EVENING UPDATE,  MARCH 13,  2008

MORE POLLING

Today's Rasmussen report continues to fascinate.  I discussed some numbers earlier today. Here are some others:

Nationally, McCain is viewed favorably by 53% and unfavorably by 43%. Obama is now viewed favorably by 52% of likely voters nationwide, unfavorably by 44%. Clinton earns positive reviews from 47% of Likely Voters nationwide and negative assessments from 50%.

This is remarkable.  McCain now has a slightly higher favorability rating than does Obama.  And it's perfectly clear that Obama's halo is starting to fade.  This is the inevitable result of press scrutiny and his own missteps. 

More and more, this is shaping up as one of the most exciting years in recent political history.  The election is likely to be close, and brutally fought.

PENNSYLVANIA

Rasmussen reports the following snapshot for the Pennsylvania Democratic primary:

Clinton 51%

Obama 38%

That is fairly grim for Obama, although six weeks of campaigning remain.  He has closed larger gaps before.  He faces, though, two major hurdles in closing this one:  First, Pennsylvania is a typical Clinton state.  The demographics favor Clinton.  Second, Obama closed those previous gaps when he was a fresh face, coming on with the aura of someone new, dynamic and attractive.  He's increasingly less fresh now, people are forming opinions, and some of the latest reporting portrays him as less than godlike.

OBAMA'S HEADACHE

One of the things dragging Obama down is the amazement at some of his associations.  This item is all over the internet today, and I don't claim originality, but ABC News has put out a detailed, disturbing portrait of Obama's pastor.  Why is this important?  Because Obama's relationship with the man has been close.  Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope," took its title from one of the pastor's sermons.  This pastor is viciously anti-American, and has bestowed honors on the anti-Semitic lunatic, Louis Farrakhan. 

The question is legitimate:  Why has Obama associated with this man when he had a choice of thousands of churches in Chicago?  Roger L. Simon puts it very well, this way:

I'm not much for guilt-by-association, but when I saw the Reverend Jeremiah Wright on television last night (clip below), I realized that Barack Obama has to do a lot more than merely pay lip service to disassociating himself from "some of the comments" of his minister as if Wright were some errant family member. As we all know, we don't choose our family, but Obama chose this racist demagogue as his pastor for decades. It's not funny. Barack is running for President of the United States. As a former civil rights worker, I find it pretty appalling. Was this what we were fighting for? Forget the primaries, in the general election this video is going to be all over the airwaves and the internet. It could do for Obama what Willie Horton did for Dukakis.... But unlike the Willie Horton ad, Obama will deserve this. Horton was a mistake by Dukakis that any of us could have made. Jeremiah Wright was Obama's personal choice for years. And let's not even get into Barack giving Farrakhan the honorific of "Minister" in the recent debate...

This has been festering for a long time.  ABC News has brought it into mainstream journalism.  It will not go away.

And another ticking time bomb:  Obama's wife, Michelle.  She's not going away either, and, as noted here this morning, has a history of statements that make Jane Fonda look like a superpatriot. 

WHAT WAS THAT?

My Iranian pal Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi refers me to what she calls the quote of the day:

"My Friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world.  I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it."
    Barack Obama

That reminds me of the old Hollywood story of the agent who runs into a screenwriter on the street and says, "Hey, your script is perfect.  I'm looking forward to the changes."

Given what we're learning about Senator Obama, we should be very careful about embracing his call for "change" unless we get specific details first.

PUT YOUR DREAMS AWAY FOR ANOTHER DAY

David Broder explains to Democrats why their dream ticket of Clinton-Obama and Obama-Clinton will not happen:

But judging from what I was told in a canvass of both the Clinton and Obama camps, there is good reason to believe this pairing will never occur. Even if the long campaign does not leave bruised personal feelings, practical considerations for both candidates argue strongly against such a deal.

For Clinton, partnering with Obama, with him on top of the ticket, would either leave her part of a defeated pair in a party that is not generous about second chances or, if they won, probably lock her out of a presidential run until 2016, when she would be 68 -- almost John McCain's age now.

Knowledgeable Democrats see at least two more-attractive options for her. One is to return to the Senate, where she is popular, well established and potentially in line to be majority leader, a position with real power. The other is to go back to New York, where Eliot Spitzer's resignation from the governorship yesterday leaves a potential opening for a new candidate in 2010.

