EVENING UPDATE,  APRIL 4,  2008

Posted at 6:58 p.m. ET

VILE, UTTERLY VILE

Time to make the blood boil.  One of the finest Americans serving our country today, by common consent, is General David Petraeus, who has done so much to improve our position in Iraq.  He and the United States ambassador will testify before Congress on conditions there next week.  Apparently, Petraeus will receive the same respect that too many Democrats, including the Speaker from San Francisco, reserve for military men:

Congressional Democrats are warning U.S. Iraq commander General David Petraeus, and the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, not to attempt to minimize the seriousness of the situation in Iraq when they testify to Congress next week. VOA's Dan Robinson reports from Capitol Hill.

A few days before General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker appear before House and Senate committees to deliver their latest update on Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi makes clear what she hopes they will not say.

In a news conference together with the chairmen of the House committees on Armed Services and Foreign Affairs, she refers to the recent fighting in Iraq's southern port city of Basra, saying Petraeus and Crocker should not attempt to put a positive spin on events.

"We have to know the real ground truths of what is happening there, not put a shine on events because of a resolution [of the situation in Basra] that looks less violent when it has in fact been dictated by someone [Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada] al-Sadr who can grant or withhold that call for violence or not," said Nancy Pelosi.

Thursday's news conference came in the wake of seemingly critical comments by Ambassador Crocker in a New York Times interview about the Iraqi government's handling of military operations in Basra.

Obviously, Congress deserves the truth.  But there is an ugly suggestion in this story that leading Democrats expect Petraeus to lie, or at least try to evade the truth. 

Where is the evidence of that?

In the past, Petraeus has given a pretty accurate assessment of where we stand.  His work has been excellent.  The press, not given to pro-military outbursts, has at least been reasonably respectful of his efforts.

The tone of the high Dems' remarks reflects the fading of the national-security wing of the Democratic Party.  The Joe Liebermans are gone.  The Henry Jacksons are long deceased.  It doesn't bother a good chunk of the Democratic base that its party leaders insult a commanding general in advance. 

What is remarkable is the failure of the Democrats to learn.  The party's dismissive attitude toward military service is one of the factors that led to its rapid decline in the sixties, seventies and eighties.  Maybe it thinks that a new generation, brainwashed in the universities that grew out of the sixties revolution, won't mind as much as older voters clearly did.  Whether this new generation does mind could determine the future safety of this nation.   

April 4, 2008.     Permalink          

THE McCAIN STRATEGY

John McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, one of those responsible for bringing the McCain candidacy back from the graveyard, gives a clear picture of the strategy his team will employ in facing the Democrats this fall: 

Calling the campaign "the greatest return to victory that has ever been seen," Davis said he's not ceding anything to Democrats. "The Democrats like to talk about the future. They like to talk about change. It's interesting to me that that has become the media's favorite topic. And I want to say that we want to talk about change, and we want to talk about the future too." McCain, though, will offer "change that we can talk about in specific terms," Davis said.

"I'd rather have a candidate who can walk the walk than can talk the talk," he continued, offering direct parallels with Barack Obama. "We're actually going to do it."

And...

Davis pointed to five subgroups he said would be key to a victory in November. Those include "WalMart Moms," frugal suburban voters lower on the economic scale who Davis estimates will make up 17% of the electorate, and "Rehab Republicans," historically GOP voters who have grown disaffected, and a group from which Davis estimates McCain needs four out of five voters to win.

Younger voters, Davis said, will be a new frontier for national Republicans. While thousands pack rallies with Barack Obama, the campaign and the RNC will work together to figure out new ways to attract those younger voters. Acknowledging Obama's popularity and the higher turnout his candidacy has generated, Davis said he won't give up on the demographic. "If Barack Obama wins the nomination, we need to fight him for every youth vote we can," Davis said.

Reaching out to social networkers, which Davis defined as "Facebook Independents," will be key as well. Fiscal conservatives -- "There's a reason there's no taxation on the internet," he said -- the group is more likely to become an activist on their candidate's behalf.

Finally, Davis focused on Hispanic voters, a group that cast 72% of its ballots for McCain in his last Senate re-election campaign. Calling a strong performance among Hispanics "critical to our success," Davis said the McCain campaign will spend their time and money wooing the demographic that has increasingly broken for Democrats in recent years. Davis also promised that most television advertisements the campaign released would have Spanish-language versions running concurrently. "We need to perform as a party the way George Bush did in 2004," he said.

At least they're thinking, and planning.  It will be very tough, for the press will be in the tank for Obama as it has never been for any candidate.  He is the dream of those who went into journalism to "make a difference."  They're not sure exactly what difference they want to make, as long as it has the word "progressive" attached to it.

By the way, one of the ticking time bombs in the Obama campaign is his wife, Michelle.  We've already gotten a taste of her undisciplined mouth.  A private source tells me that her problems go well beyond that, and that there is plenty to discover among her co-workers at the University of Chicago.  "Unpopular" may be underplaying it.  This woman will represent the United States if her husband is elected, but nobody in the press seems ready to ask the tough questions.  It's not the way you get promoted in today's media. 

