EVENING UPDATE, FEBRUARY 15, 2008

•   Michael Barone, one of the best analysts we have, examines Senator Clinton's campaign and wonders whether she's due for a comeback.  He concludes that she is, pointing out that polling data in major upcoming states like Ohio give cause for Clinton optimism, as do indicators in other states.  The key quote:

How can Clinton be doing so much better here than she did in Maryland and Virginia? One reason is that there are smaller percentages of black voters in these states. Another, probably more important, reason is that the white Democratic primary voters are different. In Maryland and Virginia, they tended to be quite upscale and on the young side, especially in the big suburban counties outside Washington, D.C. In Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, they're much more downscale. At a time when Clinton and Obama are essentially tied in national polls, it stands to reason that if Obama is ahead in states like Maryland and Virginia, Clinton will be ahead in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

It isn't over.  But Clinton has too often faded in the last weeks before a primary, and her ground game - her organization - is not as sharp as it could be.  Yet, she's competitive in major states that are yet to vote.  You never know.

•   Underlining Barone's point, three of four late polls show Senator Clinton ahead in Texas, and within striking distance of Obama in Wisconsin, which votes Tuesday.  If Clinton can stay close to Obama in Wisconsin when the votes are in, she can at least claim "comeback kid" status and say that she's gaining, she has the momentum.  All the stuff they say. 

Remember, there's a certain advantage in being the underdog.  Some people start rooting for you.  Clinton is now the underdog.  How much rooting she'll get is problematical, of course, since her name is Hillary Clinton, but even politics can be sentimental.  Stay tuned.

•   And there's some hedging.  The anticipated stampede of African-American leaders toward Obama hasn't quite materialized.  A spokeswoman for Congressman John Lewis of Georgia knocks down the story that he's switching to Obama.  Lewis is one of the most respected black leaders in the nation.  The quote:

The Times' story, which was carried in Friday's AJC, said Lewis was planning to drop his long-time support for Hillary Clinton and vote for Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination at the party's convention in August.

Lewis is one of 13 so-called superdelegates from Georgia, who are party leaders and elected officials who may cast a ballot for any candidate at the party's convention in Denver.

Jones, Lewis' spokeswoman, told the Washington Post that "it is plain there is a lot of enthusiasm for Barack Obama." But, she said, "those things are observations," not statements of preference. Jones told the newspaper that Lewis has left the option of changing his superdelegate support for Clinton on the table, but made no decisions.

The March 4th primaries in Texas and Ohio are two weeks from Tuesday.  We'll know a great deal then.

•   I was watching CNN for a bit today.  They carried almost an entire campaign speech by Senator Obama.  I thought it was odd, since we usually get only snippets of speeches, except on voting nights.  I wonder if they're doing the same with Senator McCain's speeches or Senator Clinton's.  I'm not making accusations.  If anyone can enlighten me, I'd be grateful.  Have you seen any extended coverage of Clinton or McCain speeches on CNN?

•   It's sometimes, but not always, interesting to get a foreign perspective.  Gerard Baker of The Times of London is an astute observer of the American landscape.  He cautions both Democratic candidates about overconfidence.  After reviewing Clinton's now-famous overconfidence, he examines Obama's, emerging in the last two weeks.  He says:

Even if Mrs Clinton cannot notch up margins large enough in the forthcoming states to overtake Mr Obama, with a string of victories she could mount an alternative argument. She is now pinning all her hopes on the next big states to vote - Texas and Ohio - on March 4, where polls suggest she has a strong lead. They are the kind of states that are host to a larger concentration of her types of voters: blue collar, less affluent, old and Latino.

If she wins them and goes on to carry Pennsylvania on April 22, she can claim not only to have renewed momentum, she will have pulled off a remarkable feat. Mrs Clinton will have won in seven of the eight biggest states - accounting between them for 43 per cent of the US population. There will be a struggle over two of those states - Florida and Michigan - because they are banned from sending delegates to the convention since they broke Democratic party rules by voting early. But that still adds up to an impressive collection of big states.

But he warns Clinton:

Her one remaining asset after all this is that her core voters are still the Democratic party's base: working-class types struggling to make ends meet in a weakening economy.

But even they may be starting to waver in the direction of Mr Obama's inspiring rhetoric. She has two weeks to persuade them that she has a real plan to help them.

Reasonable.

•   Another astute observer, James Clurfeld of Newsday, comes in with a very fine report on the role of the press in the Democratic primary.  He predicts, and I hope he's right, more scrutiny of Obama:

I admire much of what Sen. Obama has to say. And he says it so well. But the journalist in me still feels there are questions that have not been asked, let alone answered. 

