William Katz: Urgent Agenda
SNIPPETS, our daily collection of short items and comments, is here.
---------------------------------------------
Answers to last week's "current question" are here. The new "current question" is here, in the right-hand column.
---------------------------------------------
BARACK OBAMA'S FIRST HUNDRED DAYS is on hiatus until after the conventions. We've gone through the first 50 days. The conventions and the launch of the fall campaign will provide new material, new absurdities, and allow us to finish the first 100 days just before the election.
An archive containing the first 50 days is here.
---------------------------------------------
Our next subscription drive will be in October. However, readers are invited to subscribe at any time. Subscriptions are voluntary, but are critical to keeping us going. Subscribe in the right-hand column.
--------------------------------------------
The world waits for tonight when Hillary Clinton reprises her role as Lady Macbeth at the Democratic National Convention. Sold out.
A musical version is reportedly in the works.
We will comment tonight, as it happens.
---------------------------------------------
McCAIN TAKES THE LEAD IN GALLUP TRACKER!
TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2008
11:52 p.m. ET: The Democrats had a much better night tonight than they had last night. They were spirited and political, and this is a political convention, something they seemed to forget last night. It will take a few days before the tracking polls show any impact from tonight's events. I wouldn't be shocked to see a bump for Obama, the kind of bump that's eluded him up to now. If Obama, though, flatlines or falls behind, he's in real trouble. That result would show that he can't make the case, even at a convention he controls. He must come out of this meeting with at least some bounce. Otherwise, he's likely to lose support, and certainly enthusiasm, even within his own party.
But remember that the GOP conclave will start Monday, giving the Dems no time to build momentum. McCain names his v.p. choice later this week. He would do himself a world of good if he tried for an exciting, original choice, something Republicans have not exactly excelled at over the years. He'd be wise to consider a woman. My guess is that his choice will be solid, but conventional, and will have little impact on the race. I want to be proved wrong, completely wrong.
11:37 p.m. ET: The CNN analysts were more kindly disposed toward Hillary Clinton than were the Fox pundits. Gloria Borger, in particular, thought Hillary was actually generous to Obama. The words "Hillary" and "generous" are usually not found in the same sentence. Oh, we were reminded that the big event tomorrow night is Bill Clinton, whose appearance will overshadow that of Joe Biden, who I think is running for vice president or something.
11:20 p.m. ET: Was just watching the Fox analysts, some of whom feel that Hillary's endorsement of Obama was kind of minimal. Well, maybe, but she did deliver the necessary words. We didn't expect much warmth toward Obama, because there isn't any.
11:08 p.m. ET: Hillary has finished. Strong speech. I thought the first half was better, the second a bit over the top. But she did what she needed to do, and there's no way around that. Will it affect the race? I have no idea. She's not on the ticket. She endorsed Obama strongly, although there didn't seem to be any visceral enthusiasm, and of course there isn't.
But the moment has passed without a revolt by her supporters.
10:58 p.m. ET: So far, Hillary is giving a good speech. Of course, there are no details, and, if examined, many of her points can be demolished. But it's a good, strong speech. She's doing what she has to do. And she's doing, from her point of view, the most important thing: She's getting the delegates to ask, "Why isn't she the candidate?"
10:47 p.m. ET: Hillary began with a strong endorsement of Barack Obama. Now she's talking a bit about herself. Didn't take long. The camera cuts to Michelle Obama, who looks like she's had better days. But Clinton is saying all the right things that a "unifier" must say. Remember, she wants a future in this party.
10:45 p.m. ET: Chelsea Clinton, with fine style, has just introduced Hillary Clinton to the convention. Now the fun begins. We listen.
10:27 p.m. ET: Hillary is scheduled to appear in about four minutes. There are reports that she has arrived, and has parked the broomstick. Stay tuned.
10:16 p.m. ET: Bill Kristol, speaking on Fox, just revealed a bit of fascinating information. It turns out that Mark Warner, the Dem keynote speaker, was actually scheduled to speak now, in the best of prime time. At the last minute he was moved into an earlier slot, apparently, according to Kristol, because he would not strongly attack John McCain. Those speaking now are doing the attacking. Warner is running for the Senate in Virginia, a relatively conservative state with a strong Navy presence in Norfolk. Attacking a Navy hero, as Bush 41 liked to say, wouldn't be prudent.
