EVENING UPDATE,  JANUARY 30,  2008

•   While we're obsessing over which no-chance candidate is dropping out of the presidential race, the world moves on, in curious ways.  First, through Scott Johnson at Power Line, we learn of an odd incident at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.  Seems our UN ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, was on a panel with some Iranian diplomats.  He wasn't authorized by the State Department to be there.  He also sat by while his predecessor, John Bolton, was insulted by the moderator.  In previous times, this would have signalled a walkout by Mr. Khalilzad.  The New York Sun covers the story here. 

Question:  Will the ambassador be disciplined, or will we send the signal, like so many we've sent recently, that we're a bit softer than we were?   I'm not holding my breath.  Scott quotes former ambassador Bolton:

When I was at the UN, this would not have happened. Perhaps the State Department or the White House are sending a signal to Iran that our policy is weakening yet again. They should be asked to say one way or the other on the record. 

Great idea.  Let's ask.  But who'll do the asking?  The White House press corps?  Maybe we'd better call for help.  You know, Rudy is free.

•   And Iran is not backing down from its nuclear chemistry class.  Its wise, moderate, and scientifically swift president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, says his country will reach the nuclear "peak" in 2009:

"On the nuclear path we are moving towards the peak," he said without elaborating. " ... next year at this time ... nuclear electricity should flow in Iran's electricity network."

Gee, that's good to know.  Just when I was worrying that all those Iranians would run out of power for their Macbooks.  That's what the nuclear program is for, isn't it?  Class?  Class? 

The gracious president went on:

Ahmadinejad called on Western powers to take part in building Iranian nuclear power plants.

"If you don't, this nation will build nuclear plants with the hands of its own scientists," he said. "The Iranian nation, without depending on you and without begging you, has today ... set up the complete cycle of fuel production."

The Reuters story does note that nuclear fuel, if properly enriched, can be used for nuclear weapons.  For some reason, we're just not that interested any more.  You know, when the Kennedys say it's time to move on, it's time to move on.  Let's not quibble over nukes.  That's so, so adult.

•   Still in the real world, we see there's one more betrayal of American generosity.  Egypt has apparently turned its back on American pressure to keep its distance from Iran.  Relations between Iran and Egypt, bitter since 1979, are warming.  The key quote:

The sudden warming of relations between Egypt - a moderate, Arab, Sunni nation friendly to Washington - and Iran, a radical, non-Arab, Shia nation vehemently opposed to Washington - points to a diminished American standing in the Middle East.

The thaw comes just two weeks after President George W.Bush made an extended swing through the region aimed in good part at shoring up an anti-Iranian coalition made up of moderate Arab countries fearful of a nuclear Iran. Egypt, the Arab country with the largest population and largest army, was a centerpiece of that strategy.

Well, as anyone who's been to a wedding knows, someone always steals the centerpiece.  We should remember this next time Egypt asks us to take out our checkbook.

If we want to know why this is happening, we should simply go back to Osama bin Laden's notion that, in the Middle East, people prefer the strong horse to the weak horse.  In Bush's first term, America seemed determined.  In his second, he's given sway to the so-called realists, who prefer accommodation to strength.  The State Department, under Condi Rice, has turned back into what President Kennedy correctly called "a bowl of jelly."  The recent National Intelligence Estimate, written to undermine the Bush Doctrine, effectively knifed our Iran policy.  Countries in the Middle East have taken note, and are acting accordingly.  If the Democrats are elected in November, it will only get worse.   

•   There's a major media surprise to report.  The New York Post, a conservative newspaper, has endorsed Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination in the New York primary next Tuesday.  It has not yet made its Republican choice.  The paper is owned by Rupert Murdoch, one of the giant newspaper barons of our time, who recently bought The Wall Street Journal.

The endorsement, as reported in the rival New York Times, is stunning.  Murdoch had been getting closer to Hillary Clinton.  The scoop:

The editorial is somewhat surprising because Rupert Murdoch, the chairman of the News Corporation, which owns The Post, has been seen as cultivating a relationship with Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton. In the summer of 2006, Mr. Murdoch, whose political views are highly conservative, played host to a fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton, causing consternation among many liberals. (Mr. Murdoch had played host to a similar fund-raiser for Senator Charles E. Schumer in 2003 and has given money to other Democrats in the past.)

Also in 2006, Mr. Clinton accepted an invitation from Mr. Murdoch to speak to a gathering of executives in Pebble Beach, Calif.; he included Mr. Murdoch in his Clinton Global Initiative conference on climate change, poverty and corruption; and Mrs. Clinton was one of only two Democratic senators who appeared at a Fox News Sunday anniversary party in Washington, where Mr. Murdoch was in attendance.

Is the endorsement indicative of anything other than some mind-changing in News Corporation?  No one outside the office really knows.  But there is an undercurrent beneath the political buzz, holding that the Clintons may have overplayed their hand, and that their time has passed.  Power, in such circumstances, knows where to drift.

•    Barack Obama turns up the heat, declaring Hillary Clinton a divisive figure.  He also is starting to turn his hot tongue on John McCain:

"It is time for new leadership that understands the way to win a debate with John McCain or any Republican who is nominated is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq or who agreed with him in voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran, who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don't like, who actually differed with him by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions when the politics of the moment changed," Obama said.

I don't know.  Does that work?  It doesn't work for me.  It's great rhetoric for the converted, or for a religious revival, but I have a feeling it will wear awfully thin by November.  At least, that's what I'm hoping.  Obama offers big talk.  When you look at any policy behind the talk, it's the policy of the old left of the sixties.  It is not a policy for the future. 

Americans have heard this before.  They heard it from George McGovern in 1972, and rejected McGovern, overwhelming, in favor of the unloved Richard Nixon.  I have to believe they'll reject Obama's fire in favor of the respected John McCain.  If they don't, that's when the trouble begins. 

We still await press scrutiny of Obama.  If the press doesn't do it, the public may do it all by itself.  The elites will go crazy.

Posted at 6:40 p.m. EST, January 30, 2008.