I know this is a few days old, but I thought that it was fitting to point out today.

The Sunday edition of the New York Times had an excellent piece on the Iraqi oil black market. The running theme throughout the piece centers on how money, not Islamic extremism, is the primary motivating factor behind the insurgency.

Five years after the war in Iraq began, the insurgency remains a lethal force. The steady flow of cash is one reason, even as the American troop buildup and the recruitment of former insurgents to American-backed militias have helped push the number of attacks down to 2005 levels.

In fact, money, far more than jihadist ideology, is a crucial motivation for a majority of Sunni insurgents, according to American officers in some Sunni provinces and other military officials in Iraq who have reviewed detainee surveys and other intelligence on the insurgency.

Despite politicians that continue to blur the lines between al Qaeda and insurgents and news reports that paint the insurgency strictly as an extremist movement aimed at killing as many Americans as possible, poverty is driving many to do whatever is necessary feed their families.

He said most fighters were seduced not by dreams of a life following Mr. bin Laden, but by a simpler pitch: "Here's $100; go plant this I.E.D."

"Ninety percent of the guys out here who do attacks are just people who want to feed their families," Major Kendrick said.

Our invasion created this mood. This poverty was born from our lack of understanding the region and an absent reconstruction policy. A policy that neglected Iraqis of necessities such as clean water and a stabilized electrical grid and wrecked their economy in such a way that left many without work.

Here's a short rundown on the pulse of blogopshere in reaction to Senator Obama's speech today.

Sullivan's take:

I have never felt more convinced that this man's candidacy - not this man, his candidacy - and what he can bring us to achieve - is an historic opportunity. This was a testing; and he did not merely pass it by uttering safe bromides. He addressed the intimate, painful love he
has for an imperfect and sometimes embittered man. And how that love enables him to see that man's faults and pain as well as his promise. This is what my faith is about. It is what the Gospels are about. This is a candidate who does not merely speak as a Christian. He acts like a Christian.

Crowley weighs in:

One of Bill Clinton's greatest political assets (before this campaign) was his ability to be a Nixon-in-China when it came to race; his successful mid-90s defense of affirmative action is a perfect example.

For Obama, the task is far more complicated. Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I suspect today's speech may fail to meet its goal of assuaging white America in two ways.

Yglesias's thoughts:

The kind of white resentment Obama is talking about here has been a problem for the Democratic Party for decades now notwithstanding the fact that you rarely see the party nominating African-Americans to run in majority white constituencies. What Obama is showing us here is that precisely because he's black, he's able to acknowledge and validate these resentments in a way that would be very difficult for a white liberal politician.

Lowry at The Corner:

The Throw Your Grandmother Under the Bus Speech

Charles Murray's response:

Has any other major American politician ever made a speech on race that comes even close to this one? As far as I'm concerned, it is just plain flat out brilliant--rhetorically, but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America.

Finally, Hillary's reaction:

"I did not have a chance to see or to read yet Sen. Obama's speech. But I'm very glad that he gave it. It's an important topic. Issues of race and gender in America have been complicated throughout our history, and they are complicated in this primary campaign."

In short, I think he did what was necessary. Some believe it was disingenuous. He'll never win the votes of the cynics that have this belief. And some look at it as playing a dangerous game of political chicken. His approach wasn't safe. If he followed the conventional wisdom he would have tried to let this story die, or he would have completely disowned Rev. Wright. But taking the conventional approach would have gone against his core argument for a new brand of politics. If we are to believe that he truly wants to lead the country towards a less divisive politics, then he had to confront this issue head-on and I think he did so successfully.

He started a little slow, but built up energy towards the end and finished up strong with a story that represents how Americans can move in a positive direction from this day forward.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

It's an understatement to say that the speech presented a challenge, but I think he threaded the needle nicely. Maybe this can be the beginning of a real conversation about race relations in America.

Here's the full text.

Happy St. Patrick's Day!

"I thought it would be worse... Donating money to the George Bush Presidential Library."

After a couple of days of the firestorm that slowly brewed around Senator Obama and his former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright, late Friday the Obama campaign took action on ousted Wright from his spiritual advisory committee.

At issue are several of the comments Wright made during recorded sermons. Here's a sample of a few that aired on ABC's Good Morning America:

Knowing that the problem with his pastor would raise its ugly head, the Obama camp tried to distance itself from Wright over a year ago. Recently Obama referred to Wright as an "uncle you don't always agree with."

Friday, with the nearly non-stop play of the video on the cable nets and the talking heads questioning his association with Wright, Obama posted this repudiation on the Huffington Post.

