Finally a somewhat valid McCain attack ad.

Up to now, most of the anti-Obama ads have been pretty lame.

This one makes you think a bit:

Interestingly enough, my guess is that this ad will prove ineffective as it requires too much thought to analyze.

It purports to show Obama changing his tune for political reasons. Yes, some of the ad’s claims are inconsistent: Obama voted for all but one of the defense bills and he gets slammed for both; then the ad seems to imply that he’ll keep troops in Iraq for too long? Also, the ad conflates “violence” with “sectarian violence” and takes advantage of Obama being a bit too literal in his answer on the troop withdrawal question.

But if you parse this video to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, then one is tempted to do the same for the McCain videos.

Still, Obama has the upper hand, because there are numerous videos that catch McCain simply not knowing what he is talking about (getting time lines wrong, getting the Shiite and Sunni groups wrong, getting the responsibilities of the two branches of the Iranian executive branch wrong, etc.)

By the way, if you want to see for yourself what has happened with the violence, this source has data up to December 2007. Keep in mind there was the troop surge, the program to buy off warring factions, and various reconciliation projects, plus the cruel fact that some neighborhoods had been “ethnically cleansed” .

By the way, here Obama talks about his position on “the surge” and why this question doesn’t have a simple yes/no answer.

In short, Obama points out that spending a blood and treasure may well have produced local results, but at a cost of neglecting other, more pressing concerns.

COURIC: Before the surge, as you know, Senator, there were 80 to 100 U.S. casualties a month, the country was rife with sectarian violence, and you raised a lot of eyebrows on this trip saying even knowing what you know now, you still would not have supported the surge. People may be scratching their heads and saying, “Why?”

OBAMA: Well … because … what I was referring to, and I’ve consistently referred to, is the need for a strategy that actually concludes our involvement in Iraq and moves Iraqis to take responsibility for the country.

COURIC: But didn’t the surge … help do that?

OBAMA: Let me finish, Katie. What happens is that if we continue to put $10 billion to $12 billion a month into Iraq, if we are willing to send as many troops as we can muster continually into Iraq? There’s no doubt that that’s gonna have an impact. But it doesn’t meet our long-term strategic goal, which is to make the American people safer over the long term. If that means that we’re detracting from our efforts in Afghanistan, where conditions are deteriorating, if it means that we are distracted from going after Osama bin Laden who is still sending out audio tapes and is operating training camps where we know terrorists’ actions are being plotted. …

COURIC: All that may be true. But do you not give the surge any credit for reducing violence in Iraq?

OBAMA: No, no … of course I have. There is no doubt that the extraordinary work of our U.S. forces has contributed to a lessening of the violence, just as making sure that the Sadr militia stood down or the fact that the Sunni tribes decided to flip and work with us instead of with al-Qaeda – something that we hadn’t anticipated happening.

All those things have contributed to a reduction in violence. So this, in no way, detracts from the great efforts of our young men and women in uniform. In fact, that’s one of the most striking things about visiting Iraq is to see how dedicated they are, what a great job they do – all those things … are critically important. What I’m saying is it does not solve the broader strategic question that we have been dealing with over the last five, six, seven years. And that is how do we take the limited resources we have, both militarily and financially, and apply them in such a way that we are making America as safe as possible? And I believe that my approach is the right one.

COURIC: But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops … help the situation in Iraq?

OBAMA: Katie, as … you’ve asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There’s no doubt.

COURIC: But yet you’re saying … given what you know now, you still wouldn’t support it … so I’m just trying to understand this.

OBAMA: Because … it’s pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that’s money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore up a declining economic situation in the United States. That money could have been applied to having a serious energy security plan so that we were reducing our demand on oil, which is helping to fund the insurgents in many countries. So those are all factors that would be taken into consideration in my decision– to deal with a specific tactic or strategy inside of Iraq.

COURIC: And I really don’t mean to belabor this, Senator, because I’m really, I’m trying to figure out your position. Do you think the level of security in Iraq … would exist today without the surge?

OBAMA: Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals. What I can say is that there’s no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq. I said that, not just today, not just yesterday, but I’ve said that previously. What that doesn’t change is that we’ve got to have a different strategic approach if we’re going to make America as safe as possible.

