EVENING UPDATE,  MARCH 31,  2008

Posted at 7:46 p.m. ET

A SMALL VICTORY FOR FREE SPEECH

A British website that took down a controversial anti-Islam film after serious threats to its staff, reported in this space a few days ago, has re-posted it.  The issue here, of course, is not whether the film is any good, or even if it's offensive.  The issue is that decisions on whether to post, publish, or film should never be made because of threats.  The story:

The British site LiveLeak has reposted a short film titled “Fitna.” The film portrays the Koran as a book that encourages violence against non-Muslims, and warns that the growing number of Muslims in Europe could threaten European democracy.

LiveLeak posted the film when it was first released, but removed it over the weekend. Site owners explained that they had received serious threats of violence against their staff, and had decided to remove the film rather than endanger workers’ lives.

Small victory.  Now it's entirely appropriate to criticize, denounce and despise the film, peacefully, if you wish.

March 31, 2008.  Permalink

DEMS HOPE FOR A JUNE BREAK

According to The Politico, Democratic leaders are trying to wrap up their party's nomination by June.  Hillary Clinton had hoped party bigwigs would lean her way, and that superdelegates would give her the ultimate edge.  As they say, back to the drawing board.  It isn't working out:

Hoping to avoid a summer-long bloodbath for the Democratic presidential nomination, some party leaders such as Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen have urged a convention of superdelegates in June, after the caucuses and primaries are over.

The idea sounds exotic, but recent public declarations and Politico interviews with top Democratic officials have made clear that something like what Bredesen proposed is already underway — not with a big meeting but with an intensifying series of exchanges among party elites.

The early voting in this virtual convention is bad news for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Her hope that Democratic leaders will settle the nomination is starting to come true — with Barack Obama so far emerging as the beneficiary.

After a 10-day slog of self-inflicted wounds and fatalistic headlines for Clinton, these party elders are clearly tilting against her hopes for keeping the nomination contest open indefinitely.

The Democrats’ virtual convention is taking place publicly, with statements like the remarkable comment by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) that Clinton should get out now, and semi-publicly, with background comments made by top operatives to the media.

The question, of course, is how Hillary's voters will take this.  For months the Obama people have been saying that the superdelegates shouldn't decide the nomination.  Now, it appears that the supers intend to step in, but on Obama's side.  Obama can rightly claim, of course, that he's gotten more votes than Hillary, at least up to now, and that the supers are simply acknowledging it.  But it will look unseemly, if a little hypocritical, if the Clinton death rattle is produced by the very people Obama said should stay out of it.

Repeat after me:  There's no cynicism in politics.  Now take a seasickness pill.

March 31, 2008.  Permalink

THE EAGER LEFT

There does seem to be an eagerness among many Democrats to anoint Obama, and it may have more to do with pure ideology than vote counting.  For decades a good part of the party has drifted to the left, with disastrous electoral results.  Bill Clinton tried to stop the bleeding by running, successfully, as a Democratic centrist in 1992.  But the harder left has re-emerged, and it wants vengeance.  It doesn't care for Clinton, or for his wife, or for people like Joe Lieberman.   It wants its politics pure - hard left, anti-defense, anti-trade, with a touch of nostalgia for the sixties.  Joe Lieberman said over the weekend:

Well, I say that the Democratic Party changed. The Democratic Party today was not the party it was in 2000. It’s not the Bill Clinton-Al Gore party, which was strong internationalists, strong on defense, pro-trade, pro-reform in our domestic government. It’s been effectively taken over by a small group on the left of the party that is protectionist, isolationist and basically will —and very, very hyperpartisan. So it pains me.

Joe is right.  Joe defeated the hard left in Connecticut the last time he ran for the Senate.  But the leftists think they have found in Barack Obama a candidate with cross-racial appeal, who can take them all the way, in part by generating a huge African-American vote.  And the left, in this case, could be tragically right.  The party leadership, some of whom actually groveled before the nutbags at a Daily Kos convention, doesn't dare cross the left, not because of its money, or even its ideas, but because it is supporting a candidate that represents the most loyal Democratic constituency, without whom Democrats cannot possibly win a national election.

