LATER EVENING UPDATE:  MAY 30,  2008

Posted at 9:58 p.m. ET

AL QAIDA ON THE SKIDS?

Almost lost in the hysteria over Scott McClellan's first novel is the statement by America's chief intelligence officer that al-Qaida is losing in the war on terror.  Obviously, any assertion like this must be treated cautiously, and even optimists warn that a weakened terror group can still inflict enormous damage.  But Investor's Business Daily has a good report on the statement and its implications:

In a Washington Post interview last week to mark his two years as head of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gen. Michael Hayden rattled off a list of accomplishments: "Near strategic defeat of al-Qaida in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al-Qaida in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al-Qaida globally — and here I'm going to use the word 'ideologically' — as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam."

And...

In January, for instance, senior al-Qaida operative Abu Laith al-Libi was taken out by a Predator; last month, Algerian explosives expert and key al-Qaida terrorist trainer Abu Sulayman al-Jazairi was killed with over a dozen others by a U.S. airstrike on a compound near the village of Damadola in northwestern Pakistan.

And...

Speaking to the Los Angeles Times, Louis Caprioli, former anti-terrorism chief of French intelligence, reflected on the al-Jazairi killing: "You have to have good intelligence on the ground to hit a target like that. It requires human as well as technical intelligence. I think the money that the Americans are spreading around is having an effect."

"Also," he added, "there are troops in Afghanistan, prisoners being interrogated. This is a long-term effort that is paying off."

And...

Just think if we had followed the advice of Democrats like Sen. Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and cut and run from the "unwinnable" war in Iraq.

We can now see that the appeal of al-Qaida among potential recruits and supporters seems undeniably linked to whether the U.S. is perceived to be winning or losing in Iraq.

Al-Qaida would be gloating — and growing — claiming Iraq as a victory for itself if President Bush had followed the advice of official Washington in the winter of 2006-07.

America now must complete the win in Iraq and continue the long war against terrorism. Hayden justifiably worries that 6 1/2 years since 9/11 without an attack has caused Americans to believe " 'safe' is normal." According to the CIA chief, "Our view is: Safe is hard-won, every 24 hours."

Well said, and we can only hope that Gen. Hayden is correct. 

Good night.

May 30, 2008.      Permalink          

EVENING UPDATE:  MAY 30,  2008

Posted at 6:26 p.m. ET

DO YOU BELIEVE THIS?

Scott McClellan has now explained how his snitch book about the Bush administration "evolved".  I know you're all excited.  Here it is:

Scott McClellan says he did not set out to write a memoir that was sharply critical of the White House. Indeed, one publishing industry insider described his early concept as "a not-very-interesting, typical press secretary book."

But somewhere between proposal and publication, as McClellan told it yesterday, the scales dropped from his eyes, leading him to write a book that accuses his former boss, President Bush, and his senior aides of abandoning "candor and honesty" to wage a "political propaganda campaign" that led the nation into an "unnecessary war."

"Over time, as you leave the White House and leave the bubble, you're able to take off your partisan hat and take a clear-eyed look at things," McClellan, a former White House press secretary, said in an interview yesterday. ". . . From the beginning, the focus was what had happened to take things so badly off course. I don't know that I can say when I started the book that it would end up where it was, but I felt at the end it had to be as honest and forthright as possible."

The book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception," is a scathing critique of the Bush presidency that vaulted this week to the top of the bestseller lists. It has also prompted many of McClellan's oldest friends and colleagues to brand him, among other things, a turncoat and a fraud.

I'll buy the turncoat and fraud bit.  I mean, come on.  All of a sudden the scales dropped from his eyes?  All of a sudden, as soon as someone waved a check in front of him? 

The story contains this intriguing passage:

In his interviews yesterday, McClellan repeatedly highlighted two incidents that he said helped sharpen his criticism of the administration: when White House officials Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby inaccurately told him they were not involved in the leaking of a CIA officer's name, and a conversation in 2006 when Bush admitted that he had authorized the selective release of classified information about Iran.

Hasn't McClellan heard that Richard Armitage, number two at State in those years, has admitted leaking the CIA officer's (Valerie Plame's) name?  Also, presidents authorize selective releases of information all the time.  Information is classified at different levels, and a president can decide when a release will not harm the national interest.  Doesn't McClellan understand that he'd have to show that Bush's release did in fact harm the nation in order to prove that Bush acted improperly?  I guess not. 

