Shades of Boston in 2004...

In federal court in Denver today, the City and County of Denver and U.S. Secret Service made it clear protesters at the Pepsi Center for the August Democratic National Convention would be behind chain link fences.

The fence around the public demonstration zone outside the Democratic National Convention will be chicken wire or chain link, authorities revealed in U.S. District Court today. That may allow protesters to be seen and heard by delegates going in and out of the Pepsi Center during the convention.

More...

Remember this controversial comment?

I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold. I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,” [Hillary Clinton] said.

Yesterday, General Wesley Clark said John McCain had not passed that test. But Barack Obama disagrees and "rejects" Clark's assessment. Apparently, Obama agrees that McCain has passed the Commander in Chief test. I doubt McCain will extend the same courtesy. More . . .

From Obama's patriotism speech:

[W]hat is striking about today’s patriotism debate is the degree to which it remains rooted in the culture wars of the 1960s – in arguments that go back forty years or more. In the early years of the civil rights movement and opposition to the Vietnam War, defenders of the status quo often accused anybody who questioned the wisdom of government policies of being unpatriotic.

Meanwhile, some of those in the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties reacted not merely by criticizing particular government policies, but by attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself – by burning flags; by blaming America for all that was wrong with the world; and perhaps most tragically, by failing to honor those veterans coming home from Vietnam, something that remains a national shame to this day.

Constrast with John Kerry's 2006 speech on patriotism and dissent.

Update: Here is the prepared text of his speech.

Around noon today ET, Sen. Barack Obama will give a major speech on patriotism in Independence Missouri, Harry Truman's home town.

The Democratic presidential candidate's campaign says he will talk about "what patriotism means to him and what it requires of all Americans who loves this country and want to see it do better."

The speech in Missouri Monday comes in the run-up to the July 4 holiday and as Obama seeks to reassure voters about his commitment to the country as well as to counter questions about his patriotism. He's recently started wearing a flag pin on his lapel.

Tuesday he will give a speech on faith and Wednesday and Thursday on service to the country.

He'll spend the 4th of July in Butte, Montana.

Comments now closed.

MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski and Andrea Mitchell are upset about this:

[CBS News' Bob] SCHIEFFER: . . . [Barack Obama has not] ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.

Gen. [Wes] CLARK [former NATO Supreme Allied Commander and decorated Vietnam War veteran]: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.

SCHIEFFER: Really?

Yes Bob Schieffer, really. Do you think it is a qualification to be President? Does CBS News think it is? Why? I think Bob Schieffer has some questions to answer on this point imo.

More . . .

To the chagrin of our friend DemfromCt, Paul Krugman chooses to present a clear and fair picture of the Obama campaign, a view you will not find in the blogs for the most part:

It’s feeling a lot like 1992 right now. It’s also feeling a lot like 1980. But which parallel is closer? Is Barack Obama going to be a Ronald Reagan of the left, a president who fundamentally changes the country’s direction? Or will he be just another Bill Clinton? . . . [T]he odds are that this will be a “change” election — which means that it’s very much Mr. Obama’s election to lose. But if he wins, how much change will he actually deliver?

More . . .

My fanboy moment, General Wes Clark on Face The Nation today:

By Big Tent Democrat

I normally find myself in almost total agreement with Digby but this post just seems wrong to me:

Under the system as it exists today, you can hardly be surprised that the first black Democratic nominee would be reluctant to break much more new ground than he already has. . . . I wish that he would use some of his rhetorical gifts to challenge conservative assumptions more and I'm hopeful that he will, as president, work to redefine the conventional wisdom. . . . [But] [w]e chose serious symbolic change that has deep cultural meaning over serious ideological change that has deep political meaning. . . . But nothing comes free and having a politically moderate president at a time when a more explicit progressivism might have gotten a boost is the price we pay. The Village will only tolerate so much change at one time. If we want real political change, it's time to change the Village.

Excuse me, this is a cop out. There is no reason, none, not to demand "serious ideological change that has deep political meaning." I do demand it. I reject Digby's premise here and I will not settle. Obama owes the country the change it desires. He should not be afraid to run on it and deliver it as President.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Ann Althouse writes:

I voted for Obama in the Wisconsin primary in part because I predicted he'd turn out to be flexible and pragmatic. I do agree with Krauthammer that it's funny the way the people who fell for the Obama of the primaries — who, unlike me, actually liked those positions he was taking — are letting him get away with the flipflop. I suppose, just as I convinced myself that the real Obama was not the one I was seeing back then, they are convincing themselves that the real Obama is not the one they are seeing now.

(Emphasis supplied.) Sully writes:

[Obama] is impressive precisely because he is neither a pure Adlai Stevenson nor a protean Bill Clinton. He's more like Jack Kennedy: cunning, ruthless, capable of political positioning as much as greatness.

More . . .

Republicans to Bob Barr: Don't run.

Bob Barr to Republicans:

“ ‘Well, gee, you might take votes from Senator McCain,’ ” Mr. Barr said this week, mimicking one of the complainers, as he sat sipping Coca-Cola in his plush corner office, 12 stories above Atlanta. “They all said, ‘Look, we understand why you’re doing this. We agree with why you’re doing it. But please don’t do it.’ ”

But with the Libertarian nomination in hand, Mr. Barr hopes to follow in the footsteps of Ross Perot and Mr. Nader, whose third-party presidential bids wreaked general-election havoc.

There's nothing quite so much fun as wreaking havoc on the Republican Party. Barr doesn't have much in the way of money or organization, but every vote he can siphon away from Republicans disgruntled with McCain is valuable. Go to it, Bob!

Michelle Obama had these encouraging remarks about her husband's positions on gay rights at a fundraiser this week:

A world where together we work to reverse discriminatory laws like DOMA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell. A world where LGBT Americans get a fair shake at working hard to get ahead without workplace discrimination.

..... And, a world where our federal laws don't discriminate against same-sex relationships, including equal treatment for any relationship recognized under state law.

More...