speaker's own voice and opinions. Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to deliver them convincingly."

Additionally, he says, little details count: pronouns such as "we" and "I" are often substituted subconsciously, no matter what is written in the script.

Each of the candidates had made speeches containing very high and very low levels of spin, according to Skillicorn's program, depending on the occasion. In general though, Obama's speeches contain considerably higher spin than either McCain or Clinton. For example, for their speeches accepting their party's nomination for president, Obama's speech scored a spin value of 6.7 - where 0 is the average level of spin within all the political speeches analysed, and positive values represent higher spin. In contrast, McCain's speech scored -7.58, while Hillary Clinton's speech at the Democratic National Convention scored 0.15. Skillicorn also found that Sarah Palin's speeches contain slightly more spin than average.

So the analysis appears to back up McCain's claim that he is a "straight talker". However, for the purposes of political speech-making this may not be an entirely good thing for him. "Obama uses spin in his speeches very well," says Skillicorn. For example, Obama's spin level skyrockets when facing problems in the press, such as when Jeremiah Wright, the reverend of his former church, made controversial comments to the press.

"When you see these crises come along, the spin goes up," Skillicorn says. "Obama is very good at using stirring rhetoric to deal with the issues. And it seems to work if you look at what happens in the polls afterwards."

McCain does not seem as adept at using spin to his advantage, and his "straight talk" can make his speeches fall flat from a motivational point of view, according to Branka Zei Pollermann, founder of the Vox Institute in Geneva, Switzerland, who has analysed the candidates' voices for communication consultants Clearwater Advisors, based in London.

"The voice analysis profile for McCain looks very much like someone who is clinically depressed," says Pollermann, a psychologist who uses voice analysis software in her work with patients. Previous research on mirror neurons has shown that listening to depressed voices can make others feel depressed themselves, she says.

Pollermann uses auditory analysis software to map seven parameters of a person's speech, including pitch modulation, volume and fluency, to create a voice profile. She then compares that profile with the speaker's facial expressions, using as a guide a set of facial expressions mapped out by Ekman, called the Facial Action Coding System, to develop an overall picture of how they express themselves.

Her analysis shows that McCain's voice changes little in pitch as he speaks, and so conveys very little emotion or impact. Whether he is addressing positive prospects or discussing sad facts, his voice always sounds the same.

Additionally, McCain's voice and facial movements often do not match up, says Pollermann, and he often smiles in a manner that commonly conveys sarcasm when addressing controversial statements. "That might lead to what I would call a lack of credibility."

People are unlikely to trust statements made in a flat tone, particularly when they do not match the person's facial expressions. According to Pollermann's analysis, it may not make any difference that McCain does not pepper his speeches with spin, if the way he talks does not strike people as believable.

Obama, by comparison, speaks with greater pitch modulation, and his facial expressions correlate very well with what he is saying. His one facial foible may be a tendency to furrow his brow, she says, conveying constant concern. This is similar to the UK prime minister Gordon Brown, whose expressions tend to be limited to sadness, anger and disgust, according to the Vox Institute's analysis. But Obama's fluency, high speech rate and good use of pitch make him a dynamic speaker.

So what does all of this actually say about the honesty of politicians? "Our society treats political candidates like used-car salesmen," Ekman says. "The fact is that the candidates almost certainly believe what they are saying, even if they are giving some facts a much lighter treatment than others. In that way, actually catching someone in a blatant lie is relatively rare."

Indeed, Bill Clinton's fleeting facial slip was the only clear example that Ekman could recount of a politician saying something that they did not mean during both the Republican and Democratic national conventions.

However, facial recognition technology may one day be able to pick up on telltale signs that humans would have trouble spotting. For example, Yoshimasa Ohmoto and colleagues at the University of Tokyo in Japan are developing a facial recognition system for robots and artificial intelligence agents that analyzes basic eye, nose and mouth movements, such as a slightly averted gaze when talking to someone, to detect if a person is telling a lie. In trials in which people played the bluffing game Indian poker, the system has already proved to be as reliable as humans trained to detect lies.

"Technology is quickly catching up with psychology," says Pawan Sinha, who leads a team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that specialises in computerised facial-recognition technology. "It's not quite there yet, because the visualization systems just can't work fast enough to replace the human eye and mind. But computer processing is getting faster and our recognition systems are getting better," he says. "Someday soon, computers may be able read us better than any psychologist. I imagine that will be a pretty scary day for politicians."

