EVENING UPDATE,  FEBRUARY 19,  2008

Michelle under the lights

Well, what do you know?  A little internet buzz, a little talk-show muscle, and Michelle Obama becomes a campaign issue.  Her comment that this was the first time in her adult life that she was proud of her country has created a growing backlash, and properly so.  First, Cindy McCain, wife of you know who, showed how to administer the medicine:

Brookfield, WI — During her introduction of Sen. John McCain at a rally Tuesday, his wife Cindy took a shot at controversial comments recently made by another 2008 spouse.

“I am proud of my country. I don’t know about you? If you heard those words earlier, I am very proud of my country,” Mrs. McCain said while revving up the crowd and introducing her husband.

When asked at a media availability afterward if they were responding to Michelle Obama’s comments Monday that this election is the “first time” she was “really proud” of her country, Sen. McCain deferred to his wife–who reiterated her previous words.

That's the way to do it.  Fight back.  Respond.  Use every chance.

Fox News continues the story.  Oh goody:

“Can it really be there has not been a moment during that time when she felt proud of her country?” reads an article in Commentary magazine. “Forget matters like the victory in the Cold War; how about only things that have made liberals proud — all the accomplishments of inclusion? How about the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991? Or Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s elevation to the Supreme Court?”

The article then says Michelle Obama’s comments suggest “the pseudo-messianic nature of the Obama candidacy is very much a part of the way the Obamas themselves are feeling.”

Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol said the comment “was sort of revealing.”

“She was an adult when we won the Cold War without firing a shot. She was an adult for the last 25 years of economic progress, social progress,” he told FOX News. “I think the Democrats have to be careful … they’re running against the status quo … You have to be careful not to let that slide into a kind of indictment of America. Because I don’t think the American people think on the whole that the last 25 years of American history is a narrative of despair and nothing to be proud of.”

Michelle could, of course, apologize.  But she probably has no regrets.  After all, when you're married to the man who'll save the world in his first week in office, why take anything back?

Meanwhile, the saint is coming under more scrutiny

Investor's Business Daily, one of the most level-headed publications around, does a biting analysis of Obama's candidacy, and finds it wanting, and wanting, and wanting:

Clearly Obama saw the lay of the land and the direct route to the White House, or at least his party's presidential nomination. His campaign bus would be driven on the left side of the road all the way to Denver.

National Journal found that in 2007 he favored the liberal position on 65 of 66 key votes in which he voted, giving him a 95.5 score, the highest in the Senate.

On the issue of Iraq, he opposed the surge that has brought us victory. On March 15, he voted in favor of limiting debate on a proposal expressing the sense of Congress opposing President Bush's troop surge designed by Gen. David Petraeus.

Obama, whose foreign policy includes talking to our enemies while invading our allies, recently told the assembled veterans at the VFW Convention in Kansas City, Mo. "All our top military commanders recognize that there is no military solution in Iraq."

Let's see him repeat that to John McCain in a debate. Recently a top al-Qaida leader said his side faces an "extraordinary crisis" and "panic, fear and the unwillingness to fight."

The logical conclusion:

Obama's voting record makes George McGovern look like a moderate. The GOP scored against John Kerry in 2004 by pointing out his top National Journal liberal ranking for 2003.

If this presidential thing doesn't work out, Obama might consider joining the NASCAR circuit. It's the only occupation we can think of where you win by turning faster to the left than anybody else.

Or, he and Michelle could write a book about patriotism.

Wisconsin is voting right now.  Let's see which way this goes.

Saudi justice strikes back

Well, you've got to hand it to these Saudis.  When they say "rule of law," they really mean it.  Remember the case of the woman who was arrested for being with a man in a Saudi Starbucks?  Big case.  Big international hoopla.  Well, just a second say the Saudis.  Let's go by the law here:

Saudi Arabia's religious police have issued a rare public statement defending their arrest of an American woman living in Riyadh, jailed for sitting with a male colleague at Starbucks.

Yara, a businesswoman and married mother of three, said she was strip-searched, forced to sign false confessions and told by a judge she would "burn in hell" before she was released on Feb. 4.

Late Monday night, The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice publicly denounced her with a statement posted on the Internet, saying her actions violated the country's Shariah law.

"It's not allowed for any woman to travel alone and sit with a strange man and talk and laugh and drink coffee together like they are married," it said.

