EVENING POST:  JUNE 8,  2008

Posted at 7:23 p.m. ET

FADE OUT

Michael Goodwin of The New York Daily News has written one of the best commentaries on Hillary's fadeout.  It has the ring of truth, a phrase rarely used about the candidate he dissects:

Echoing another dramatic moment, Hillary Clinton came not to praise Barack Obama, only to support him.

Or maybe she was channeling consigliere Tom Hagen, who in "The Godfather" famously said of a Mafia family feud: "This is business, not personal."

Whatever her muse, Clinton Saturday gave one of the most honest speeches she has ever given and perhaps the most honest we have heard in this political marathon.

She didn't pretend to like or admire Obama. She didn't pretend she believes he would be a great President. She didn't say he was right on the issues. She never said he'd be a good commander in chief or would keep America safe.

She made it clear she still reserves those views for herself. And that she'll be baaaacccck.

But she had a job to do yesterday and she did it. Her task was to acknowledge Obama as the party nominee, say repeatedly she was supporting him and would do everything she could to help him win.

She did all that with more sincerity than a coerced prisoner of war would have mustered, but with far less passion and rhetorical gusto than a true believer would have brought to the occasion.

She made it clear, sometimes painfully so, that she was endorsing Obama only because he's a Democrat. It's business.

And...

Most notable was her game attempt to echo the "yes, we can" mantra of the Obama-bots. And she tried, even though she didn't have much success, to rally her audience into chorus-like repetitions of why they had to help Obama win.

But she saved her genuine smiles and bravado for the long ode to her own efforts. By my rough count, more than two-thirds of the 30-minute speech was about herself and her achievements. "Me" and "I" and "we" were dearest to her heart.
No surprise there, but at least she didn't pretend otherwise.

Wonderful writing.  Some of us rooted for Hillary to defeat Barack, simply believing that she would make the better president, if McCain lost, despite her truckload of defects.  But Goodwin reminds us of who we were rooting for.

June 8, 2008.      Permalink          

AFTERNOON POST:  JUNE 8,  2008

Posted at 5:12 p.m. ET

POLLS

There's only one new poll out today, and it provides good news for Obama.  Rasmussen reports Obama has picked up an important bounce from the week's events:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows Barack Obama’s bounce growing to an eight-point lead over John McCain. Obama now attracts 48% of the vote while McCain earns 40%.

When “leaners” are included, Obama leads 50% to 43%. On Tuesday, just before Obama clinched the nomination, the candidates were tied at 46% (see recent daily results). Data from Rasmussen Markets gives Obama a 95.2 % chance of winning.

Obama’s bounce is the result of growing unity among the Democratic Party. Eighty-one percent (81%) of Democrats say they will vote for Obama over McCain. That’s the highest level of party support ever enjoyed by Obama.

The results are not shocking, but they are disturbing.  I've said in this space that Obama, if nominated, is the heavy favorite to win in November, not only because it's a Democratic year, but because the press is filtering the news in his favor.  In addition, a large youth vote, far more interested in Obama's "coolness" than in his policies, is distorting his numbers, as is the overwhelming support he's getting from African-Americans.  By contrast, McCain's strengths are those that appeal to mature, thoughtful citizens.  Considering our educational system, that cadre will soon fit into a small auditorium.

On press bias, get this, from Rasmussen: 

Other survey results show that voters—by a 4-to-1 margin--believe reporters try to help their favorite candidate rather than report the news objectively. Most believe Obama has been the reporters’ favorite so far in Election 2008 and 44% believe most reporters will try to help Obama in the fall campaign. Just 14% believe that most reporters will try to help McCain.

Can you imagine my shock that anyone would believe that.

June 8, 2008.      Permalink          

SUNDAY:  JUNE 8,  2008

Posted at 7:58 a.m. ET

THE WARNING

 Michael Ledeen is one of our national treasures, a man whose writing cuts through the haze that we laughingly call "informed opinion."  He's written a piece for The Wall Street Journal called "Iran and the Problem of Evil," which I highly commend to you.  It's clear that Mr. Ledeen is worried that our eye is off the ball, as the ball keeps coming at us.  He recalls that so many leaders and "intellectuals" refused to see the danger before World War II, and examines why:

The failure to understand what was happening took a well-known form: a systematic refusal to view our enemies plain. Hitler's rants, whether in "Mein Kampf" or at Nazi Party rallies, were often downplayed as "politics," a way of maintaining popular support. They were rarely taken seriously as solemn promises he fully intended to fulfill. Mussolini's call for the creation of a new Italian Empire, and his later alliance with Hitler, were often downplayed as mere bluster, or even excused on the grounds that, since other European countries had overseas territories, why not Italy?