But Kristol said that the last-minute shuffle revealed some real concern in Obama's camp, and that concern is justified. When you're sinking in the polls at your own convention, you have a problem. Obama has just that.
9:43 p.m. ET: Former Virginia governor Mark Warner has begun his keynote address. Oh, we didn't mention earlier that the keynote address is tonight. No one cares. This is like a commencement address at school. Who remembers? Everyone waits for Hillary.
9:21 p.m. ET: Dick Morris, on Fox, has just given what, to my mind, is the best pre-game analysis of tonight's Hillary show. Her objective, he argued, is to outshine Joe Biden, to make it clear that Obama should have chosen her as his vice-presidential candidate. The better she does, Morris said, the worse it is for Obama. I agree with that. Hillary is out to prove something tonight, and it isn't that Barack Obama is a great guy.
8:59 p.m. ET: We await the main event at the Dem convention tonight - the appearance by Hillary Clinton. She will say the right things, speak the fine words, and smile at the proper times. And nothing will be sincere. The key is whether her supporters buy the words or the reality.
It's a perfect setup for Hillary: As she speaks, Obama is declining in the polls; the nomination of Joe Biden has gone nowhere. There's a sense of buyer's remorse among many Democrats. Hillary has to believe this is Divine intervention. And even she might respect that.
DEM DILEMMA
Posted at 7:29 p.m. ET
Who thought we'd be calling anything "Dem Dilemma" this week? This was supposed to be a coronation, the start of a new Democratic era. We on the other side had thoughts of being exiled to Devil's Island.
But a funny thing happened to the Democrats on the way to the ceremony. Charles Krauthammer explains that the candidate himself, Barack Obama, has kind of messed things up:
He has an interesting history, but in no way dramatic or heroic. Nor has he done anything of any significance in his 47 years other than write two rather favorable histories of himself. His greatest achievement in life is, of course, winning the Democratic nomination for the presidency. But as a reason to elect him president, that has the same kind of circularity as does his “we are the ones we've been waiting for" refrain.
Obama’s problem is that he has compounded it with a detached imperiousness and unnerving grandiosity so completely disproportionate to his own accomplishments. Grandiosity in a de Gaulle is one thing, though even with him it often reached the point of the ridiculous. But Obama?
Obama would probably consider deGaulle small change. Did deGaule carry Santa Monica?
The beginning of Obama’s decline in the polls was the Berlin speech. It took a while for the absurdity of that event to sink in, and for the McCain campaign to take perfect advantage of it in parody. Not only did Berlin (as a stand-in for a host of grand Obama gestures) prove a liability in and of itself. But, additionally, it accentuated the basic thinness of Obama’s history and experience.
And...
The point of the Democratic National Convention is to pad the biography and to make it look dramatic and heroic. And, on the other hand, to try to control the Obama acceptance speech, which he scheduled as a mass cult-of-personality event in front of 80,000 screaming fans at Invesco Field. Obama’s task is to make it sober and measured. Success is possible.
But the fact, bitter for Democrats, is that Obama tends to lose support the more people get to know him. His poll numbers have actually declined this week, at least so far. That is the Democratic dilemma.
August 26, 2008. Permalink 
BILL - AGAIN
Posted at 5:02 p.m. ET
It appears that Bill Clinton cannot help himself. Appearing in Denver, where he's come to praise Obama, rather than bury him, the former president still seemed to have the latter choice on his mind. The Hill reports:
Bill Clinton appeared to undermine Sen. Barack Obama again Tuesday.
The former president, speaking in Denver, posed a hypothetical question in which he seemed to suggest that that the Democratic Party was making a mistake in choosing Obama as its presidential nominee.He said: "Suppose you're a voter, and you've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that candidate can deliver on anything at all. Candidate Y you agree with on about half the issues, but he can deliver. Which candidate are you going to vote for?"
Then, perhaps mindful of how his off-the-cuff remarks might be taken, Clinton added after a pause: "This has nothing to do with what's going on now."
The comments are unlikely to be taken as an innocent mistake by those Democrats who continue to be angry with the former president for, they say, not supporting the Illinois senator wholeheartedly, if not implicitly undercutting him.
The controversial comments came just hours before Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the former first lady and principal rival to Obama, was due to speak from the convention podium.
But there were those who saw nothing, absolutely nothing.