"All of these are against the law and it's clear it's against the law. First, for a woman to work with men is against the law and against religion. Second, the family sections at coffee shops and restaurants are meant for families and close relatives," it continued.

These women who think they can just break the law - shameful!  You see them here in America, lounging around Starbucks, or, even more sinful, MacDonald's.  And they think they're equal.  We must understand Saudi culture.

And the religious police are also teaching the press a thing or two about "rule of law":

The powerful religious police have launched a crackdown on the local press for its criticism of the religious police and its handling of the incident.

The "Mutaween" has vowed to sue two newspaper columnists who have written in Yara's defense, saying: "The Commission has the right to sue the writers because of the lies they are spreading. It gives the wrong idea of Saudi Arabia."

Of course it does.  Damned hacks.  They ruin everything.  They probably want women to work for newspapers.

Repeat after me:  Saudi Arabia is our ally in the war on terror.

Norway threatened - do they care?

Even some in Scandinavia are awakening.

The Norwegians love to needle Americans.  The Nobel Peace Prize is given in Norway, not Sweden, as is generally thought.  Remember how some Nobel committee members stuck it to us after awarding the prize to the inept Jimmy Carter?  One guy said it was a "kick in the shins" to the Bush administration.  Well, what a difference some fanatics make.  Now Norway's own security service is warning the country about the rise of Islamic extremism.  Apparently, it's not just another "cultural choice."  The facts: 

Norway's state police agency in charge of national security (Politiets sikkerhets tjeneste, PST) reported Tuesday that Islamic extremism "will represent a considerable challenge" for Norway in coming years, and that it sees "indications of rising radicalism" both inside and outside the country.

Norway's contribution to NATO forces in Afghanistan is the main reason Norway is now viewed as a "legitimate target" of Islamic extremists, the PST claimed in its latest terrorism evaluation.

Okay, we'll start a pool.  How long do you think it will be before the Norwegian left demands a pullout from Afghanistan?  A week?  A day?  A minute?  Okay, I didn't include seconds.  It's my salute to Sonja Henie.

The story goes on:

Experience in other countries indicates that radicals "can quickly develop operative intentions and capacity," and be motivated by local political issues. They thus can "respond negatively" to national events or controversial political issues in Norway.

I love that phrase, "respond negatively."  Yeah, I would say blowing up a railroad station is a negative response.  Sure.  Although, other cultures may believe...   Oh, the hell with that stuff.

The ghost speaks - and he knows

Former Bush speechwriter William McGurn, who'd left journalism to write for this president, reflects on the way he saw the press from the other side.  Very illuminating, and discouraging:

And over three years in the West Wing, you see a few things. You see who's a straight shooter, and who's full of snark. You see who's smart, and whose outrageous behavior would have made its way to Drudge had it involved White House staffers instead of White House correspondents. Most of all, you see how conventional wisdom can keep otherwise talented reporters and commentators on the same stale storyline long after the facts on the ground have changed.

Yeah, we've noticed.  McGurn gives some great examples, and reveals:

During one of my first meetings in the Oval Office, the president told me and my fellow speechwriters that we must always be mindful of how his words would sound to the enemy -- and how they would sound to the young Marine risking his life against that enemy in some dusty town in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Apparently, no one ever gave that advice to Barack Obama. 

McGurn concludes:

President Bush hasn't always been right. But he's been right on the things that matter most, and he's been willing to take the heat. I, for one, admire him for it.

I think most Americans will come around to that view, but it may take several years.

They'll tell us she exists

Finally tonight, more exciting news from the world of great scholarship.  Oxford University, which recently hosted a debate on whether Israel had a right to exist, will study the issue of why humankind embraces God. 

Hasn't this been explained before?  Well, if you get a grant, I guess you have to use it.  The story:

LONDON - University of Oxford researchers will spend nearly $4 million to study why mankind embraces God. The grant to the Ian Ramsey Center for Science and Religion will bring anthropologists, theologians, philosophers and other academics together for three years to study whether belief in a divine being is a basic part of mankind's makeup.

"There are a lot of issues. What is it that is innate in human nature to believe in God, whether it is gods or something superhuman or supernatural?" said Roger Trigg, acting director of the center.

He said anthropological and philosophical research suggests that faith in God is a universal human impulse found in most cultures around the world, even though it has been waning in Britain and western Europe.

Yeah, we've heard about this European and Brit problem.  I wonder if the archbishop of Canterbury will be asked to contribute, or will they restrict participation to believers?

Posted on February 19, 2008.