EVENING UPDATE,  MARCH 6,  2008

JERUSALEM

There has been a new terror attack in Jerusalem:

JERUSALEM (AP) -- A gunman infiltrated a Jewish seminary in Jerusalem and opened fire in a library Thursday night, killing at least seven people, officials said.

Rescue workers said at least 10 people were wounded. Government spokesman Daniel Seaman and police said there was only one gunman though initial reports said there were two.

In Gaza, the Islamic militant Hamas praised the attack but stopped short of claiming responsibility. Thousands poured into the streets to celebrate, firing rifles in the air.

"We bless the (Jerusalem) operation. It will not be the last," Hamas said in a text message sent to reporters.

In Lebanon, Hezbollah's Al-Manar television said a previously unknown group called the Martyrs of Imad Mughniyeh and Gaza claimed responsibility for the attack.

The Jerusalem Post adds this:

In Jebaliya, about 7,000 Gazans of different factions marched in the streets, firing in the air in celebration, and visited homes of those killed and wounded in Israel's ground operation this week.

In Rafah on the Egyptian border, residents distributed sweets to moving cars, and militants fired mortars in celebration.

I'm sure the sweets were good. 

You simply have to wonder who would celebrate the murder of students, no matter what the perceived "cause."

This behavior is a reflection of what people are taught in schools and in mosques.  Oscar Hammerstein II, in "South Pacific," wrote that you've got to be taught to hate.  These tragic Palestinians have been carefully taught. 

Sadly, some self-proclaimed "intellectuals" will now "explain" the terror attack, blaming Israeli or American "policies."  They will never concede that those policies are a direct response to what is taught in much of the Islamic world.

AND IN BAGHDAD

Remember Baghdad? It's been quiet there recently, but there was an awful bombing in the city today: 

BAGHDAD — Two bombings killed at least 54 people and wounded 123 more in a bustling shopping district in the heart of Baghdad on Thursday evening, Iraqi authorities said.

The attack, in the Karrada neighborhood, was the worst the capital has seen since early February, when bombings killed almost 100 people at two Baghdad pet markets, and reinforced fears that insurgents can still carry out devastating bombings in well-guarded areas despite reduced levels of violence in recent months.

According to witnesses, the attackers used an old tactic to maximize the casualties: detonating one bomb and then using a second blast to kill unsuspecting passers-by who rush to the scene to aid the victims of the first explosion.

You can be sure that certain candidates in the United States will use this incident to claim there's been no progress in Iraq.  That's bogus, they know it, but don't care.  In every war, and this is war, there are good and bad days.  The United States suffered ghastly casualties in 1945, the last year of World War II, although our enemies were almost defeated.  I'd like to see some perspective on this from commentators, but I'm not holding my breath.  Many of them seem to know almost no military history, and have no interest.

I don't know if the attacks in Jerusalem and Baghdad are related.  (Oh, of course they could not possibly be related because no terrorist groups ever talk to each other - ever - because of, well, cultural aspects and religious division, dears, and you know about that.  You can learn it in the Saudi-funded schools at Georgetown.  Yuch.)

Nor do I know if the attacks are related to our presidential campaign.  Please remember that foreign countries and groups have misjudged Americans repeatedly, not understanding how we react, or associating us with European ways of thinking.  Some terror groups may think that if they escalate their attacks this year, it will help in electing a president more sympathetic to their cause, or more willing to run away.  They could, of course, be right.  Historically, Americans have responded to adversity with resolve.  But in the last generation that resolve has been dented by educational and journalistic elites who believe themselves, and their world view, to be superior to "those people out there."   How we respond this year, should our enemies test us anew, will tell us much about where we are as a people, and how we compare to a generation of sixty-five years ago, that saved the world.

THE DEMS IN BATTLE

Dan Balz, ace political reporter for the Washington Post, analyzes the Pennsylvania primary, and finds that Barack "the saint" Obama has a difficult battle ahead:

Pennsylvania's April 22 primary stands as the next big battleground in the Democratic presidential race and Barack Obama has no good options. He can stand and fight, and probably lose, or try to downplay the contest, and lose by an even bigger margin. In terms of demographics, Pennsylvania is Ohio squared.

Everything that worked for Hillary Clinton in Ohio is there in Pennsylvania in greater numbers. The Post ran a chart in Thursday's editions comparing the Democratic electorates in the two states. Obama's campaign should tape it on every office wall in their North Michigan Avenue headquarters in Chicago as a reminder of the steep hill they have to climb.

Look at some of the comparisons: The black-white mix is roughly similar, meaning Obama will not have a significantly larger African American population to tap. The male-female mix is also roughly similar, with women accounting for nearly 60 percent of the electorate, meaning Clinton will have her solid base upon which to build.

But look, too, at some differences. There are fewer young people and more old people in Pennsylvania than in Ohio, which is good for Clinton and bad for Obama. In Ohio, 44 percent of the Democratic electorate was under age 45 and Obama carried them by 54 percent to 45 percent. In Pennsylvania those voters may represent only a quarter of the electorate. In Ohio, voters over age 65 comprised 14 percent of the electorate and Clinton carried them 72 percent to 26 percent. In Pennsylvania, they may account for a quarter of the Democratic vote.

There are fewer college graduates and more non-college graduates in Pennsylvania than in Ohio, both among the population at large and among white voters. That, too, spells trouble for Obama.

The story goes on, with more rich material.  Highly recommended.  That is called reporting, and occasionally we get some. 

THE SO-CALLED EDUCATED

One of the fascinating aspects of this campaign is the tilt of the college-educated toward Barack Obama.  Why is this?  Well, Obama supporters will probably say that educated people are more intelligent, more rational, more discerning, more...well, more wonderful.