Update This is a somewhat lengthy playlist (about 1 hour) of Tom Laughlin (Billy Jack) talking about why McCain is unfit for the Presidency. If nothing else, watch videos 3 and 4 (about 15 minutes total). Don’t let yourself grow impatient with the first video; he indeed moves on.

I should make a couple of comments:

1. McCain flew the A-4 in combat and commanded a squadron of A-7s. Note that the article that I linked to indeed shows McCain in a justifiably favorable light. I see no record of him every flying an F-14.

2. Mr. Loughlin brings up Bill Clinton a couple of times. First, note that President Clinton underwent open heart surgery; this often changes someone’s personality. Also, President Clinton never called Bill Richardson “Judas”; that was James Carville.

Hike in Forest Park Nature Center

Note: my leisurely hiking pace with Olivia; note that I don’t have to slow down for her anymore.

This is supposed to be a doe with one of her fawns.

There are a few families of wild turkeys in the park.

Revisited: How good are the ultra times?

Back to ultra marathons and stuff: I was blown away that the first place finisher at the Rocky Racoon (2006) 100 averaged 7:58 mpm for the 5 loop trail course (which does have sections with roots). His time was 13:16:56. So I did some searching around to see what good ultra performances were like; I was astonished.

Here are some examples:
(Sources: http://www.gbrathletics.com/wrec.htm and http://www.americanultra.org/stats/statframeset.htm)

Road Records:
Men
100 mile run 12:05:43 Andy Jones (CAN) Sylvania 09-27-97 (loop road course)
(that is about 7:15 mpm!!!!)
24 Hour run 290,221 meters Yiannis Kouros (AUS) Basle 05-03-98
(that is 180.4 miles!)
24 Hour walk: 216.621km # Claudio Sterpin (ITA) 19 Oct 1986 Milan
Women
100 mile run 13:47:41 Ann Trason (USA) New York 05-04-91

24 Hour run 243,657 meters Sigrid Lomsky (GER) Basel 05-02-93
24 Hour walk 194.758km # Sandra Brown (GBR) 20 Jul 1997 Ware
(note: we walked in the Dutch Walking weekend in 2004; I finished with 88 miles in 24 hours; she beat everyone (including the men) in the 100 mile and finished in 19:18)

Track Records:
Men
100 mile run 11:28:03 Oleg Kharitonov (GBR) London 10-20-02
(6:52 mpm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
24 Hour run 303,506 meters Yiannis Kouros (AUS) Adelaide 10-05-97
(that is 188.6 miles).
24 Hour walk: 228.930kmA ? # Jesse Casteneda (USA) 19 Sep 1976 Albuquerque
226.432km # Paul Forthomme (BEL) 14 Oct 1984 Brussels (W)

Women
100 mile run 14:29:44 Ann Trason (USA) Santa Rosa 03-19-89
100 mile run 14:25:45 (pending) Edit Berces (HUN) Verona 09-22-02
(pending at the time the source was published)
24 Hour run 240,169 meters Eleanor Adams (GBR) Melbourne 08-20-89
24 Hour walk: 211.250km # Annie van der Meer (NED) 11 May 1986 Rouen

What I learned from all of this is that the track really is the fastest surface; so perhaps it is not so surprising that my road and groomed trail PR’s are much slower than my track PR’s.

(mine: 24 hour walk (track) 101 miles, (unjudged), 24 hour walk (road) 88 miles (judged; one month later than my track race), 100 mile trail (groomed) 29:34 at LeanHorse, 2005).

But my most humbling experience was at the 2005 McNaughton 100 mile trail run. I entered the walking division and got smoked by 2 hours (by an excellent walker). But that isn’t what embarrassed me. The course was ten very hilly 10-mile loops on technical trail. I was at 13:19 at the half way; the second half took me 20:57!!!! I took 57% more time to do the second half of the race.

I wondered if that was the biggest collapse in the whole race as I got passed three times in the last loop. But it wasn’t. In fact, three people took longer on the second half than I did (I was 27 out of 28 finishers; there were 48 starters). And, the winner collapsed by 54%. The second place finisher was only 15% slower on the second half. The third place finisher was 60% slower on the second half! One person was 105% slower!

