Presidential candidate Barack Obama (D-IL) tells AP today that he believes Senate Democrats will vote to fund the Iraq War without withdrawal timelines if Bush vetoes the currently pending spending bills as he's promised to do.

Presuming he's been accurately quoted by AP (not necessarily always a safe bet), this means Obama was willing to show his hand and, essentially, give permission to Bush to go ahead and veto the bill without consequences. Brilliantly done.

If we ever need to negotiate for anything, remind us to not call on Obama to represent us.

"I think that it's important for voters to get a sense of how the next president will make decisions in a foreign policy arena," he told AP.

Great. We've just gotten that "sense," and if that's your plan, then thanks but no thanks.

For all of George W. Bush's indescribable incompetence, at least he understands that you don't show your hand to those you are negotiating with. Thus, his "all options are on the table" rhetoric, when dealing with foreign powers like Iraq, Iran, etc., in our opinion, is actually quite appropriate. Terrifying, in the hands of a dangerous, bumbling dope like Bush, but quite appropriate for international negotiations in a general sense.

We're sorry to see that Obama doesn't seem to get that.

And one other disturbing quote from the AP article...

Uh, wrong, Senator. Yes, the American people must continue to do their part in pressuring their Congressional reps, but you need to do your part and lead them, as you were elected to do. Your comments --- as reported today by AP, in any case --- don't offer much confidence that you yet understand the necessities, nuances, or negotiation skills required to either pull off the job of President, or even lead Americans as a sitting Senator during a time of war as waged by a madman.

We hope you'll figure this out --- and quickly --- before undermining your supporters and your caucus again in the future.

UPDATE 11:13pm PT: In comments here, "Truth" posts a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer as proof that Obama never said what AP has charged him with saying. As mentioned above, I wouldn't put anything past AP these days. That said, it seems that was not the interview AP was quoting from with Obama. Over at dKos, Markos was similarly outraged about Obama's comments this morning, apparently, saying that "Obama just surrendered to Bush" and excoriating his negotiation skills as we did. Kos has now followed up the original post with another pointing out that there are two different interviews in question. One with CNN and one with AP. I'll refer you to Kos's newer post, for now, on the difference between the two and the Obama campaign's apparent lack of effort to correct the AP story if, in fact, it was wrong.

UPDATE 3/2/07 7:25pm PT: Looks like Republican propagandist Brit Hume of the Republican propaganda outlet, Fox "News", quoted our report here tonight for the "Political Grapevine" section of their anti-Democratic propaganda "news" show Special Report with Brit Hume. Needless to say, he didn't bother to include the questions we've raised about the AP report. Here's their propagandistic website's version of the report (which doesn't bother to link to us, natch) and is naturally headlined: "Liberal Bloggers Turn on Barack Obama":

Setting aside whether we're "Liberal" or "Left-wing" as Fox "News" would like to have it, can one "turn their back" on someone that they never actually turned their front to in the first place? Just curious. (Video now posted here...).

FEATURING: Our One-on-One Debriefing with the Finnish Computer Security Expert on American Elections, Rush Holt's Reform Bill, Debra Bowen, 'Black Hats,' and Why Elections Matter...Pre-details back here...

UPDATE: Story now posted here...