Actually, you'd think more discerning voters would recognize Obama's flaws, his lack of experience, the thinness of his rhetoric.  But we - and that includes pundits - make the mistake of associating schools with education.  I suspect that many college graduates support Obama because they've been taught it's the proper thing to do.  "Educated" in institutions that denigrate American history, lectured to by race-obsessed leftovers from the sixties, they see the election of a black president as proper payback, something that is "owed," something that makes them feel good about themselves.

Well, hurrah.  But we are electing a president whose decisions may mean life and death for people who walk into those voting booths.  And there's been no known case of a college sheepskin protecting anyone from a terrorist attack.  Think again, educated elite. 

WHOOPS

In a comment to a TV station Tuesday, Hillary Clinton claimed that no one had ever won the presidency without first winning his party's Ohio primary.  It turns out she was wrong, although she later modified her statement somewhat:

It has become part of political mythology that you cannot win the presidency without carrying Ohio. (Actually John Kennedy pulled off this feat in 1960, winning the general election even though he lost Ohio by 273,000 votes.) But can you win the presidency without winning your party's Ohio primary? History suggests that Hillary Clinton is wrong on this point.

The New York senator made the "No person has ever won the White House" claim in an interview with an Ohio TV station while waiting for the results to arrive. She qualified the claim later in the evening, in her victory speech, when she added the words "in recent history."

Interesting political history.  However, the Ohio primary will be largely forgotten in two weeks, as Pennsylvania becomes the mother of all primaries.

FINALLY, SOMEONE SAYS IT

Froma Harrop, of the Providence Journal, is one of the saner political writers around.  Here she suggests something that should appeal to those with common sense.  It's about time, she says, to shut down these caucuses that have complicated the Democratic Party's primaries:

Proportional primaries and the caucus system have both worked against Hillary Clinton and for Barack Obama. Clinton consistently won the majority in the big-state primaries in California, New York and now Texas -- but couldn't walk off with all the delegates. With his core of impassioned supporters, Obama has been able to dominate the caucuses.

But this isn't about what helps one candidate or another. It's about whether the Democrats will complete the journey to empowering a broad range of their voters.

In primaries, a voter can show up at the polls anytime between, say, 8 a.m. and 9 p.m., cast a secret ballot and go home or to work. Caucuses are run at a set hour. If you couldn't show up at an Iowa caucus precinct at 7 p.m. on Jan. 3 (a Thursday), you couldn't participate in the nation's first presidential contest. Only 227,000 people attended the Iowa Democratic caucuses, a population smaller than that of Norfolk, Va. Yet Obama's strong showing there provided him with powerful "momentum" -- at least according to the herd analysis.

Caucus rules are often complicated. That, too, turns off many people who will vote in November but don't care enough to go through the caucus hassle. The deliberations are public, and that lets activists bully shy participants into supporting their candidate.

The last point is the most important.  Public deliberations are for discussing issues, not choosing presidents.  That we do with a secret ballot.  Can you imagine being African-American, and going to a caucus in your neighborhood and speaking up for Hillary Clinton?  That's the problem.  The caucus system inherently leads to, as Harrop puts it, a kind of bullying. 

THE ARCHITECT DRAWS

Karl Rove is still one of the best political analysts around, although liberals don't acknowledge his status as a human being because he was, as observers call him, "the architect" of George Bush's victories.  And we know that BUSH has destroyed the world, and a good chunk of the solar system.

Here Rove examines Tuesday night, and its implications:

The big development to watch is not the rise of the "Obamicans" -- Republicans who are backing the charismatic Illinois senator. The interesting electoral phenomenon is the emergence of the "McCainicrats" -- Democrats backing Mr. McCain. It's not just Sen. Joe Lieberman. In three recent polls, (Fox, LA Times/Bloomberg and Gallup), almost twice as many Democrats support Mr. McCain as Republicans support Mr. Obama. Three times as many Democrats support Mr. McCain as Republicans back Mrs. Clinton.

A long Democratic battle doesn't automatically help the Republicans. In fact, it hurts the Republicans in certain ways. Mr. McCain becomes less interesting to the media. Stories about him move off page one and grow smaller. TV coverage becomes spotty and short. There are not yet big and deep and unbridgeable differences between the two Democrats and there is plenty of time to heal most wounds (except, perhaps among the young if Mrs. Clinton were to win). Continuing to build a profile and lay the predicate for the short fall campaign against either Democrat becomes the challenge for Mr. McCain while the Democrats battle it out.

Rove then lays out what Clinton and McCain must do.  It's sound advice from the master.

ANOTHER WACKY POLL

Wonderful bookwormroom.com, an Urgent Agenda favorite site, looks at a new poll by presumably respectable people that puts Obama or Clinton way ahead of McCain, and finds the flaws in the counting:

The moment I saw the boastful headline yesterday announcing that, if the election were held today, either Obama or Hillary would beat McCain by a mile, I suspected that something was wrong. The numbers just didn’t sound right. And of course, they’re not:
However, a closer look at the poll’s internals reveals that the poll’s respondents self-identified 40% Dem and 28% Repub, with 28% as independents (among independents, Dem-leaners among the poll’s respondents went 46% Dem, 26% Repub, and 22% neither).

Overall, the ABC News/Washington Post poll’s respondents went 56% Dem-leaning and 36% Repub-leaning, a 19-point spread. Only 84% of the voters questioned were registered. (See questions 901-904)

Really, I don’t know why we bother to consider polls anymore, I honestly don’t.

Well said.  Just consider the primary polls this year.  They've been all over the lot.  Never allow a pollster to help your child with math homework.

And I'll be back tomorrow.

Posted on March 6, 2008.