Former Clinton aide and Democratic strategist Paul Begala, however, told The Hill that the former president is solidly behind Obama's candidacy.
"He's totally for Barack," Begala said Tuesday. "He's totally for Barack."
Of course he is. And he's been faithful to his wife, too.
August 26, 2008. Permalink
TRACKERS
Posted at 1:50 p.m. ET
Both trackers have now been published. While we always caution about reports on a single day, the news is unexpected and potentially significant.
As reported earlier, Rasmussen, which had Obama up three yesterday, now calls the race a tie.
But Gallup, which had the race tied yesterday, now has McCain two points ahead.
In other words, if the figures accurately reflect public opinion, the race is defying traditional expectations. So far, there is no bounce for the Democrats from the selection of Joe Biden. Indeed, it didn't seem to go down all that well. And the convention excitement apparently hasn't spread to the voters.
A cautionary note: Some of this "reverse bounce" might be coming from Hillary Clinton voters who were angered that she wasn't chosen as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. That anger can dissipate over time, or Hillary herself can reverse it with her speech tonight.
But, whatever the cause, this isn't where the Democrats wanted to be, or needed to be. Their situation can, of course, change during the remaining three nights of their convention. But there can be no joy in Denver. Mighty Barack is striking out.
August 26, 2008. Permalink
---------------------------
BULLETIN, AT 9:45 A.M. ET: The first tracker for the day is out, and it's a stunner. Rasmussen, which had Obama up three points yesterday now reports a tie, despite the naming of Biden and the start of the Democratic convention. Obviously, this is a one-day snapshot, but Ras notes that Obama's support has declined for the past three individual nights of polling. We await the Gallup tracker this afternoon. Hillary Clinton must be in ecstasy.
---------------------------
THE FIRST NIGHT
Posted at 7:41 a.m. ET
Whenever there is "emotion" at a political event, most journalists and analysts go directly into the tank and hide there. The better ones, while showing respect for legitimate feelings, try to keep something of a distance, a journalistic detachment.
Something went wrong at the Democratic convention last night. There was plenty of emotion - Ted Kennedy's sad appearance, a speech by Caroline Kennedy that recalled our image of her as a toddler in the White House, and Michelle Obama's dignified tribute to her family. These things were all fine, but something still went wrong, even though too many journalists gushed at the gushing that took place on the podium.
Americans have a sense of time. They understand that a political meeting doesn't occur in a vacuum, but at a time in history. The convention last night gave us the feeling that, for the people in that hall, time stopped decades ago.
But in the post-9/11 world, it has not stopped for Americans.
Karl Rove was correct in saying that Americans have questions about Barack Obama, and that the Democrats missed the chance to address those questions at the starting gate. What went wrong was that the convention lacked a sense of danger, a mature understanding of where this country is in August of 2008.
Iran's nuclear program is on the horizon.
Russian tanks have roared into Georgia.
Terror groups continue their plotting, their suicide bombings, and their attempts to obtain weapons of mass destruction.
We just saw much of the world fall to its knees as China, a complete dictatorship, pulled off one of the most propagandistic Olympics since Hitler's production in Berlin in 1936.
Yet, you would never know that any of this was happening if you tuned in to the Democrats.
Wait, you say, they have four more days. But that's just the point. A mood is set on the first day, and, once again, the new Democratic Party showed it just does not share the sense of danger that most Americans feel, and that is keeping this race so close. The faithful Democrats simply shrug off this time in history as "the politics of fear."
The only "politics of fear" I'm feeling right now is the fear that these people might get elected.
We'll blog through the next three nights and see if there's some growing up in Denver, some sense of danger that is the mark of a responsible political party.
August 26, 2008 Permalink
BIDEN'S IRAN PROBLEM
Posted at 7:38 a.m. ET
Joe Biden has been presented to us as the great sage on foreign policy. Well, like the guy who gets the gold watch, he's put in the years. But people who've actually taken the time to look at his record are finding disturbing issues of judgment. Iran stands out.