Yes, sir.  Right on.  He continues:

First and foremost, just how is Obama going to bring the country together and find common ground on the substantive issues that have so divided it for almost three decades? Just saying you want to bring people together isn't sufficient. Where is the common ground on giving women the right to choose versus embracing the right-to-life argument? How do you pull troops out of Iraq without re-energizing al-Qaida or compromising the gains from the surge? How will you reduce the cost of health care to make it more affordable, when the medical inflation rate has been at least twice that of the general inflation rate? And how do you convince Americans that some taxes might have to be raised to pay for universal access to health care or to make Social Security and Medicare solvent for the next generation?

That is a journalist.

•   McCain is starting to draw distinctions between him and any Democratic rival.  He's gutsy to stand firm on Iraq, and I think the voters will eventually back him on that.  The quote:

"Both Senator Obama and Clinton want to set a date for withdrawal. That means chaos. That means genocide," the 71-year-old Arizona senator told CNN's Larry King late Thursday.

"That means undoing all the success we've achieved, and Al-Qaeda tells the world they defeated the United States of America. I won't let that happen, as president of the United States."

Long a fervent advocate of the surge policy in Iraq, McCain praised Defense Secretary Robert Gates and called the commander of US forces in Iraq, General David Petraeus, "one of the great generals in American military history."

Strong argument, well stated.  Imagine a debate in which Obama must defend his far-left let's-surrender-now positions.

•   And, on Iraq:  The Iraqi govenment, which has made great progress in the last week in passing critical laws, is now joining the U.S. in proclaiming victory over Al Queda in Baghdad, and predicting victory throughout the country:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki proclaimed on Friday that Al-Qaeda had been routed in Baghdad thanks to a security plan launched a year ago, and would soon be defeated throughout the country.

"Thank God, we destroyed the cells of Al-Qaeda. They have been chased out of Baghdad and this has opened the way for their defeat throughout Iraq," Maliki said at a ceremony marking the launch on February 14 last year of the Baghdad security plan, known as Operation Fardh al-Qanoon (Imposing Law).

"Today our forces are locked in battle against outlaws in Nineveh and we are chasing them," he added, referring to the northern province where Iraqi officials say Al-Qaeda has regrouped after fleeing Baghdad.

There is no substitute for victory.  If Bush can play this right, he can put in play a psychological process that is likely to result in a Republican successor.

•   The fight goes on outside Iraq, and it is a fight against appeasement, conformity, political correctness, and surrender.  There are plenty of people who have no problem with those concepts.  They teach in universities, they write for newspapers, they serve in governments, they go to proper parties on the west side of Manhattan.  Many are leftists who make common cause with our enemies because they despise the United States.  In The Wall Street Journal, the editor of the paper that published the famous "Danish cartoons" writes of the struggle:

Unfortunately, misplaced sensitivity is being used by tyrants and fanatics to justify murder and silence criticism. Right now the Organization of Islamic Countries is conducting a successful campaign at the United Nations to rewrite international human-rights standards to curtail the right to free speech. Last year the U.N. Human Rights Council adopted a resolution against "defamation of religion," calling on governments around the world to clamp down on cartoonists, writers, journalists, artists and dissidents who dare to speak up.

In the West there is a lack of clarity on these issues. People suggest that Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Taslima Nasreen and Kurt Westergaard bear a certain amount of responsibility for their fate. They don't understand that by doing so they tacitly endorse attacks on dissenting voices in parts of the world where no one can protect them.

Read the whole piece.  But who is listening?  Mr. Obama?  Senator Clinton?

•   And the cost of political correctness?  It isn't just intellectual.  it can be very, very physical.  A British think tank provides some clarity:

LONDON - A leading defense think-tank said on Friday that multicultural Britain is an easy target for attacks by militant Islamists because its aims, values and political identity are divided.

In a report strongly rebutted by the government, the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) said: “We look like a soft touch. We are indeed a soft touch, from within and without.”

And then...

The report, based on the findings of former military chiefs, diplomats and analysts, concluded: “The country’s lack of self-confidence is in stark contrast to the implacability of its Islamist terrorist enemy.”

“The security of the United Kingdom is at risk and under threat,” it said.

The report called for the creation of a new cabinet committee to oversee security policy. It said another parliamentary committee should seek to build consensus and identify security weaknesses.

“Islamist terrorism is where people tend to begin. The United Kingdom presents itself as a target, as a fragmenting, post-Christian society, increasingly divided about interpretations of its history, about its national aims, its values and in its political identity,” the RUSI report said.

And more...

The report said “lack of leadership from the majority, which in misplaced deference to ’multiculturalism’ failed to lay down the line to immigrant communities” had undercut those within them trying to fight extremism.

Her Majesty's government, of course, disagreed:

“The government rejects any suggestion that Britain is a soft touch for terrorists.  We have a detailed and robust strategy for countering international terrorism,” he added.

Report right.  Government wrong.

And I'll be back tomorrow.

Posted on February 15, 2008.