EVENING UPDATE,  FEBRUARY 14,  2008

•   I've read a number of articles in recent days urging the abolition of super delegates in the Democratic Party.  Super delegates are officeholders and party officials who have votes at the party's nominating convention, but have not been elected in primaries.  The argument of the anti-supers is that their participation isn't "democratic."

So what?

I like super delegates.  I think they're super.  A political party is a private organization, which can make any rules it wishes.  Super delegates exist to stabilize the party, just as the United States Senate exists to insulate the political process from some of the popular passions found in the House of Representatives.  Senators are elected for six years, not two, as in the House.  Each state has two senators, regardless of size, to insure that small states are heard. 

Undemocratic!  But it works.  They don't call the U.S. Senate the world's greatest deliberative body for nothing.

Super delegates give a political party knowledge and experience.  They often know the candidates personally.  If not, they know people who know them.  They can size them up.  Super delegates give a party's nomination process a sense that there is more than the presidency in politics and government.  They are often members of Congress, of state legislatures.  They are governors and party officers.  They provide a fullness.

There was a time when presidential nominations were influenced by, even decided by, bosses in smoke-filled rooms.  The intellectual elites hated the process, but it produced some of our greatest presidents.  The reason?  These were pros.  Their greatest fear was being embarrassed.  They weren't going to go to a party convention and nominate a jerk, if they could help it.

Today's Democratic Party process grew out of the turmoil of the 1970s.  It combines the democracy of the primary with the practical politics and guidance of the super delegates.  It prevents the party from being entirely controlled by the passions of presidential campaigns, or by those who vote once every four years.

Keep the super delegates.  The Democratic Party almost destroyed itself in the 1970s, when it sold itself to the "movements."  You may recall that its incompetent 1972 nominee, George McGovern, could not make his acceptance speech until the early hours of the morning because childlike "democratically elected" delegates went off on ego trips that delayed the convention.  No viewer saw McGovern in prime time.  He lost to Nixon in a landslide. 

A little expertise is not a bad thing.  Super delegates provide it.

•   Ah, political intrigue.  Michael Bloomberg, New York's billionaire mayor, is out on the stump again, raising once more the question of whether he'll jump in as a self-financed candidate for president.  The report: 

NEW YORK (CBS/AP) — Mayor Michael Bloomberg has unleashed another flurry of jabs on Washington, ridiculing the federal government's rebate checks as being "like giving a drink to an alcoholic" on Thursday, and said the presidential candidates are looking for easy solutions to complex economic problems.

The billionaire and potential independent presidential candidate also said the nation "has a balance sheet that's starting to look more and more like a third-world country."

President Bush signed legislation Wednesday that will result in cash rebates ranging from $300 to $1,200 for more than 130 million people.

The federal checks are the centerpiece of the government's emergency effort to stimulate the economy, under the theory that most people will spend the money right away.

But Bloomberg does not believe it will do much good. And his harsh words at a news conference Thursday reflect the view among some of his associates that the country's economic woes present a unique opportunity for him to launch a third-party bid for the White House.

Hmm.  Now, that would really be exciting.  Political theater at its best.  And it might just work.  But be prepared:  No one ever called Mike Bloomberg "Mr. Excitement."  He could give a speech in a cemetery, and the residents would get up and leave.  The words "Bloomberg" and "rock star" are not found in the same dictionary.

But, you never know.  He is capable.  He's a contrast.  People don't faint at the name Bloomberg, any more than they resist the name Obama. 

Stay tuned.  This could get interesting.

•   The always perceptive Dan Henninger, of The Wall Street Journal, is the latest writer to give some real thought to Barack Obama, and he nails the guy's problem:

Hillary Clinton probably didn't watch the stem-winder speech that Barack Obama delivered Tuesday night after cleaning her clock in the Potomac primaries. If not, she should.

It was tiresome.

The speech was classic Obama. Beautifully written and beautifully delivered, the words soaring to the rafters of a Madison, Wis., auditorium filled mostly with 17,000 cheering students. The rookie senator had just come off blowouts of Hillary in Virginia and Maryland.