Ed Lasky of The American Thinker alerts us to a devastating piece in today's Washington Post by Michael Rubin, dissecting Biden's bizarre record on Iran. If the McCain people play this right, it can become a major issue, and discredit Obama's selection of Biden as his vice-presidential candidate:
Biden is well versed in policy debates and carefully choreographed trips. But his record on the Islamic Republic of Iran -- perhaps the chief national security threat facing the next president -- suggests a persistent and dangerous judgment deficit. Biden's unyielding pursuit of "engagement" with Iran for more than a decade has made it easier for Tehran to pursue its nuclear program, while his partisan obsession with thwarting the Bush administration has led him to oppose tough sanctions against hard-liners in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
Nice to see that someone has noticed.
Not long after President Bush declared Iran part of an "axis of evil," Biden headlined a March 13, 2002, dinner at the American Iranian Council, an organization underwritten at the time by a dozen oil companies and dedicated to ending sanctions on Iran.
Not good, not good. But it gets worse:
An August 2007 National Intelligence Estimate found that "Iran has been intensifying aspects of its lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants" and that "Explosively formed penetrator (EFP) attacks have risen dramatically." The next month, the Senate considered a bipartisan amendment to designate the Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, an important step to aid nonviolent efforts to deny it funds and financing. Biden was one of only 22 senators to vote against it. "I voted against the amendment to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization because I don't trust this administration," he said. Distrust of the U.S. president is the nature of politics, but skepticism about foreign dictators and their Brown Shirts is the backbone of judgment.
Are you getting a sense of anxiety about Joe Biden? If not, read the next sentence:
Biden's political games have made him Tehran's favorite senator.
Smart McCain staffers should package that sentence and send it flying in a political artillery shell.
Biden's attack-dog statements about U.S. policy failures emboldened Iranian hard-liners to defy diplomacy. In the Dec. 7, 2007, official sermon, Ayatollah Mohammad Kashani speaking on behalf of Iran's supreme leader, declared, "This Senator [Biden] correctly says Israel could not suppress Hizbullah in Lebanon, so how can the U.S. stand face-to-face with a nation of 70 million? This is the blessing of the Guardianship of the Jurists [the theocracy] . . . which plants such thoughts in the hearts of U.S. senators and forces them to make such confessions." The crowd met his statement with refrains of "Death to America."
Finally...
Obama picked Biden for experience, but he might also have considered judgment. When it comes to Iran, Biden could stare down dictators; too bad he blinks.
Well, I guess Michael Rubin won't be wearing an Obama/Biden pin anytime soon.
I haven't seen much about Biden's Iran problem in the writings of the usual journalistic suspects. The New York Times has expressed no anguish. But Biden's record is disturbing, and questioning it - very loudly - is entirely appropriate. Let's see some ads with a couple of choice Biden quotes.
August 26, 2008. Permalink
RUBBISH
Posted at 7:35 a.m. ET
I have no problem at all with thoughtful discussions of race in America. I said thoughtful discussions. But a panel just held at the Democratic convention in Denver was so off the wall that I had to report it to you. Naturally, one of the participants was Jesse Jackson, Jr., who apparently learned well from his father. The Politico reports:
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) told convention-goers Monday that Barack Obama is like baseball pioneer Jackie Robinson — enduring jeers without the ability to hit back.
“Barack Obama has the capacity to hit,” Jackson said a breakfast panel just before the opening of the Democratic National Convention. “But he is in the situation where he can’t hit back, which Jackie Robinson could not do. … He had to be able to run the bases, even though the crowd was jeering the first African-American on the field.”
Jackson, son of the civil rights leader, said Obama is in the same situation: “He has to keep smiling, because no one wants an angry African-American man in the White House.”
That is absolutely disgraceful. I'm an old Brooklyn Dodger fanatic. Jackie Robinson was a hero of mine. I once interviewed Roger Kahn, author of the classic history of the Dodgers, "The Boys of Summer," and we spent most of our time talking about Jackie and the great old teams.
Jackie Robinson came to the majors in 1947 - some 61 years ago. He was advised by Dodger executive Branch Rickey not to respond to racist taunts because it would only encourage the jerks. It was a strategy, and a successful one.
To suggest that Barack Obama, candidate for president of the United States, is in the same position, is absurd. Obama can't hit back? Is that a serious statement? He hits back every day, and he often doesn't care if he gets his facts right.
He has to keep smiling? Really? I've seen him angry and stern. What year is Jackson Jr. living in?
Despite Jackson’s prediction that the Clintons would help Obama this week, though, former Virginia Gov. Douglas Wilder, who endorsed Obama during the primaries, expressed frustration with some foot-dragging by the Clintons and their supporters.