Be back tomorrow, or later tonight if events warrant.

April 4, 2008.    Permalink          

AFTERNOON POSTINGS,  APRIL 4,  2008

Posted at 3:15 p.m ET

POLLING

As I noted earlier, Indiana votes May 6th, the same day as North Carolina.  The hype is on to focus all the attention on Carolina, the hype provided by the Obama people, who expect to win the state handily, in part because of the large African-American and academic population.  But Indiana is also important.  North Carolina ranks 10th in population, Indiana 15th.  New polling in Indiana shows Clinton up by between three and nine points.     

Clinton remains up in Pennsylvania, but by narrowing amounts.  She appears to be in the single digits.  Pennsylvania votes April 22nd, less than three weeks away.  If Clinton can take Pennsylvania and Indiana, it will be hard to get her to drop out of the race.  As to the argument that Obama narrowed her lead in Pennsylvania, she can simply say that he outspent her by huge amounts, which is true.  Also, being the "winner" has its own ultimate reward.  The size of the win, while important, is secondary. 

General-election trackers show little change.  Rasmussen has McCain up three over Obama, a slight drop for McCain.  Gallup has McCain up one.  Rasmussen has McCain up five over Clinton, Gallup up two.  We are impressed once again that the general electorate has not drunk the Obama Kool-aid.  I have no brief for Clinton, but she's holding well in the general numbers. 

I still think Obama is almost certain to be the Democratic nominee, no matter how the remainder of the primaries plays out, simply because the Democratic Party cannot risk alienating its black voter base.  It can, to some degree, risk alienating the Clinton supporters because they tend to be less passionate, and more likely to return to the fold. 

April 4, 2008.      Permalink          

WEATHER REPORT

The headline reads GLOBAL TEMPERATURES "TO DECREASE."

I guess they put the last two words in quotes to soften the cultural blow to the global-warming crowd.  But, yes, it appears that temperatures haven't risen since 1998, although some scientists "expect" that to change.  (I can use quotes too.) 

Do you think we've got this right?  Or do you think there are things we still don't know?

Don't ask, don't tell.  It is the opinion of the "global-warming community" that you must not think at all.  The story:

Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.

The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.

This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.

But experts say we are still clearly in a long-term warming trend - and they forecast a new record high temperature within five years.

But wait.  If this global warming is mostly man-made, and greenhouse gases continued to be belched out in the last ten years, why have temps remained flat?  Is La Nina the sole answer?

I'll defy the faith:  I want to know more.  I want to see real studies from people with no prior commitment to a point of view.  I am not interested in the scientific opinion of former vice presidents.

Putting on a sweater.  Be back later.

April 4, 2008.     Permalink          

FRIDAY,  APRIL 4,  2008

Posted at 6:32 a.m. ET

KING AND OBAMA

This is the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., and much will be written comparing King to Barack Obama.  Juan Williams, of National Public Radio and Fox News, offers this assessment, finding some aspects of Obama's campaign inspiring, but others troubling:

So far, Mr. Obama has been content to let black people have their vision of him while white people hold to a separate, segregated reality. He is a politician and, unlike King, his goal is winning votes, not changing hearts. Still, it is a key break from the King tradition to sell different messages to different audiences based on race, and to fail to challenge racial divisions in the nation.

Mr. Obama's major speech on race last month was forced from him only after a political crisis erupted: It became widely known that he'd sat for 20 years in the pews of a church where Rev. Jeremiah Wright lashed out at white people. The minister cursed America as worthy of damnation, made lewd suggestions about the nature of President Clinton's relationship with black voters, and embraced the paranoid idea that the white government was spreading AIDS among black people.

Here is where the racial tension at the heart of Mr. Obama's campaign flared into view. He either shared these beliefs or, lacking good judgment, decided it politically expedient for an ambitious young black politician trying to prove his solidarity with all things black, to be associated with these rants. His judgment and leadership on the critical issue of race is in question.

And...

As the nation tries to recall the meaning of Martin Luther King today, Mr. Obama's campaign has become a mirror reflecting where we are on race 40 years after the assassination. Mr. Obama's success has moved forward the story of American race relations; King would have been thrilled with his political triumphs.

But when Barack Obama, arguably the best of this generation of black or white leaders, finds it easy to sit in Rev. Wright's pews and nod along with wacky and bitterly divisive racial rhetoric, it does call his judgment into question. And it reveals a continuing crisis in racial leadership.

What would Jesus do? There is no question he would have left that church.

Pretty powerful stuff, and a sign of increasing scrutiny of Senator Obama.  That scrutiny will be magnified many times over if he wins the Democratic nomination.  The Williams column is well worth reading.