I had thought that a hard 50K done two weeks prior to the 100 did me in; it turns out that my slowdown curve tracked more or less normally with the others. It is just that I had an unusually slow half way split for a finisher, though four other finishers were slower and three of these got me on the last lap.

No Politics: a Question for my Endurance Athlete Friends

I am letting the coffee do its work prior to taking a swim, short run (3-4 miles) and some leg weights. My uppper/inner thighs are sore (from doing Bhujapidasana yesterday?) so I shouldn’t go too hard today.

(no, I don’t look this good)

So, I’ve got a question for you? What is your favorite distance, and what is your best distance?

Me: when it comes to running, when I was in shape to run, my favorite distance was the 10K to half marathon. These distances were long enough to where I could actually get the feel of having run distance, but short enough to where I felt I was racing. For me, the marathon was more of an endurance test and these beat me up for a month afterward.

My best distance, however, was the mile (5:30, or a 67.58, which was slightly better than my only sub 40 10K).

In walking, when in shape, I prefer the marathon to 50K distances; I get the feeling of distance without the lingering bone-tiring weariness that a 24 hour to 100 miler gives you.

Currently, (e. g., this year), my favorite race was the 30K I did this January.

But once again, my best distance, in terms of performance, was the judged 1500 meter racewalk (65.56), which is roughly equivalent to a 29:36 5K. The equivalent marathon is 4:40 and I did finish a sloppy knee 4:44 a year earlier.

My body seems best suited for a hard, 5-8 minute effort, but the idea of training for these makes my hamstrings ache. I prefer the longer, more gentle runs and walks.

I’d be interesting in hearing what you prefer.

msnbc.com video: McCain wrong again on Iraq facts

Here is the video

more about "msnbc.com video: McCain wrong again o…", posted with vodpod

Youtube version:

Text to follow:

John McCain has huge, fundamental misunderstandings of the Iraq situation:

On Katie Couric tonight McCain says:

Kate Couric: Senator McCain, Senator Obama says, while the increased number of US troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What’s your response to that?

McCain: I don’t know how you respond to something that is as — such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarlane [phonetic] was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that’s just a matter of history. Thanks to General Petraeus, our leadership, and the sacrifice of brave young Americans. I mean, to deny that their sacrifice didn’t make possible the success of the surge in Iraq, I think, does a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed.

One problem. The surge wasn’t even announced until a few months after the Anbar Awakening. Via Spencer Ackerman, here is Colonel MacFarland explaining the Anbar Awakening to Pam Hass of UPI, on September 29, 2006. That would be almost four months before the President even announced the surge. Petraeus wasn’t even in Iraq yet.

[...]
And here is Colin Kahl in Foreign Affairs:

The Awakening began in Anbar Province more than a year before the surge and took off in the summer and fall of 2006 in Ramadi and elsewhere, long before extra U.S. forces started flowing into Iraq in February and March of 2007. Throughout the war, enemy-of-my-enemy logic has driven Sunni decision-making. The Sunnis have seen three “occupiers” as threats: the United States, the Shiites (and their presumed Iranian patrons), and the foreigners and extremists in AQI. Crucial to the Awakening was the reordering of these threats.

This is not controversial history. It is history that anyone trying out for Commander and Chief must understand when there are 150,000 American troops stationed in Iraq. It is an absolutely essential element to the story of the past two years. YOU CANNOT GET THIS WRONG. Moreover, what is most disturbing is that according to McCain’s inaccurate version of history, military force came first and solved all of our problems. If that is the lesson he takes from the Anbar Awakening, I am afraid it is the lesson he will apply to every other crisis he faces including, for example, Iran.

But CBS News attempted to scrub McCain’s error:

I know that poor John has been complaining that the media is falling in love with Obama, but how will he explain CBS cutting this little jem from his interview and leaving it on the cutting room floor? It is only available through the transcript. Thanks for nothing CBS, Katie has once again proven that she is nothing more than a corporat shill. I wonder if anyone else will pick up this story?

Fortunately Keith Olberman was on top of it so it won’t get swept under the rug.

And the media was supposed to be “in the tank for Obama”?

As far as I am concerned, let the media show us more of McCain!