I was in the intelligence services during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  President Kennedy selectively released previously classified photos and information so the American people would understand what was happening.  I don't know of any person who's criticized him for that. 

Does anyone believe Scott McClellan's story of how his book evolved?  Anyone?  I hear silence.

May 30,  2008.      Permalink          

SECOND AFTERNOON POST:  MAY 30,  2008

Posted at 4:14 p.m. ET

TRACKERS

What strikes me about the tracking polls, including the ones published today, is the absence of large swings. The voters are watching, but they're not panicking or even rushing. 

Rasmussen has McCain up three over Obama, whereas Gallup has Obama up one over McCain. 

Rasmussen has Clinton and McCain in a tie.  Gallup has Clinton up two over McCain.

Once again, the Clinton vote holds.  No matter what they throw at her, she seems to maintain her strength.  We discussed this morning the anger of some women at the Democratic Party for its perceived mistreatment of Clinton.  Obama must proceed very carefully to ease that anger. 

May 30, 2008.      Permalink          

AFTERNOON POST:  MAY 30,  2008

Posted at 3:20 p.m. ET

DOLING IT OUT

On the list of my favorite politicians, the name Bob Dole wouldn't be anywhere near the top.  Yet Dole has won my political affection by writing a scalding letter to turncoat White House press secretary Scott McClellan.  Here's the bloody part:

"There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don’t have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues," Dole wrote in a message sent yesterday morning. "No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits, and spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique."

Michael Marshall, Dole's spokesman and colleague at the Alston Bird law firm, confirms the message came from the former senator and presidential candidate. "Yes, it is authentic," Marshall wrote in an email.

"In my nearly 36 years of public service I've known of a few like you," Dole writes, recounting his years representing Kansas in the House and Senate. "No doubt you will 'clean up' as the liberal anti-Bush press will promote your belated concerns with wild enthusiasm. When the money starts rolling in you should donate it to a worthy cause, something like, 'Biting The Hand That Fed Me.' Another thought is to weasel your way back into the White House if a Democrat is elected. That would provide a good set up for a second book deal in a few years"

Dole assures McClellan that he won't read the book -- "because if all these awful things were happening, and perhaps some may have been, you should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy, high profile job.

"That would have taken integrity and courage but then you would have had credibility and your complaints could have been aired objectively," Dole concludes. "You’re a hot ticket now but don’t you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?"

Well, I guess there'll be no dinner foursomes with the Doles and the McClellans.

Dole makes only one mistake in his spot-on assault:  McClellan didn't really quit.  He was eased out, which may account for his "revenge" book.

By the way, truth in packaging:  I worked briefly with McClellan's literary agent.  It was the strangest professional relationship I've ever had, as I never actually spoke to the man.  Everything was done by e-mail.  I've worked with the best literary agents in the business, with routine personal conversations.  But this chap never once got on the phone.  The relationship just faded away.  Thought you'd like to know.

May 30, 2008.       Permalink            

FRIDAY:  MAY 30,  2008

Posted at 6:58 a.m. ET

OBAMA'S WOMAN PROBLEM

For some reason there are three stories today dealing with the Democratic Party's problem with women voters.  Since it is sometimes called the "mommy" party, you wouldn't expect it to be in a state of high friction with women, but there are clearly problems.  The Politico reports on Barack Obama's growing difficulty with white women:

Barack Obama’s favorability ratings among white women have declined significantly in recent months, particularly among Democrats and independents, presenting an immediate obstacle for the likely Democratic nominee as he moves to shore up his party’s base.

According to a new report by The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, half of white women now have a negative perception of Obama.

Forty-nine percent of white women view Obama unfavorably, while only 43 percent hold a favorable opinion. In February, 36 percent of these women viewed Obama unfavorably, while 56 percent had a positive perception of the likely Democratic nominee.

Over the same period, Democratic white women’s negative view of Obama increased from 21 percent to 35 percent, while their positive view decreased from 72 percent to 60 percent — roughly the same rate as white women overall.

Lesson one:  This is why you never take seriously those reports of women fainting at Obama rallies.  Rally groupies and voters are two different things.  We saw this clearly in 1960 when John F. Kennedy drew a number of swooners to his rallies.  But the women's vote divided for Nixon.  More from Politico:

Pew also found that among self-described Clinton supporters, the negative shift against Obama is more severe among women than among men.

The Pew findings come as Obama’s campaign struggles to close up the primary race while also attempting to avoid the perception of pushing Hillary Rodham Clinton out, for fear of offending her most loyal supporters — the largest bloc of which are white women.