What States Are Really in Play?

RealClearPolitics

Richard Baehr

The McCain convention bump seems to be subsiding, and the tracking polls suggest the national race is back almost dead even. Part of the recent movement may well be attributable to the financial crisis gripping Wall Street, and the fact that for not the first time, a sensible McCain statement on the economy is being distorted by Obama and his many media flacks as evidence that the Arizona Senator is out of touch.

The fundamentals of the US economy are strong, as McCain argued: 94% of workers are employed, inflation last month was 0.1% (the big drop in oil prices of over $55 a barrel helps, saving consumers between $20 and $30 billion each month), and GDP grew by over 3% last quarter. When Franklin Roosevelt took office and said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, he was applauded for his statesmanship and leadership.

A leader in a time of crisis tries to settle the ship and restore confidence. That is what John McCain is doing, but he gets no points for it. You are supposed to walk among the unemployed, and show that you share their pain, and charge that their problems are caused by George Bush, or this year, Bush-McCain. That is what Barack Obama does, and for this, he gets the attention and approval of the punditry hacks or giants (pick one) like Joe Klein and Frank Rich.

In terms of political momentum, when the topic being debated is national security or social issues and values, McCain benefits. When the topic is a souring economy or financial crisis, Obama wins. So this week, it is Obama's week to ride with the tide.

The fundamentals of the US economy are strong, as McCain argued: 94% of workers are employed, inflation last month was 0.1% (the big drop in oil prices of over $55 a barrel helps, saving consumers between $20 and $30 billion each month), and GDP grew by over 3% last quarter. When Franklin Roosevelt took office and said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, he was applauded for his statesmanship and leadership.

One of the reasons the Obama campaign has been so flummoxed by Sarah Palin is that every day Palin is the story, which she has been for close to two weeks, is a day when the Obama campaign is off message. The New York Times, boiling with rage at the new interloper who offers a different version of feminism than the only one allowed to be respected in its pages, has provided a huge boost to the McCain-Palin campaign with its army of "investigative reporters" digging for trash in Alaska.

The Times' pursuit of Palin resembles their feeble and failed four month attempt to tar John McCain earlier this year as having been an adulterer with a lobbyist. The John Edwards adultery story, which was real, was never of interest to the New York Times. Sinners can only be registered Republicans, and after all, Edwards only began his affair when his wife's cancer was in remission, demonstrating what a prince of a man he really is.

The state polls, which tend to lag the national tracking polls by a few days, have been more favorable for John McCain the last few days, reflecting his slightly stronger position since the convention and the Palin pick. But even if the latest state polls overstate McCain's numbers a bit due to the lag, they do reflect the new shape of the race.

The best news for McCain is that he has opened a solid lead in Florida (27 Electoral College votes) of 5 points or more in every recent survey, and has built a modest lead in Ohio (20 Electoral College votes) of 3-4 points in every recent survey but one (Quinnipiac). Obama ran poorly in Ohio in its March primary, carrying only 5 of 88 counties and losing the state to Hillary Clinton by 10%, despite coming in with all the momentum and a huge financial advantage. Many registered Democrats in Ohio are not political liberals and share more cultural values with Sarah Palin than Barack Obama. The condescension the Obama campaign has demonstrated toward blue collar voters will not help it in Ohio come Election Day. It is telling that in one recent survey, 31% of Ohio voters said they best relate to Palin, about 20% each to McCain and Obama, and barely over 10% with Biden. If Ohio and Florida are McCain states (and Ohio is certainly not yet "done" for McCain, as Florida may be), there are few ways for Obama to reach 270 Electoral College votes.

Assuming Obama holds all the Kerry states, not nearly so certain anymore, Obama begins with a likely pickup of Iowa and its 7 Electoral College votes. He would then need 11 more. In the latest Rasmusssen surveys, Obama trails in Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), Colorado (9), and is even in Virginia (13). These are the four tossup states where his chances to turn a red state blue are the best. Admittedly, McCain's lead in the Western states is small -- 2 to 3 points in each case. For Obama to win, he will need to pick up Virginia, which has not gone Democratic since 1964, or Colorado and one of the smaller Western states to win. Colorado has been a reliable GOP state in recent years and Nevada has been in the McCain column pretty much all year.