“What does Barack Obama have to do to convince Clinton supporters that he’s capable of being president of the United States?” Wilder asked.
Now mayor of Richmond, Wilder drew laughter by adding: “You want to speak? Fine. You want to speak, Bill? Fine. You want to be vice president? No. Beyond that, what else can I do? What do you want me to do?”
Wilder also raised the possibility that some voters were turned off by Obama’s race.
“I think you’re going to have a number of people who give you an excuse for not voting for a person,” Wilder said. “I’m not at all suggesting race. But I’m not eliminating race.”
No, we can't eliminate race. I've written here many times that some people won't vote for Obama because of prejudice. Others, however, will vote for him to advance a person of color.
But how about talking about Obama as a candidate for president, not a minority candidate for president? If the members of this panel were serious, they'd recognize that Obama is in trouble not because of his color, but because of his deficiencies, and he's done little to ease the concerns of many voters.
He is not Jackie Robinson. Robbie was in the game. He proved he could play with the best of them every day. So far, Obama has proved only that he can talk about playing. The empty suit has got to be filled. Panels like the one described here are not helpful.
August 26, 2008. Permalink
MONDAY, AUGUST 25, 2008
11:44 p.m. ET: The proceedings for the night are over. I agree with Karl Rove, just on Fox, that tonight was a missed opportunity for the Democrats. There are questions about Barack Obama, and they have little to do with whether he loves his wife. They deal with whether he can be president. Those questions were just not addressed. Maybe they will be over the next three days, but I think it was necessary for the Dems to move the ball tonight, and nothing really moved.
Hillary speaks tomorrow night. We'll get a sense of how fractured this party is. That's when the action really begins.
11:07 p.m. ET: Carl Cameron, Fox News reporter, just noted that the speech Michelle Obama gave tonight was entirely different from the "tough" speeches she gives on the campaign trail. In other words, as we stated below at 10:54, it was mock sincerity. Well delivered. Even elegant at times. But not much there.
10:54 p.m. ET: Michelle continues. I try to be objective about these things, and certainly Michelle Obama has dignity and style. But, somehow, the speech is empty. You get the sense she doesn't mean it. When a good speech is delivered, the writing becomes transparent. This speech appears "written." You can almost sense the discussions in the room when it was put together. "We need a family reference here." "We need something about working people there." The speech is mock sincerity. Michelle constantly says, "Y'see..." Then, again and again, "Y'see.."
There's really nothing wrong with that, I guess. A lot of speeches like this are delivered, and there will be people moved by her comments. But...I see she's now finished...this wasn't about any kind of change or vision. This was a standard feature story.
10:42 p.m. ET: Michelle Obama is now speaking. Her objective, apparently, is to soften her image - no talk of this being the first time she's been proud of her country, no reference to her comment that America is a mean place. It's a soft speech, the kind of thing that might be written by the editor of Modern Bride.
10:03 p.m. ET: Karl Rove analyzed the situation at Fox. He downplayed the importance of vice presidential choices, saying they usually didn't make a difference unless the choice turns out to be a mistake. He felt Biden wouldn't wear well, and I tend to agree. There are loudness and ego factors that wear you down.
Rove also analyzed the polls, saying that it's the doubts about Obama that are suppressing his numbers, and that those doubts haven't been erased. It seems to me that's a key point: the Democrats seem unaware of how seriously Americans take the role of commander-in-chief, and Obama has yet to convince the country that he's ready for that job.
9:42 p.m. ET: Ted Kennedy has just spoken. He's clearly in poor health, but obviously it's an important moment for his party. But again, there is such a contrast between Ted and Jack, whom I remember well. Jack had a sense that America had a special place in the world. He'd studied history. He knew international danger and challenge. That all seems gone now. The Democratic Party seems smaller, and seems to have a smaller vision of the country.
Kennedy spoke about health care, but you kind of wonder where his party has been all these years. Wasn't this a big issue in the 1992 campaign, some 16 years ago? Someone should ask, and answer.
9:11 p.m. ET: It appears, according to CNN, that Ted Kennedy will speak tonight at the Dem convention. It had been a question mark because of his health. Of course, we can clearly feel for a man who may be facing death, but it still struck me that his brother, President John F. Kennedy, probably wouldn't feel at all comfortable in today's Democratic party, which has rejected virtually all of the JFK vision in foreign policy. Barack Obama isn't ready to "pay any price" or "bear any burden" in defense of freedom. He'd rather criticize his own country and declare it morally equivalent to some of the shady players of the world. But, of course, he's "progressive."