April 4, 2008.      Permalink                

OBAMA SLIPPING IN TIMES-CBS SURVEY

As if to reinforce the notion that he's gotten greater scrutiny, Obama seems to be running into some trouble, according to a new New York Times/CBS News survey:

WASHINGTON — Senator Barack Obama’s support among Democrats nationally has softened over the last month, particularly among men and upper-income voters, as voters have taken a slightly less positive view of him than they did after his burst of victories in February, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The survey suggests that Mr. Obama, Democrat of Illinois, may have been at something of a peak in February, propelled by a string of primary and caucus victories over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, and that perceptions of him are settling down.

And...

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are now effectively tied among Democratic voters, with 46 percent saying they want the party to nominate Mr. Obama, compared with 43 percent for Mrs. Clinton. In late February, 54 percent of Democrats said they wanted Mr. Obama to win the nomination, compared with 38 percent for Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. Obama’s lead among men has disappeared during that period. In February, 67 percent of men wanted the party to nominate him compared with 28 percent for Mrs. Clinton. Now 47 percent back him, compared with 42 percent for her, a difference within the poll’s margin of error. Similarly, his lead has shrunk among whites, voters making more than $50,000 annually and voters under age 45.

There are some things in the poll that are positive for Mr. Obama, but the slowing of his momentum, as detected by this and other surveys, cannot be denied.  Increasingly, he is seen as another candidate, rather than a man with a halo.  As I've written before in this space, it would take one more episode like the Rev. Wright case to get Obama into serious trouble.  You can be sure the GOP is working on it.

April 4, 2008.       Permalink            

CAROLINA, WHERE IS THY STING?

If you wait around long enough in presidential politics, every state becomes "the decisive contest" of the year. Some major-league spinners are now promoting North Carolina for the distinction. Why North Carolina? Well, maybe Utah wasn't available, or something like that.

Here's the argument:

RALEIGH, N.C. — The end could be near.

Or the endgame, at least, of a surprisingly drawn-out Democratic presidential contest. Four months and 42 states after the opening Iowa caucuses, the primary in North Carolina on May 6 now looms as a pivotal final showdown between Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Obama starts with a double-digit lead in polls here, a state where 2,400 free tickets to his rally at the War Memorial Auditorium in Greensboro last week were gone within three hours of the announcement he would appear. But Clinton has appeal in the Tar Heel State, too, and is competing hard. The day after Obama's rally, she drew 1,000 supporters to the gym at Terry Sanford High School in Fayetteville for a town hall meeting.

The piece is by Susan Page, a fine reporter.  But I don't think it makes much sense.  North Carolina has a substantial African-American population, and a number of large academic centers.  Durham is the home of Duke University, famous for its treatment of lacrosse players.

This is an Obama state.   Yes, as the piece points out, an upset for Hillary Clinton here would have substantial impact, but it's highly unlikely.  I suspect that the Clinton people will spin the state as outside the combat zone.  They're already starting:

"It's certainly not in the category of a must-win type state," says Averell "Ace" Smith, director of her campaign in North Carolina. "It's more in a category of, if we happen to pull an upset, would that change the way the whole race is looked at? Yes, absolutely."

Indiana is another story.  It votes May 6th as well.  It's a competitive state, with advantages for both candidates.  I'd look to Indiana for political import, not a one-sided state like North Carolina.

April 4, 2008.      Permalink              

A TRIAL IN THE MOTHER COUNTRY

As we fight our primaries, one of the most important terror trials in history is getting under way in Britain.  It reminds us that policy toward radical Islam and its terrorist offshoots is a critical issue before the American electorate this year.  Consider:

A British terrorist cell planned to detonate suicide bombs on seven transatlantic flights over North America, causing catastrophic loss of life, a court was told yesterday.

The flights chosen by the alleged terrorists – based in Walthamstow, East London – were scheduled to leave Heathrow Terminal 3 one afternoon carrying almost 2,000 passengers and crew.

Peter Wright, QC, opening the prosecution case against eight men accused of the plot, said that the attacks would have had “a truly global impact”.

The seven aircraft were destined for six American and Canadian cities: New York, Washington DC, Chicago, San Francisco, Toronto and Montreal.

Nice, huh?  There's more:

The jury was told that the alleged plot was thwarted when police made a series of arrests on August 9, 2006. That operation prompted a massive security alert at airports worldwide. Passengers were banned from carrying hand luggage and many flights were cancelled. Chaos ensued at airports around the world and international travel ground to a halt. The continuing restrictions on carrying liquids on aircraft are a direct result of security measures imposed after the alleged plot. 

Next time you think you're being inconvenienced by airline security, think about that.

What is remarkable is how little attention is given to the ongoing threat by the Democratic candidates.  Senator McCain talks about it, of course, but the Dems seem afraid to offend the nutbag contingent of their political base.  It's a large and strangely wealthy group.  Its members tend to think of themselves as too pure to die, and therefore immune to terror.

Be back in the afternoon.

April 4, 2008.      Permalink