The Obama campaign has bragged of its superior ground game and how that will deliver victory, and in a very close state race, it could help. However discussions with campaign professionals in Virginia and Ohio suggest that the Obama ground team, mostly passionate young out of state workers, are not connecting very well with local voters, even registered Democrats, many of whom are for more culturally conservative than the propagandists for Obama. There is the possibility of a backlash against the harassment, as occurred with Howard Dean's yellow jacketed throng in Iowa in 2004. The McCain team, thanks to the Sarah Palin selection, now has its own energized army of field workers -- but they tend to be in-state people talking to their neighbors, arguably a more effective approach than the one Obama's campaign has chosen. In Ohio in 2004, the Bush ground game won the state and the election for him.

At one time, the Obama team talked of 22 targeted states, then 18 (14 of them Bush won states), but now the real number is smaller than that. And the good news for the McCain side is that they have a real shot in many more Kerry states than they did a few months back. The latest Rasmussen survey has Pennsylvania (21 Electoral College votes) even for the first time all year. It is hard to see how Obama wins the presidency if he does not win the Keystone state. Pennsylvania is another state in which Obama was buried in the primary, despite a huge spending advantage over Hillary Clinton. Like Ohio and Michigan (17), the state has many registered Democrats who hunt and who are regular church goers, neither of which demographic segments provide fertile ground for Obama, who does best among African Americans and very highly educated secular whites who do not own or use guns. If McCain wins Pennsylvania, he will almost certainly also win Ohio, which is historically about 4-5 points friendlier to the GOP than Pennsylvania.

Other blue states now clearly in play include Minnesota (10), Wisconsin (10), New Hampshire (4), and Michigan (17). I am very skeptical that McCain can win New Jersey (15) despite two recent polls showing him only 3% behind (others show him further behind) or Washington State (11), where two recent polls give Obama a 2-4% lead. Oregon (7) may be a slightly better prospect, given its recent voting history, but is still a long shot for McCain.

Many of Obama's once-targeted red states are now safely in McCain's corner. These include Montana (3), North Dakota (3) Alaska (3), and Georgia (15). North Carolina (15), Indiana (11) and Missouri (11) do not look too promising for Obama either. Of course, if the race breaks hard for either candidate in the last month, such that the current near-deadlock in the national popular vote becomes a 5% or greater margin of victory, then some of the second tier targets may come into play. But they won't matter. If Obama opens up a 5% national lead, he will win Ohio, and Virginia and Colorado. If McCain opens up a similar sized national lead, he probably wins Michigan and Pennsylvania. Neither candidate would need any other states from the other party's column -- these would amount to gravy, allowing the winner to claim a mandate.

The race is close to a national tie in the popular vote, in the number of safe electoral college votes for each side, and in the number of tossup electoral college votes that are blue or red. We have in other words, a 50-50 race.

That situation is markedly better for John McCain than his prospects have been for most of the year. He has not won, but he is very much in the game. The debates, the fallout from the politically motivated investigation in Alaska, and the luck of the draw -- what makes news in the weeks before Election Day -- will determine the outcome of the race.

Richard Baehr is the chief political correspondent of American Thinker.

An Actuarial Perspective

If you're concerned about Sarah Palin's lack of experience, Politico's Alexander Burns has some numbers that ought to put your mind at ease:

For a man who has lived 72 years and 67 days (McCain's age on Election Day this year), there is between a 14.2 and 15.1 percent chance of dying before Inauguration Day 2013, according to the Social Security Administration's 2004 actuarial tables and the authoritative 2001 mortality statistics assembled by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

Going by the Social Security Administration's tables, that's nearly ten times the likelihood that a man aged 47 years and 92 days (Barack Obama's age on Election Day this year) will die before Jan. 20, 2013.

Let's take the average of the two figures and say that McCain has a 14.65% likelihood of dying before Inauguration Day 2013, while Obama's likelihood is 1.465%.

For the sake of argument, assume further that Joe Biden and John McCain are equally qualified to be president, and Sarah Palin is as unqualified as Barack Obama.