9:03 p.m. ET: Terry McAuliffe, former Dem national chairman, and a Clinton ally, is denying, on Fox, reports that Bill Clinton is upset over the way he's been treated by the Obama people. McAuliffe's nose is growing, and has just struck one of the cameras.
8:26 p.m. ET: Audience expert Frank Luntz, on Fox, just analyzed several ads running, one by Obama, the other by McCain. He concluded, based on study groups, that the McCain ad was far more effective. McCain now has a solid staff in place, and the job is getting done. He just has to sustain and increase the effort.
8:16 p.m. ET: I was just watching CNN's pre-game show from Denver. Talk about being in the tank for Obama. These guys couldn't resist describing every anticipated moment of tonight's proceedings as "emotional." Guys, just put it on the tube and let us decide what our "feelings" are. Okay?
CARTER II
Posted at 8:01 p.m. ET
The excitement builds in Denver. People pinch themselves, not quite believing that, in a little while they'll actually hear Jimmah Carter. Just the expectation of the man's wisdom is enough to take our breath away. And our country with it.
Not only that. If they play it right, the Dems may just be able to have...Carter II.
My Iranian pal Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi alerts me to a new column by the brilliant Middle East analyst, Amir Taheri. Taheri is thoroughly familiar with the foreign-policy record of Joe Biden. He finds much that is troubling. I suspect you'll be hearing about this from the McCain people:
BY choosing Sen. Joseph Biden as his vice-presidential running mate, Barack Obama sent three messages. The first two are implicit admissions that Hillary Clinton had a point in the primaries. The third tells us more of what Obama means by "change."
Biden is supposed to make up for Obama's lack of the knowledge and experience needed to leader on national security and international affairs. And the Delaware senator, with his humble working-class origins, is also meant to reassure the "simple folk" that Obama seems to be losing.
But the third message is that "change" means a return not to the Camelot of President John Kennedy, but to the foreign policies of Jimmy Carter. For Biden, an early supporter of Carter in his quest for the presidency in 1976, shares the former president's view of the world and the United States' place in it.
Ouch. Can Taheri prove it? He claims that Biden "has been wrong on almost every key issue":
In 1979, he shared Carter's starry-eyed belief that the fall of the shah in Iran and the advent of the ayatollahs represented progress for human rights.
Throughout the 1980s. Biden opposed President Ronald Reagan's proactive policy against the Soviet Union.
In 1990, Biden found it difficult to support President George Bush's decision to use force to kick Saddam Hussein's army of occupation out of Kuwait.
A decade-plus later, the senator did vote for the liberation of Iraq from Saddamite tyranny. But as soon as terrorists started challenging the new democratic system in Iraq, he switched sides and became a critic of the whole war effort.
Hmm. No wonder Obama picked him. There's more:
For more than a decade, Biden has adopted an ambivalent attitude towards the Islamic Republic in Tehran, now emerging as the chief challenger to US interests in the Middle East. Biden's links with pro-Tehran lobbies in the US and his support for "unconditional dialogue" with the mullahs echo Obama's own wrong-headed promise to circumvent the current multilateral efforts by seeking direct US-Iran talks, excluding the Europeans as well as Russia and China.
That may be the most critical point. Banafsheh has repeatedly pointed out to me Biden's closeness with pro-mullah flacks in this country.
Had Biden had his way, "the Evil Empire" would still be around and Saddam Hussein still in power. The US would still be begging the mullahs of Tehran for forgiveness of unspecified "past sins" - and more American hostages would be seized in the Middle East while the mullahs celebrate their first atomic bombs.
By choosing Biden, Obama, the candidate of hope, has transformed his promise of change, into a back-to-the-future pirouette - back to Jimmy Carter.
McCain campaign, please note this. Make Biden a liability to Obama, one he doesn't need.
August 25, 2008. Permalink
---------------------------
New poll result, at 3:28 p.m. ET: A new Gallup/USA Today poll is the only one showing a major gain for Obama:
Obama holds a 47%-43% edge over McCain among registered voters and a 48%-45% edge among likely voters. Both leads are within the margin of error of +/—4 percentage points.