Still unknown is whether white women’s support for Clinton would translate into problems for Obama in the general election.

And...

White women as a whole now prefer John McCain over Obama, by 49 percent to 41 percent. Last month, Obama was ahead of McCain among white women, 49 percent to 46 percent. The head-to-head matchup between McCain and Obama has not significantly shifted among white men.

Finally...

Democrats have come closest to capturing the White House by winning minorities by large margins and nearly splitting white women, as they did in 2000. Republicans have generally relied on their dominance with white men to put them in the White House, while winning at least half the vote among white women.

Clearly, Obama has work to do.  Hillary can either help him do it in the general-election campaign, or be less than helpful.  First indication:  Will she take her fight to the convention, or pull out beforehand?

May 30, 2008.      Permalink          

MORE TROUBLE

E.J. Dionne, whom I usually don't quote much, is also on the case in a column today called "Women Scorned."  He's interviewed political women to determine the anger level:

WASHINGTON -- How much anger is there among women about how Hillary Clinton has been treated during this campaign? Some of the nation's leading female politicians will tell you: quite a lot.

"From the beginning, she's been treated very badly," says Therese Murray, the president of the Massachusetts Senate. "No woman would have run with Obama's resume. She wouldn't have been considered." But Clinton has been "demonized by the press and the talking heads. How do you get away with that?"

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., says she is regularly approached "by women of all races, of all ages, of all faiths. They stop me, grab my hand and say, 'Look what they've done to her, we were so close.' They wanted this for their daughters and granddaughters. ... It's so heartbreaking."

And...

If there is good news for Barack Obama in any of this, it is that the rage felt by Clinton's female supporters is directed in large part toward the media. "The anger is aimed much more at you all," said Lt. Gov. Elizabeth Roberts of Rhode Island. Added Murray: "Obama wouldn't have gotten to where he got today if it weren't for the bias of the male media -- no offense."

That doesn't quite ring true, based on the statistics in our first story today.  It's Obama who's taken some of the brunt of the anger, as the numbers clearly show.

And...

These are professional politicians, so they know that Clinton is on the verge of defeat because of her campaign's organizational mistakes, its failure to take Obama seriously early on, and the difficulties created by her husband's presence. Roberts points to an age split among women, noting that her 19-year-old daughter Kathleen is a staunch Obama supporter. Obama, Kopp said, clearly has a strong appeal "among younger women, though that's true among many older women, too."

Finally...

Nonetheless, even these very pragmatic female politicians who very much want a Democrat to win the White House are looking for signs of "understanding and respect," said Kopp.

"It's a campaign, someone wins, someone doesn't win, that's life," she said. "But women don't want to be totally dissed."

I suspect that the very media that's dissed Clinton will now try to bring women back into the Democratic fold in time for the election.  After all, electing Obama is the change they've been waiting for.

May 30, 2008.      Permalink          

MINNESOTA - AND NOT TWINS

I was wondering when some Minnesota Democratic women would finally wake up to the farce of comedian Al Franken's becoming the Democratic candidate for the US Senate.  Finally, there is some stirring:

Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) publicly criticized her party’s likely Senate nominee, comedian Al Franken, for a satirical column he wrote for Playboy magazine in 2000, telling the Associated Press his writings were “pornographic” and “indefensible.”

McCollum said that she found the article offensive and believes it will be a serious political problem for the party’s downballot Congressional candidates. McCollum had endorsed Franken’s primary rival, attorney Mike Ciresi, before he dropped out of the race.

"I’m a woman, I'm a mother, I'm a former teacher, and an elected official," McCollum told Politico. "This material makes me question the judgment of someone who would write this. And this person is now a candidate representing Minnesota."

Franken’s eight-year-old article, titled “Porn-O-Rama,” describes a visit to an imaginary sex institute where he takes part in sexual acts with humans and machines. The column included many graphic sexual descriptions.

According to a state Democratic source, all five Democrats in the Minnesota Congressional delegation recently met and expressed serious concerns about Franken’s impact down-ballot on their Congressional campaigns.

The question, of course, is how a man like Franken, who's been offending people for years, gets to be a Senate candidate.  The answer is that there is a powerful faction within the base of the Democratic Party that doesn't care about his obnoxious behavior, or even the degrading things he's written about women.  As noted here many times, on the political left women are pretty far down the list of priorities.  Maybe some women - see stories above - are starting to realize this. 

Be back later.

May 30, 2008.      Permalink