That means that if McCain is elected, there is better than an 85% chance that America will have a qualified president at the end of the term. If Obama is elected, the likelihood of having an unqualified president at term's end is higher than 98.5%.

Simple Math

2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE COMPARISON TALKING POINTS

ISSUE JOHN McCAIN BARACK OBAMA

Favors new drilling offshore US
Yes No

Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it
Yes No

Served in the US Armed Forces
Yes No

Amount of time served in the US Senate
22 YEARS 173 DAYS

Will institute a socialized national health care plan
No Yes

Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy
No Yes

Would pull troops out of Iraq immediately
No Yes

Supports gun ownership rights
Yes No

Supports homosexual marriage
No Yes

Proposed programs will mean a huge tax increase
No Yes

Voted against making English the official language
No Yes

Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegals
No Yes

CAPITAL GAINS TAX

MCCAIN
0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax.

OBAMA
28% on profit from ALL home sales. (How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.)

DIVIDEND TAX

MCCAIN
15% (no change)

OBAMA
39.6% - (How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.')

INCOME TAX

MCCAIN
(no changes)
Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250

OBAMA
(reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Under Obama, your taxes could almost double!

INHERITANCE TAX

MCCAIN
- 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)

OBAMA
Restore the inheritance tax

Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes.

NEW TAXES PROPOSED BY OBAMA

New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet. New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!

You can verify the above at the following web sites:

http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/election/2008/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html
http://elections.foxnews.com/?s=proposed+taxes
http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/politics/articles/mccain_obama_offer_different_visions_on_taxes.html
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/barack_obama/
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/john_mccain/

Any Given Tuesday

RealClearPolitics

What the Super Bowl Tells Us About 2008

Reed Galen

In February, the New York Football Giants stunned everyone by upsetting the New England Patriots in Super Bowl 42 Their journey to football's highest peak was as improbable as it was surprising and their successful playoff run shows similarities to this year's Presidential race.

The Giants and the McCain campaign share a few similar traits. Both were wild cards in the respective contests. At every turn, both were outspent, outgunned and not expected to win. The Giants went to Dallas and beat the Cowboys. They went to Green Bay and beat a legend on his own field. McCain, left for dead time-and-again, used the springboard of his New Hampshire victory to rack up enough victories to make his nomination a forgone conclusion by the time the polls closed on February 5th.

The similarities between their opponents are illuminating as well. What do the New England Patriots and Barack Obama's campaign have in common? History, for starters. The Pats strove to go 19-0 and finally surpass the Miami Dolphins' record. Obama hopes to become the first African-American president. Media Hype - both suffer from over-exposure and an (somewhat) adoring press corps that desperately wants to write the story. They're well funded, highly disciplined organizations, which make few, if any, unforced errors. Their on-field talent is beyond question. Given a choice, no one would pick Eli Manning over Tom Brady. Ever.

The McCain organization will never be able match Obama in money, organization, oratory skills or raucous crowds in Berlin. But none of that may matter. Whether or not the Obama campaign, or the main-stream-media for that matter, wants to believe it, swing voters in target states have not yet made up their minds about which candidate they'll vote for come November.

So how exactly did the Giants do it and how can the McCain campaign learn from their example? Outclassed at most positions on the field, the Giants game plan was simple. Take advantage of opportunities when they presented themselves, force Tom Brady into situations in which he was uncomfortable and ultimately, perhaps most importantly, a deep-seated belief that they could in fact win the game. This is exactly what they did and it is the strategy we saw the McCain campaign begin employing in the past few weeks.

Starting with the "Celeb" ad, holding up Barack Obama to the likes of Paris and Britney, the McCain campaign clearly surprised its opponents and pushed them into unfamiliar territory. Obama for the first time since he secured the nomination was flushed from the pocket and he didn't like it. McCain clearly found a seam and is exploiting it to its fullest - recent tracking polls show the race has become a statistical tie. The Obama campaign has complained about negative campaigning (ask McCain about South Carolina in 2000) but what they're experiencing is yet another opponent who has the audacity to question Obama's pre-ordained march to the White House.