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.

Then shortly before an interview with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, the campaign announced that Wright had been dismissed from his role on the campaign. In the interview, Obama strongly disagreed with Wright's statements, but refused to condemn the man.

"I have known him 17 years," Obama said. "He helped bring me to Jesus and helped bring me to church. He and I have a relationship -- he's like an uncle who talked to me, not about political things and social views, but faith and God and family. He's somebody who is widely respected throughout Chicago and throughout the country for many of the things he's done not only as a pastor but a preacher."

This will probably fade to the background over the coming days and weeks if, and only if, there is no question that Obama never attended sermons in which Wright spoke in these fiery terms. Obama has said all along that Wright always preached a "social gospel." Something else that Obama did in the interview with Olbermann was cast Wright, correctly, as from an older generation that lived through things the younger generation of African- Americans have not had to live through and fought to change the country in a way that has benefited younger African-Americans.

This had to be a story that the Obama camp knew was coming. They must have prepared for it since the beginning of the campaign. I'm just not convinced that they knew there was video of these sermons. The video hurts. I had read a lot about Wright and his views in the last year. But the video of the impassioned sermons cast his words in a different light for many Americans, and unfortunately reinforce ideals about African-Americans that many older white Americans have programmed into them by generations past.

It's time to turn the page on this garbage and one of the best ways for Obama to help in turning the page is to give a speech about this very issue. He needs to talk about how divisive rhetoric, whether from Geraldine Ferraro or Jeremiah Wright, does not do this the country any service in moving forward. I think much of the country wants to move forward. In many ways, the younger generation (Obama's base) has moved forward and is more color blind than their parents generation, but every once in a while something pulls us back down. Obama should use this opportunity to help lift us back up.

The Chicago Tribune has an excellent piece detailing Senator Clinton's foreign policy experience, or lack thereof.

Pressed in a CNN interview this week for specific examples of foreign policy experience that has prepared her for an international crisis, Clinton claimed that she "helped to bring peace" to Northern Ireland and negotiated with Macedonia to open up its border to refugees from Kosovo. She also cited "standing up" to the Chinese government on women's rights and a one-day visit she made to Bosnia following the Dayton peace accords.

But her involvement in the Northern Ireland peace process was primarily to encourage activism among women's groups there, a contribution that the lead U.S. negotiator described as "helpful" but that an Irish historian who has written extensively about the conflict dismissed as "ancillary" to the peace process.

The Macedonian government opened its border to refugees the day before Clinton arrived to meet with government leaders. And her mission to Bosnia was a one-day visit in which she was accompanied by performers Sheryl Crow and Sinbad, as well as her daughter, Chelsea, according to the commanding general who hosted her.

How does going to Beijing and giving a speech show crisis management? There was no crisis. And there was nothing to manage," [Susan] Rice said.

Susan Rice's (former assistant Secretary of State in the Clinton administration) comment actually takes Sen. Clinton's mockery of Obama and turns it around on herself.

Sen. Clinton's attack on Obama's foreign policy experience does no one, but herself at this moment, any good. If Obama wins the nomination it opens the door for McCain to point out that even Sen. Clinton doesn't trust Obama. If she wins the nomination her claim is weak, at best, against McCain.

Let's face it, very few presidents could have made the argument prior to being elected that they were ready to take that "3 am call." Unless the candidate was an incumbent, he never took that call and has no idea what it's like. This is a clear example of Sen. Clinton trying to run as "the incumbent" but arguing that she is the "change" candidate at the same time. You can't be both.

I have no doubt that Sen. Clinton is just as "qualified" to answer that crisis call as Sen. Obama or Sen. McCain, but happening to be in the same room when that call came in or going to Bosnia with Sinbad doesn't make her any more qualified. And making the argument that she is more qualified is only setting herself and her party up for failure in the fall.

Since Senator Obama's disappointing performance Tuesday, some in the media have asked whether the questions surrounding a meeting between Obama's top economic adviser and Canadian officials in Chicago, may have swayed last-minute voters in Ohio.

The original story was floated by CTV shortly after the last debate and gained traction on Monday when the AP reported of an "official memo" that backed the story

The alleged source of the leak has now been revealed. Ian Brodie, the Canadian Prime Minister's chief of staff is the culprit, but the interesting part is that not only did he allegedly leak the memo, he made the same assertions about the Clinton campaign. Except he took it one step further, by indicating that the Clinton camp reached out to the Canadians.

"Quite a few people heard it," said one source in the room.

"He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry."

Government officials did not deny the conversation took place.