And Mr. Obama has his reasons:

As for Obama, many of the same arguments apply -- with even greater force. He is less enamored of the Senate than is Clinton, but it could provide a comfortable resting place for four or eight years. Or he could go back to Illinois and run for governor in 2010, when incumbent Democrat Rod Blagojevich would be up for a possible third term.

Obama would be a heavy favorite over Blagojevich or anyone else in a primary and over the nominee of the beleaguered Illinois GOP. And winning the governorship would provide the executive experience that may be the biggest gap in his résumé.

But there is an even better reason for Obama to shun an offer from Clinton. With Bill Clinton poised to move back to the White House if his wife becomes president, the West Wing will be a miserably crowded place. There are almost always jealousies and tensions between the president's staff and the vice president's. But add in Bill Clinton's ego and entourage, and serving there would truly be cruel and unusual punishment for Obama.

Pretty convincing, methinks.

TWO AND A HALF - WHAT A CONCEPT!

You read some stories and wonder who's running our educational system.  You also wonder why it takes a "study" (read that, temporary employment for researchers) to determine what is so obvious to most sane people.  I recall a wonderful high-school teacher who told me of a study by a team of anthropologists who took a year to find out that parents were interested in children, and that children were interested in parents.

With that cynical idea in mind, I report a New York Times piece that informs us that learning fractions is good:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Schools could improve students' sluggish math scores by hammering home the basics, such as addition and multiplication, and increasing the focus on fractions and some geometry, a presidential panel recommended Thursday.

''Difficulty with fractions (including decimals and percents) is pervasive and is a major obstacle to further progress in mathematics, including algebra,'' the panel, appointed by President Bush two years ago, said in a report.

Because success in algebra has been linked to higher graduation rates and college enrollment, the panel focused on improving areas that are the foundations of algebra. Average U.S. math scores on a variety of tests drop around middle school, when algebra coursework typically begins. That trend also led the panel to focus on what's happening before kids take algebra.

A major goal for students should be mastery of fractions, since that is a ''severely underdeveloped'' area and one that's important to later algebra success, the report states.

Took 'em two years to figure it out.

Now, watch for the reexamination to come.  A new panel, undoubtedly well financed, will determine that fractions are part of an oppressive educational ideology that crushes the imagination of other-cultured students who are straining to break the shackles of an imperialist system.  Yuch.

WHAT IS IT WITH THE FRENCH?

Just when I thought it was safe to have French fries again the French foreign minister tempts me to make another choice.  He is regarded as pro-American, but his comments don't sound that way:

PARIS: Bernard Kouchner, the foreign minister of France and a longtime humanitarian, diplomatic and political activist on the international scene, says that whoever succeeds President George W. Bush may restore something of the United States' battered image and standing overseas, but that "the magic is over."

In a wide-ranging conversation with Roger Cohen of the International Herald Tribune at the launch of a Forum for New Diplomacy in Paris, Kouchner on Tuesday also held out the hope of talking with Hamas, the Palestinian faction that rules the Gaza Strip but has been ostracized by the West and by its Palestinian rival, Fatah, because it opposes peace talks with Israel and denies that Israel has a right to exist.

Asked whether the United States could repair the damage it has suffered to its reputation during the Bush presidency and especially since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Kouchner replied, "It will never be as it was before."

This is complete garbage.  First, the magic will never be gone from the United States.  Our political obituary has been written by Europeans many times, only to be torn up when they need us, which is rather frequently.

Second, I'm always amused by Europeans who claim to worry about our reputation.  This guy says, "It will never be as it was before."

Well, Mr. Foreign Minister, what was it before?  The fact is that anti-Americanism has been a constant in Europe, especially in France.  We recall the behavior of Europeans toward Ronald Reagan, who saved their necks.  We recall how DeGaulle wanted to expel American forces from France in the early sixties, leading our secretary of state, Dean Rusk, to ask him if that included the American soldiers buried in military cemeteries.

In a few minutes I will leave to attend the 95th birthday party for a woman who was a world traveler.  She recently told me that, before one trip to Europe, she was advised by the State Department's passport office to play down the fact that she was an American because of all the anti-Americanism over there.  The year was 1950, five years after we liberated the European continent.

Don't tell me about "before."  It wasn't that different from "now."

And, flying the flag, I'll be back tomorrow.

Posted on March 13, 2008.