FRIDAY,  FEBRUARY 29,  2008

THE OBAMA WATCH

As it appears more and more likely that Obama will be the Democratic nominee, he receives greater incoming fire.  Adam Nagourney, of The New York Times, in a fair-minded (Did I say that?) piece, reports on what's in store for Obama as he starts to face his real opponent in this race, John McCain:

The Republican National Committee issued a statement on Wednesday invoking a questionnaire Mr. Obama filled out when running for Senate in 2004 to show that he once opposed cracking down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants.

Without using Mr. Obama’s name, President Bush, at a White House news conference on Thursday, assailed his willingness to meet Cuba’s new leader, Raúl Castro, without preconditions, saying that to do so would grant “great status to those who have suppressed human rights and human dignity.”

For much of this year, Mr. Obama has been handled with relative care by Mrs. Clinton and, before they dropped out, the other Democratic candidates. They generally do not have huge policy differences with him, and they have been wary of making a particularly harsh attack that winds up in a Republican television advertisement this fall.

Yet the shifting tone offers a glimpse of the Republican playbook as the party adapts to the prospect that it will be running against Mr. Obama rather than Mrs. Clinton.

It is a reminder that should Mr. Obama win the nomination, he will be playing on a more treacherous political battleground as his opponents — scouring through his record of votes and statements and his experiences before he entered public life — look for ways to portray him as out of step with the nation’s values, challenge his appeal to independent voters and emphasize his lack of experience in foreign policy and national security.

And...

“He regularly goes out there and says he’s the person who can beat John McCain,” said Mark Penn, Mrs. Clinton’s chief strategist. “But the truth is, if he is ever in a general election, a lot of positions he took in 2003 and 2004 will come back to haunt him in a big way and a lot of the vetting that didn’t happen will happen. The independent and Republican support that he has had will evaporate really quickly.”

That last quote is particularly intriguing, as it comes from Clinton's camp.  There is real bitterness in the Democratic Party, and it may divide along racial lines.  How enthusiastic will Hillary Clinton be to campaign for Barack Obama?  Not very, I'm guessing.  In fact, it's probably the opposite:  She'll go to bed every night praying for Obama to be defeated.  Then, at 64, she could run in 2012 against either the 76-year-old John McCain, or his successor.

As Harry Truman used to say, if you want a friend in Washington, get a cocker spaniel.

TRAPPED BY YOUTUBE

Reader Ken Braithwaite alerts me to this fascinating report from Canada, carried on YouTube.  Seems that Mr. Obama's campaign, and possibly Ms. Clinton's as well, has been doing some private negotiating with the Canadian government - saying one thing to them, while saying something quite different - about NAFTA in this case, to voters.  If this is true, it is a political scandal, and should be exploited instantly by McCain. 

First, what Obama did might be illegal.  A representative of his was allegedly negotiating with a foreign government without authorization from ours. 

Second, if this occurred, it was certainly dishonest.  At the very least, McCain should demand an investigation, possibly by the Justice Department.  Build issues, build issues.  McCain could say, with accuracy, that Obama has already created an international incident, that he's playing, unsuccessfuly, in the big kids' sandbox.

REMARKABLE POLL RESULTS

No, this isn't a poll on the candidates.   John Hinderaker, at Power Line, reports the results of a Pew survey, via Hot Air, showing increased confidence by the American people that we are succeeding in Iraq.  While still believing the decision to go to war in Iraq was wrong, which will help Obama, it also shows the American people now believe, by 53 to 39, that we will win.  This is definitely not good news for Obama, who's based a good part of his campaign on getting out of Iraq quickly.  McCain can trap him on this one, and already is talking up the question of Obama's irresponsibility in foreign policy.

Iraq is dying as an issue for Democrats.  Can defense policy be far behind?

Michelle, don't measure the drapes just yet.

OH, PLEASE

Obama is getting some help, probably unwanted, from dad's native land:

February 29, 2008 -- WASHINGTON - Angry tribal elders in Kenya are calling on Hillary Rodham Clinton to "clear her name" over any involvement in publication of photos of Barack Obama wearing a turban and African garb on a trip to his ancestral homeland.

The leaders are planning a protest in their community today, and are turning up the heat on the US government over the incident.

The photos appeared nationwide after they were published earlier this week on the Drudge Report Web site with a report that they had been circulated by Clinton staffers.
Obama aides blasted the Clinton campaign for "shameful, offensive fear-mongering."
The pictures show Obama wearing traditional Somalian garb on a 2006 visit to the Wajir region of Kenya, where his late father was born.

"The US government must apologize to us as a clan and the old man," Mohamed Ibrahim told Reuters, referring to a highly respected tribal elder who is also shown in the photos.
"We have been offended, and we cannot afford to just watch and stay silent."

He also said it was essential that Clinton "clear her name." 

Well, I don't think we'll be going to war with Kenya in the immediate future.

Maybe, though, Barack can put in a call to the old sod and tell them the imagery here isn't helping him.  Or maybe he can have his pastor do it.  But, of course, he barely knows his pastor.  Right?

FROM THE REAL WORLD

Ricin, a deadly poison, has been found in a Las Vegas hotel.  No need to panic, but this should be followed closely:

Police in Las Vegas, Nevada, are investigating the discovery of the deadly poison ricin in a hotel room Thursday.

A small amount of ricin was found Thursday in a hotel room in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Authorities were called to an Extended Stay America hotel around 3 p.m. after a man brought a bag holding a small container to the manager's office. The man said he found it while retrieving items from a hotel room.

It's "100 percent ricin," said Capt. Joe Lombardo of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. "We don't know who (the ricin) belongs to or why it would be here at this time."