After Labor Day, once the balloons and confetti from both conventions have been swept into the dustbin of history, most American voters will begin to pay attention in earnest. This is the time when the McCain campaign will - mirroring the Giants - have the opportunity to take advantage of opportunities when they present themselves. Starting with the first scheduled debate in late September, Barack Obama will have to stand on a stage before voters and prove to them his vision for the country meshes with theirs. Without benefit of his offensive line, in this case a teleprompter, carefully groomed crowd and the trappings of office to which he's already become accustomed, Obama's task will not be an easy one.

If Obama cannot stand up to the questions of his opponent, undecided swing-voters and a moderator (see Charlie Gibson) who will no doubt recognize the weight of their assignment, he risks negating all of his organizational advantages. If he fails to prove to Americans in Springfield, Missouri that he shares as much in common with them as he does with those in San Francisco, California, Obama could find it a very long fall - chronologically and vertically.

Barack Obama may be one of the best orators of his generation but there's no one who's better at the free-form town hall meeting than John McCain. More than comfortable with those that disagree with him, like a quarterback scanning the defense, he actively welcomes and engages their participation. More intangible, though, McCain relishes not only being the underdog, but also, much like political idol Teddy Roosevelt, being the man in the arena. He's seen the best and worst of what humanity has to offer - to think that standing on a stage with Barack Obama will induce nerves is unlikely.

These one-on-one match-ups, of which McCain wanted many more, represent a huge opportunity for McCain and potential disaster for Obama. Obama's task is made that much more difficult in that he'll have to thread the needle. Come off as too aggressive and risk alienating the viewers. Play it safe and Obama is likely to remind voters of Michael Dukakis or John Kerry; yet another in a long line of Democrats who say what they think people want to hear and come off looking disingenuous, and subsequently unelectable in the process. When the clock reads zeroes across on Election Day, Obama very well may find himself 18-1.

What you won't find by reading the NYTimes

This is the op-ed piece John McCain submitted to the New York Times in response to Barrack Obama's editorial a week ago on the Iraq war. According to the Drudge Report, the paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.

'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.'

In McCain's submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: 'I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it... if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.'

NYT's Shipley advised McCain to try again: 'I'd be pleased, though, to look at another draft.'

[Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter.]

A top McCain source claims the paper simply does not agree with the senator's Iraq policy, and wants him to change it, not "re-work the draft."

McCain writes in the rejected essay: 'Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. 'I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,' he said on January 10, 2007. 'In fact, I think it will do the reverse.'

Shipley, who is on vacation this week, explained his decision not to run the editorial.

'The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.'

Shipley continues: 'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.'

Following is the rejected opinion piece from Senator McCain:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

Invidious Comparison

James Taranto

There seems to be an effort afoot to smear John McCain by likening him to John Kerry, the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat who by the way served in Vietnam. This is from MSNBC.com's First Read blog:

The comparisons between McCain's '08 bid and Kerry's in '04 have been unmistakable: Both men, early on, were their party's overwhelming favorites to win the nomination; then they encountered trouble and got overshadowed by other candidates; and then--almost out of nowhere--they locked up the nomination. Now, as McCain today embarks on his "Service to America" tour across the country, there's another comparison between the two men: the emphasis of their military experience. . . .

But biography isn't everything: McCain's military service--including his five years as a POW in Vietnam--is without a doubt one of the central narratives of his life and his political career. It is also something that clearly distinguishes him from both Obama and [Mrs.] Clinton. But as Bill Kristol writes in today's New York Times, you can't win presidential on biography alone. "If voters had simply looked at the biographies of the major-party candidates, they would have chosen George H.W. Bush in 1992, Bob Dole in 1996, Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. Instead, they rejected four veterans who served in wartime (and who also had considerable experience in public life) for Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, who had lesser résumés, both civilian and military."

We agree with Kristol: McCain's service in Vietnam is far from sufficient reason to elect him president. But Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean went further, issuing a statement disparaging McCain:

While we honor McCain's military service, the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn't understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years.

ABC's Jake Tapper notes that Dean sang quite a different tune four years ago:

"The real issue is this," Dean said in March 2004, when endorsing formal rival Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., "Who would you rather have in charge of the defense of the United States of America, a group of people who never served a day overseas in their life, or a guy who served his country honorably and has three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star on the battlefields of Vietnam?"

It almost seems unsporting to call attention to this inconsistency. After all, does anyone think Dean, who himself never joined the service, really believed what he was saying about the importance of military experience back then? Then again, when he and many other Democrats made this argument on Kerry's behalf, they insulted the voters' intelligence. We think they owe the voters an apology.