Since Monday's news cycle was dominated by allegations from the Clinton campaign that Obama was telling Ohio voters one thing, while telling the Candadian government the opposite, will the Clinton camp be questioned by the MSM about their hypocrisy?

Here was Hillary at the CNN Debate Thursday.

And here was Hillary just yesterday. Someone in her campaign needs to explain to her that moments like this one are not doing anything to grow her white male demographic.

I'm also astonished at how the press hasn't jumped all over this meltdown. If Barack Obama had done something even close to this in front of the press, it would be hailed as his "Howard Dean moment".

It's funny how the Clinton campaign continues to say the press is giving Obama a free pass, but the press refuses to criticize the multiple personalties that she seems have on the campaign trail lately. The press doesn't rain the same ridicule on her for the absurdity of her Giuliani-style approach to the contests since Super Tuesday. This latest incident is just another example of how the press continues to go easy on her campaign. If Obama had lost eleven contests in a row, the media would be screaming at him to concede.

My really good friends, J.D. and Eric, over at Scene Stealers have posted the final installment in their Oscar picks series. In this episode they pick who should win and who will win best picture. I haven't seen all of the movies up for best picture this year. I've seen a few and I'm off to check out There Will Be Blood (finally!) as soon as I click Save.

Whatever happens tomorrow night, please don't let Atonement win.

Buried amidst the speculation today about presidential hopeful John McCain's relationship with a telecommunication industry lobbyist is the story surrounding Bill O'Reilly's latest on-air racial gaff.

During his syndicated radio program that airs on Westwood One, O'Reilly spoke of "lynching" Michelle Obama. Here's the response O'Reilly gave in a half-hearted attempt to defend Michelle Obama's recent comments about finally feeling "really proud" of her country.

"I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down."

The comment came when a caller questioned Obama's patriotism and referred to her as a "militant woman".

There's so much about this story that offends me, I don't know where to begin. So I'll try to begin anyway.

First, common sense should apply here. The word "lynch" or any manifestation of the word should never be uttered in a context such as this. Lynching was an act that was used by whites to inflict terror over what they perceived as "militant" blacks. Wait, common sense doesn't apply here, does it? See O'Reilly's other generalizations about blacks in America.

Being one of Bush's loudest cheerleaders, didn't he get the recent memo from the president regarding the use of nooses and the word "lynching."

"The noose is not a symbol of prairie justice, but of gross injustice," Bush said at a ceremony in the East Room of the White House. "Displaying one is not a harmless prank. And 'lynching' is not a word to be mentioned in jest.

"As a civil society, we should be able to agree that noose displays and lynching jokes are deeply offensive. They are wrong. And they have no place in America today."

Oh, wait. I guess the word "civil" shouldn't be used to describe O'Reilly.

And what about that recent incident involving a Golf Channel reporter's
use of "lynching" when referring to Tiger Woods? Did O'Reilly miss that one too?

Where's the MSM on this? Where's the uproar? After Don Imus muttered those infamous words about the Rutgers basketball team last year, I had to watch nearly twenty-four hour coverage of the story. Imus had to issue more than one apology. Al Sharpton led protesters in front GE headquarters. Imus was suspended and eventually lost his job. Imus made a poor judgment, to say the least, in choosing his words when crafting a tasteless joke.

O'Reilly has conjured up one of the most heinous images in modern American race relations and tied it to someone who could possibly be the first black First Lady and little has been said. Some have questioned why the Obama campaign hasn't fired back. My guess is the Obama campaign will lay off an outright attack on O'Reilly. The campaign has tried to present the image that they are not willing to make Democratic primary about race. Calling this out publicly might inject race back into the forefront of the race for the nomination. This is where the media should step in. If they were willing to fan the flames of the Imus controversy and stoke the fire of the Golf Channel incident that Tiger Woods publicly dismissed, then why hasn't the media jumped all over this story?

Instead of outcry in the MSM about this absurd comment, we've been subjected the last twenty-four hours to the McCain story. By tomorrow, I suspect, the MSM will latch on to debate coverage. Meanwhile O'Reilly will continue to be given a forum for his racially charged remarks.

Have you ever seen the Bizarro episode of Seinfeld that follows a set of characters that look like Jerry, Geroge, Kramer, and crew, but they're completely the opposite of each character? Of course, Jerry ties this into a Superman comic about Superman's exact opposite that lives in a backwards world.

I'm beginning to think I'm living in Bizarro World. Recently I've seen Fox News praise Hillary Clinton and now Fox News legal analyst, Andrew Napolitano, says Bush and the GOP are wrong on surveillance.

The apocalypse must be near!