In the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll a month ago, Obama led McCain by 3 percentage points, but McCain held a 4-point lead among likely voters.
According to this poll, likely voters are now leaning toward Obama. Please note that the daily Gallup tracker - same pollster - shows the race even. So go figure.
---------------------------
---------------------------
Line of the day, thus far, at 2:41 p.m.: From Nancy Pelosi, griping about the press's reporting on the Clinton/Obama chill: ''You know what? This is like a yesterday room,'' she told the reporters. ''We are going into the future. What did I walk into, a time capsule?''
Well, Nance, a lot of us feel that way every time we look at your party, and what it stands for. The sixties were forty years ago.
---------------------------
---------------------------
From USA Today, at 2:35 p.m.: DENVER — Fewer than half of Hillary Rodham Clinton's supporters in the presidential primaries say they definitely will vote for Barack Obama in November, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, evidence of a formidable challenge facing Democrats as their national convention opens here today.
---------------------------
TRACKERS
Posted at 2:21 p.m. ET
Both trackers are out for today. Neither has budged since yesterday, not a good sign for those Dems who thought they detected the wanting of Biden.
As reported earlier, Rasmussen still has Obama up three.
Gallup reports a tie, 45-45.
The Real Clear Politics average of Obama leads stands today at 1.6 percent. In other words, taking all recent polls and averaging them, Obama has a 1.6-point lead.
Thus far, the naming of Biden and the start of the convention hasn't had much effect. We won't know the full impact, though, until after the convention closes Friday.
August 25, 2008. Permalink
---------------------------
NOTE, AT 9:31 A.M. ET: First tracker of the day is out. Rasmussen shows no change from yesterday, with Obama up three. Apparently, the selection of Biden has had no significant effect in this poll.
---------------------------
---------------------------
BULLETIN, AT 9:12 A.M. ET: Reader Howard Lohmuller alerts us to a new CNN poll, just posted, showing the race tied, with Obama down seven since the CNN poll last month. The key point: The poll was taken after the selection of Biden. Guy did a lot of good, didn't he?
---------------------------
WE LOVE IT, WE LOVE IT
Posted at 6:00 a.m. ET
Starting right out with some convention viciousness - knives, words, jealousy. Who could ask for anything more?
The Politico reports high tension between the Obama and Clinton camps:
DENVER — As Democrats arrived here Sunday for a convention intended to promote party unity, mistrust and resentments continued to boil among top associates of presumptive nominee Barack Obama and his defeated rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
One flashpoint is the assigned speech topic for former president Bill Clinton, who is scheduled to speak Wednesday night, when the convention theme is “Securing America’s Future.” The night’s speakers will argue that Obama would be a more effective commander in chief than his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).
Are they going for laughs on this, or what? Apparently, Bill feels dissed because he wanted to talk about the economy.
This is an especially sore point for Bill Clinton, people close to him say, because among many grievances he has about the campaign Obama waged against his wife is a belief that the candidate poor-mouthed the political and policy successes of his two terms.
Some senior Democrats close to Obama, meanwhile, made clear in not-for-attribution comments that they were equally irked at the Clinton operation. Nearly three months after Hillary Clinton conceded defeat in the nomination contest, these Obama partisans complained, her team continues to act like she and Bill Clinton hold leverage.
Do you think they'll fight in the aisles? E-mail me if it starts. I want to tape.
One senior Obama supporter said the Clinton associates negotiating on her behalf act like “Japanese soldiers in the South Pacific still fighting after the war is over.”
A prominent Obama backer said some of Clinton’s lieutenants negotiating with the Obama team are “bitter enders” who presume that, rather than the Clintons reconciling themselves to Obama’s victory, it is up to Obama to accommodate them.
In fact, some senior veterans of Clinton’s presidential campaign do believe this.
“He has not fully reconciled,” said one political operative close to the Clintons, “and he has not demonstrated that he accepts the Clintons and the Clinton wing of the party.”
Does anyone think of the country here? I mean, you know, an occasional thought?
While the Clintons have a relatively easy job in Denver — to deliver gracious speeches and accept what are likely to be loud cheers from their supporters — it is “Obama who has the heavy lifting” this week, this aide said.
This is because large numbers of Clinton backers — 30 percent in a recent ABC/Washington Post poll — are still not backing Obama over McCain.