The description "blatant opportunist" really did fit Kerry in 2004. When he returned from Vietnam, he slandered his fellow veterans as vicious murderers and rapists. Decades later, when he thought it would be to his political advantage, he tried to hype himself as a hero, and then slandered the veterans who called attention to this inconsistency.

By contrast, so far as we know, McCain is uncomplicatedly a war hero, and being a war hero is certainly a point in his favor. Still, we hope he will not follow Kerry's lead and base his whole campaign on his service to the country 40 years ago. We suspect he knows better. And if John McCain opens his convention speech by saluting and saying "reporting for duty," we'll eat our hat.

We have the hat to this day. We have the hat.

Krauthammer: The 100 Year Lie

RealClearPolitics

Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- Asked at a New Hampshire campaign stop about possibly staying in Iraq 50 years, John McCain interrupted -- "Make it a hundred" -- then offered a precise analogy to what he envisioned: "We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so." Lest anyone think he was talking about prolonged war-fighting rather than maintaining a presence in postwar Iraq, he explained: "That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

And lest anyone persist in thinking he was talking about war-fighting, he told his questioner: "It's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world."

There is another analogy to the kind of benign and strategically advantageous "presence" McCain was suggesting for postwar Iraq: Kuwait. The U.S. (with allies) occupied Kuwait in 1991 and has remained there with a major military presence for 17 years. We debate dozens of foreign policy issues in this country. I've yet to hear any serious person of either party call for a pullout from Kuwait.

Why? Because our presence projects power and provides stability for the entire Gulf and for vulnerable U.S. allies that line its shores.

The Annenberg Political Fact Check, a nonprofit and nonpartisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, says: "It's a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage 'endless war' based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea."

The desirability of a similar presence in Iraq was obvious as long as five years ago to retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, one of Barack Obama's leading military advisers and his campaign co-chairman. During the first week of the Iraq War, McPeak (a war critic) suggested in an interview that "we'll be there a century, hopefully. If it works right." (Meaning, if we win.)

Why is that a hopeful outcome? Because maintaining a U.S. military presence in Iraq would provide regional stability, as well as cement a long-term allied relationship with the most important Arab country in the region.

As McPeak himself said about our long stay in Europe, Japan and Korea, "This is the way great powers operate." One can argue that such a presence in Iraq might not be worth the financial expense. A legitimate point -- it might require working out the kind of relations we have with Japan, which picks up about 75 percent of the cost of U.S. forces stationed there.

Alternatively, one might advocate simply bolstering our presence in Kuwait, a choice that would minimize risk, albeit at the sacrifice of some power projection. Such a debate would be fruitful and help inform our current negotiations with Baghdad over the future status of American forces.

But a serious argument is not what Democrats are seeking. They want the killer sound bite, the silver bullet to take down McCain. According to Politico, they have found it: "Dems to hammer McCain for '100 years.'"

The device? Charge that McCain is calling for a hundred years of war. Hence:

-- "He (McCain) says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq" (Barack Obama, Feb. 19).

-- "We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years" (Obama, Feb. 26).

-- "He's (McCain) willing to keep this war going for 100 years" (Hillary Clinton, March 17).

-- "What date between now and the election in November will he (McCain) drop this promise of a 100-year war in Iraq?" (Chris Matthews, March 4).

Why, even a CNN anchor (Rick Sanchez) buys it: "John McCain is telling us ... that we need to win even if it takes 100 years" (March 16).

As Lenin is said to have said: "A lie told often enough becomes truth." And as this lie passes into truth, the Democrats are ready to deploy it "as the linchpin of an effort to turn McCain's national security credentials against him," reports David Paul Kuhn of Politico.

Hence: A Howard Dean fundraising letter charging McCain with seeking "an endless war in Iraq." And a Democratic National Committee press release in which Dean asserts: "McCain's strategy is a war without end. ... Elect John McCain and get 100 years in Iraq."

The Annenberg Political Fact Check, a nonprofit and nonpartisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, says: "It's a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage 'endless war' based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea."

The Democrats are undeterred. "It's seldom you get such a clean shot," a senior Obama adviser told Politico. It's seldom that you see such a dirty lie.