And...

By now, there is very little we do not know about such regimes, and such movements. Some of our greatest scholars have described them, analyzed the reasons for their success, and chronicled the wars we fought to defeat them. Our understanding is considerable, as is the honesty and intensity of our desire that such things must be prevented.

Yet they are with us again, and we are acting as we did in the last century. The world is simmering in the familiar rhetoric and actions of movements and regimes – from Hezbollah and al Qaeda to the Iranian Khomeinists and the Saudi Wahhabis – who swear to destroy us and others like us. Like their 20th-century predecessors, they openly proclaim their intentions, and carry them out whenever and wherever they can. Like our own 20th-century predecessors, we rarely take them seriously or act accordingly. More often than not, we downplay the consequences of their words, as if they were some Islamic or Arab version of "politics," intended for internal consumption, and designed to accomplish domestic objectives.

And...

This is not merely a philosophical issue, for to accept the threat to us means – short of a policy of national suicide – acting against it. As it did in the 20th century, it means war. It means that, temporarily at least, we have to make sacrifices on many fronts: in the comforts of our lives, indeed in lives lost, in the domestic focus of our passions – careers derailed and personal freedoms subjected to unpleasant and even dangerous restrictions – and the diversion of wealth from self-satisfaction to the instruments of power. All of this is painful; even the contemplation of it hurts.

Those are excerpts.  Please read the whole thing.  You'll be thinking about it for quite a time.

June 8, 2008.      Permalink                

AMERICANS

One worrying trend that may make it impossible for us to resist those who would destroy us is the weakening of our own sense of nationhood.  A Washington Times editorial reports on research done by the Bradley Project on America's National Identity:

The Bradley Project on America's National Identity issued a report which contends that America's national identity is being weakened by the spread of multiculturalism and globalization. The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation established this project in 2007. The vast majority of the 2,421 respondents in a Harris Interactive National Survey commissioned by the Bradley Project expressed concern that American society is increasingly polarized and divided - and that knowledge of the nation's common heritage and ideals is eroding. The results are disturbing and point to a growing problem that requires attention.

And...

The study reveals that the overwhelming majority share a fear that America is being balkanized; 80 percent of whites, 86 percent of blacks and 74 percent of Hispanics are concerned that America is increasingly divided along ethnic and cultural lines. Americans can therefore begin to demand changes in their communities based on the evidence available. For example, 89 percent state that new immigrants must be Americanized - which means they must learn English and embrace American culture. Also, the majority of parents insist that they would be upset if their children were taught in school that America is "fundamentally a racist country." The majority of participants also agree that citizenship rather than ethnicity should be the focus of education.

I'm glad someone is doing this kind of research, and basing it on the opinions of citizens, not just elites.  Many Americans would be shocked to learn the extent to which radical notions, made popular in the sixties, have infected not only our colleges but our high schools and elementary schools.  Many teacher-training colleges have become hotbeds of leftist radicalism.  Studies like the one cited above are the start, just the start, of a much-needed counterattack.

June 8, 2008.       Permalink          

HERO EDUCATORS

Reader Ken Braithwaite alerts us to another brave stand taken by a British educator, one that will surely advance the defense of the West. 

I'm kidding.

Just read this:

Children should no longer be taught traditional subjects at school because they are "middle-class" creations, a Government adviser will claim today.

Professor John White, who contributed to a controversial shake-up of the secondary curriculum, believes lessons should instead cover a series of personal skills.

Pupils would no longer study history, geography and science but learn skills such as energy- saving and civic responsibility through projects and themes.

He will outline his theories at a conference today staged by London's Institute of Education - to which he is affiliated - to mark the 20th anniversary of the national curriculum.

Last night, critics attacked his ideas as "deeply corrosive" and condemned the Government for allowing him to advise on a new curriculum.

Professor White will claim ministers are already "moving in the right direction" towards realising his vision of replacing subjects with a series of personal aims for pupils.

But he says they must go further because traditional subjects were invented by the middle classes and are "mere stepping stones to wealth."

We ask again, as we have asked before in this space, "Will there always be an England?"  I don't know.  But, of course, that's such a middle-class question.

June 8, 2008.      Permalink