The senator's charisma and appeal has been undeniable. He is almost insanely eloquent. Still, about halfway into this (very long) speech, the feeling was hard to shake: This is getting hard to listen to. Again and again.

Is Sen. Obama peaking? Probably not. The across-the-board growth in his Potomac numbers was impressive. The more appropriate question would be, is the Obama wave cresting?

Well, we don't know.  But Henninger's analysis is superb:

Listen closely to that Tuesday night Wisconsin speech. Unhinge yourself from the mesmerizing voice. What one hears is a message that is largely negative, illustrated with anecdotes of unremitting bleakness. Heavy with class warfare, it is a speech that could have been delivered by a Democrat in 1968, or even 1928.

And...

For Sen. Obama the military and national security is a world of catastrophe welded to Iraq and filled with maimed soldiers. Mr. McCain locates these same difficult subjects inside the whole of American military achievement. It nets out as a more positive message. Recall that Ronald Reagan's signature optimism, when it first appeared, was laughed at by political pros. Optimism won elections.

Finally...

Odds are that he will ride it to the nomination among Democrats for whom America can never quite escape the Depression. Hillary Clinton can only offer what she's got -- a clear-eyed ambition to get, and use, Democratic power.

Everything in life has a top -- stocks, football teams and political phenoms, as she well knows. Though down, Hillary ought to suck it up for Ohio and Texas and hope the Obama wave starts to break. On current course, it will.

Read the whole thing.  It's great analysis.

•   Some late polls at Real Clear Politics support Henninger's thesis:

Rasmussen has Clinton taking Ohio, 51 percent to 37 for Obama.

Quinnipiac has Clinton up in Ohio, 55 to 34.

Survey USA, 56 Clinton, 39 Obama.

Quinnipiac shows Clinton leading in Pennsylvania, 52 to 36.

No polls yet for Texas. 

Well, that's all good for Hillary, but she's developed an exquisite ability to blow leads and lose.  Maybe she's learned how to fight the trench fights of the final weeks before a vote.  Keep watching.

•   Back in the adult world:  President Bush has ordered new sanctions placed on Syria, for its support of international terror and mischief: 

US President George W. Bush ordered new sanctions on Wednesday to punish Syria for allegedly trying to undermine stability in Iraq and undercut Lebanon's sovereignty and democracy.

Bush, in an executive order, said he was expanding sanctions against senior government officials in Syria and their associates deemed responsible for or to have benefited from public corruption.

The order named no specific officials.

The White House said Wednesday's order expanded action taken in May 2004 when Bush issued an executive order banning all US exports to Syria except for food and medicine. He ordered the sanctions then after long-standing complaints that the Middle Eastern nation was supporting international terror and undermining US efforts in Iraq.

This comes at the moment when Zbig Brzezinski, one of Senator Obama's chief foreign-policy advisers, is in Damascus, apparently having planned his trip without Obama's knowledge.  Maybe President Bush should call Obama and ask if Zbig could deliver the sanctions news to President Assad personally.  It would be a warm gesture, folksy and human.  How could Obama refuse?

•   Finally, more from the make-your-blood-boil front:  Al Queda in Iraq is looking for a few good women.  Of course, such an elite group has special qualifications:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Al Qaeda in Iraq is recruiting female patients at Baghdad's two psychiatric hospitals for suicide missions -- with the help of hospital staff -- according to the U.S. military.

The U.S. military believes al Qaeda in Iraq has operatives within the hospitals' staffs who are passing on patients' files and contact information to the militant group, a senior U.S. military official said, requesting anonymity.

The apparent recruiting effort came to light this month when Iraqi officials said that two female bombers in deadly pet market attacks in Baghdad that left nearly 100 dead were mentally challenged.

One of the female bombers had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and depression at Baghdad's Ibn Rushd psychiatric hospital, where she received electric shock treatments, the hospital's director said in an exclusive interview.

Great, huh?  But remember, who are we to judge?  This simply reflects frustration with American imperialism, and shows cultural difference.  That's right, isn't it?   

Comments, Senator Obama?  Mr. Brzezinski? 

We'll wait for their learned remarks, and we'll be back tomorrow.

Posted on February 14, 2008.