They've seen Obama up close. Maybe that's the problem.
Matt McKenna, a spokesman for Bill Clinton, said his boss "looks forward to making the case that Barack Obama is the best candidate to restore America's standing in the world."
I'm sure he can't wait. Just counting the hours.
Let the chill begin. I want to see the looks on all those faces. And I hope someone has a hidden camera to catch the look on Michelle Obama's face during Hillary Clinton's six-hour floor demonstration.
August 25, 2008. Permalink
THE BOUNCE
Posted at 5:57 a.m. ET
The Wall Street Journal takes a very pragmatic look at a word you'll be hearing constantly this week - bounce. It has a revered place in politics. Karlyn Bowman of the American Enterprise Institute has studied the subject:
A new study by Ms. Bowman finds that, generally, bounces have "tended in the past to evaporate very quickly." Even more discouraging, Barry Goldwater, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis all had higher bounces than their opponents but ended up losing in November. Jimmy Carter had a higher bounce than Ronald Reagan in 1980. He lost.
Still, campaign staffs are paid to orchestrate a succession of bounces all the way to Election Day. This year presents special challenges. Each party's veep announcements and conventions will be happening in almost overlapping news cycles. Plus, cautions Ms. Bowman, the American people "have been paying a lot of attention to the Olympics and may want to turn off the television set for a week."
Polling may be difficult at times:
Pollsters also face their own headaches this year. Kathy Frankovic, who runs polling for CBS News, notes that there'll be only a "three-day gap between the two conventions," separated by the Labor Day weekend. "Polling over Labor Day Weekend is always a problem. We confront more than the usual number of people who don't respond or can't respond. People are away from their homes, heading back from summer vacation, or preparing their children for the start of the school year."
It's even harder on election day, Kathy. Then you'll see a lot of people who haven't lived on this Earth for years turning up at the polls in places like Chicago and St. Louis.
And their votes will be counted, and counted, and...
August 25, 2008. Permalink
"What you see is news. What you know is background. What you feel is opinion."
- Lester Markel, late Sunday editor
of The New York Times.
SUBSCRIPTIONS:
Subscriptions to URGENT AGENDA are voluntary. Why subscribe to something you're getting free? To help guarantee that you'll continue to get it at all. Subscriptions sustain us. Payments are through PayPal and are secure, but you do not have to sign up for a PayPal account. Credit cards are fine.
FOR A ONE-YEAR ($48) SUBSCRIPTION, CLICK:
FOR A SIX-MONTH ($26) SUBSCRIPTION, CLICK:
IF YOU DON'T WISH A SET SUBSCRIPTION, BUT PREFER TO DONATE ANY OTHER AMOUNT TO SUSTAIN URGENT AGENDA, CLICK:
SEARCH URGENT AGENDA:
POWER LINE:
It's a privilege for me to post periodic pieces at Power Line. To go to Power Line, click here.
To link to my Power Line pieces, go here.
THE CURRENT QUESTION
This space will regularly raise questions that relate to the news, but transcend daily headlines. The idea is to stimulate talk about basic issues. Our last question asked:
Last week we asked,
What do you think will be the single greatest crisis facing the new president in his first month in office?
You can view the answers here.
What would you like to see President Bush accomplish in his last five months in office?
If you'd like to send us your thoughts, click:
response@urgentagenda.com
(Please stay within two or three paragraphs. We try to print every reply, if space allows. Place your name at the end of the message if you wish your name published. This question will stay up through Sunday.)
CONTACT:
YOU CAN E-MAIL US, AS FOLLOWS:
If you have wonderful things to say about this site, if it makes you a better person, please click:
applause@urgentagenda.com
If you have a general comment on anything you see here, or on anything else that's topical, please click:
comments@urgentagenda.com
If you must say something obnoxious, something that will embarrass you and disgrace your loving family, click:
despicable@urgentagenda.com
If you required subscription service, please click:
service@urgentagenda.com
FAVORITE SITES (List will grow)
Power Line
Faster Please (Michael Ledeen)
OpinionJournal.com
Hudson Institute
Bookworm Room
Bill Bennett
Red State
Pajamas Media
Michelle Malkin
Diana West
The Weekly Standard
The New York Sun
Real Clear Politics
The Corner
City Journal
Gateway Pundit
American Thinker