Three hotel employees and a fourth person who came to the room to retrieve some items were taken to the hospital as a precaution, Officer Ramon Dendy told CNN. Three police officers who went into the room are also being watched at the hospital. None of the seven have shown symptoms of ricin poisoning, which can include anything from difficulty breathing, fever, cough, nausea and sweating to severe vomiting and dehydration.

"We did have enough ricin to be of concern," Lombardo said. "At this point, it has been contained and processed where it's not a threat to anybody." Watch police discuss ricin discovery »

Lombardo said the "area of concern" is under quarantine and is going through a decontamination process. All seven people have been decontaminated.

Police said they don't know how many people have stayed in the room recently.

The discovery of ricin alarms law-enforcement agencies because authorities in several countries have investigated links between suspect extremists and ricin.

"This is not a terror incident at this point," Lombardo said.

Lombardo said police do not have any suspects at this time.

I'll watch the story as it develops.  It simply demonstrates how easy it is to plant fatal poisons in any public facility.  This comes at a time when some "experts" are peddling the line that the threat of terror is exaggerated - except, of course, for its victims.

THE WRONG ABC'S

Well, the war on terror is getting no great help from ABC.  The liberal network posts on its website something called "Common Misunderstandings about Muslims." Fair enough.  But ace terror expert Steve Emerson shows us that "fair" isn't what this is about.  Once again, an American news organization refuses to take the world seriously:

On its website Tuesday, ABC News posted a story titled, "Common Misunderstandings About Muslims," which did its level best to carry water for the radical Islamist, and jihadist, movement in America, going so far as to cite America's most notorious radical front group, the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as the source to define the concept of "jihad."

Take this incredibly problematic passage:

Misconception: Islam promotes violence and terrorism.

Truth:

According to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, prominent Muslims, Islamic organizations and Islamic scholars have repeatedly denounced the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 and terrorism in general. One letter sent to President George W. Bush was signed by leaders from nine American-Muslim organizations, which together represent most of the seven million Muslims in the United States.

Jihad is a term that is often misunderstood and associated with violent radical militants. However, according to Muslim advocates, the word jihad means to "strive, struggle and exert effort." It is a central and broad Islamic concept that includes struggle against evil inclinations within oneself, struggle to improve the quality of life in society, struggle by military forces in the battlefield for self-defense or fighting against tyranny or oppression (source: the Council on American-Islamic Relations).

CAIR, in all its public events, and in frequent quotes to the media and contacts with the government, has tried to push the line that the word "jihad" does not mean holy war; it only means a "peaceful, internal struggle."

On the State Department list of proscribed terrorist groups, a full four organizations use the word "Jihad" in their title. Is the Islamic Jihad struggling peacefully when it blows up a bus or a café? Are they using that word to distort CAIR's vision of Islam? Or do they simply not understand Arabic? Has CAIR requested that they alter their names so as not to foment this "misconception?"

It goes on.  Great piece.  Highly recommended.  But the real question is why ABC posted this stuff at all.  You can be sure that they'll tell us they "stand by our story," which is the standard defense.  ABC has always tilted toward the Arab side under the guidance of its late anchor, Peter Jennings, whose reporting on the Arab-Israeli conflict was the most slanted of any network anchor.  Apparently, his students are carrying on the legacy. 

OBAMA THE DIVIDER?

Once again some very incisive reporting on Obama is coming from Britain.  Here, the UK's most influential person of color deflates the Obama balloon.  I may not entirely buy his analysis, but it should be weighed:

Trevor Phillips, Britain's most influential black figure, has warned that the election of Barack Obama as US president would prolong rather than end America's racial divide.

The chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission accused Mr Obama of "ruthless cynicism" and said he would not be "the harbinger of a post-racial America" if he becomes the country's first black president.

Mr Phillips' surprise attack on the favourite to win the Democratic Party nomination comes in an article for Prospect magazine published today. Mr Phillips dismissed attempts by the Obama camp to hail their man as a "new JFK", predicting he could emulate the "charm, skill and ruthless cynicism" of Bill Clinton.

Mr Phillips believed there were two types of influential black figures in America, both of whom keep race at the heart of US life -- "challengers", whose ambitions are limited to winning piecemeal concessions for blacks, and "bargainers", who do not make an issue of "white racism" if whites do not play the race card against them. He described Mr Obama as a "natural bargainer".

"In truth, Obama may be helping to postpone the arrival of a post-racial America and I think he knows it," Mr Phillips wrote. "If he wins, the cynicism may be worth it to him and his party. In the end he is a politician and a very good one: his job is to win elections." He backed the argument of Shelby Steele, who said in his biography of Mr Obama: "If he fulfils the hopes of whites, he must disappoint blacks – and vice versa."

Expect more of this kind of analysis as the campaign proceeds.

REJECTED

Finally, the design of a memorial to terror victims has been rejected in Washington:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A proposed design for a national memorial to victims of terrorism showing grieving, naked women has been rejected by Washington officials.

The sculpture, called ''Dark Elegy,'' features 76 figures of nude women either grimacing, tearing at their hair, crying in rage or collapsed in agony.

The National Capital Memorials Advisory Commission unanimously rejected the idea Tuesday.

The figures portray mothers, wives and sisters of the victims of Pan Am Flight 103, but is meant to represent all victims of terrorist acts.

Commission members say they fear the nude statues might offend some people, invite vandals and might be too specific to Flight 103 to be a memorial for all terrorist victims.

Occasionally, there is a victory for good taste.  Very occasionally.

And I'll be back later, tastefully.

Posted on February 29, 2008.