The key, though, will be what moderate Democrats do in the general election.  In 1980 they became the Reagan Democrats.  We are starting to see the emergence of McCain Democrats, reported here earlier today in Rasmussen's latest poll results. (See the story right below this one.)  So far John McCain is playing it just right - making speeches with broad appeal, bringing in a wide coalition.  Whether he succeeds will depend on whether conservative Republicans understand the stakes, and let him maneuver.  Despite the differences many of us have with Senator McCain on some issues, we must consider the November alternative.  Grim thought, isn't it?  Remember, in 1940 the Brits had a choice between Churchill and an appeaser.  They made the right choice, and probably saved the world.  Are we at that point?

Be back tomorrow, or maybe later tonight if something comes up.

March 31, 2008.  Permalink

LATE AFTERNOON POSTING,  MARCH 31,  2008

Posted at 5:50 p.m. ET

McCAIN IN HIS BLUE HEAVEN

All polling at this stage must be taken with a grain of some environmentally friendly material, but some of the latest from Rasmussen shows John McCain with surprising strength in three traditionally Democratic states:

Arizona Sen. John McCain is running strongly in three states that have been solidly Democratic in recent presidential elections; a particular surprise is New Jersey where, a month ago, Illinois Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton had a double-digit lead, according to a new round of state-by-state general election match-ups.

The series of polls by Rasmussen Reports, which included Michigan and Washington State, also underscored what most other national and state polling has found – high negatives for Clinton as far as favorability ratings. McCain often scores the highest favorability ratings, while Obama comes out on the positive side, but by lesser margins.

Rasmussen says McCain and the Democrats are in a statistical tie in New Jersey, with McCain leading Clinton 45 percent to 42 percent and Obama by 46 percent to 45 percent, with a 4 point margin of error. A month ago, Obama ran closely with McCain but Clinton, showing strength in her neighboring state, had led McCain 50 percent to 39 percent.

McCain is also running a close race with the Democrats in Michigan, according to the Rasmussen survey conducted March 25. He leads Obama 43 percent to 42 percent, and Clinton by 45 percent to 42 percent, with a 4.5 percent margin of error.

McCain is viewed favorably by 55 percent of voters, Obama by 50 percent and Clinton by 47 percent. This is a state the Democrats have carried in the last four elections. It is also one of the two states (the other being Florida) where the controversy continues over the Democratic Party’s decision to strip both of their delegates for breaking party rules by moving up the dates of their primaries. Forty-five percent of Michigan Democrats say there should be some kind of a re-vote, while 39 percent disagree. Mirroring a Gallup poll earlier today, a plurality of Democrats believe Obama would be a stronger opponent for McCain than Clinton (by a 48 percent to 41 percent margin) and 58 percent expect Obama to win the nomination.

Okay, fine for now.  The Dems are clearly not where they want to be, but the election is more than seven months away.  New Jersey, in particular, has flirted with Republicans in recent years, only to return to the original Faith on election day.

But some cautionary smiles may be in order for John McCain.

March 31, 2008.  Permalink

AFTERNOON POSTINGS,  MARCH 31,  2008

Posted at 3:23 p.m. ET

TRACKERS

Rasmussen today has McCain up five over Obama.  Gallup has McCain up one.

Rasmussen has McCain up nine over Clinton.  Gallup has him up two.

Both polls were taken through yesterday.

The meaning of polls at this point is primarily psychological.  Hillary Clinton must convince her party that she's the stronger candidate against McCain.  She came close during Obama's pastorgate days, but they're now fading - until the McCain people bring up the issue of the pounding pastor again.  Now, Gallup shows Obama and Clinton essentially even against McCain, whereas Rasmussen shows Clinton having a tougher time against McCain than Obama. 

The campaigns will spin these polls the way they wish.  Obama will point to Rasmussen, Clinton to Gallup.  The key is that no tracking polls show Clinton stronger than Obama against McCain, and she's the one who's got to pull rabbits out of hats.  As of today, there are no rabbits in those hats.  Look, she'll tell us that by accident she picked up the wrong hats.  She was under fire at the time...

March 31, 2008.  Permalink

AN AL GORE BULLETIN

It is being reported by the best people that Al Gore is about to launch an environmental campaign.  We know this is shocking.  Stay calm and read:

Former vice president Al Gore will launch a three-year, $300 million campaign Wednesday aimed at mobilizing Americans to push for aggressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, a move that ranks as one of the most ambitious and costly public advocacy campaigns in U.S. history.

The Alliance for Climate Protection's "we" campaign will employ online organizing and television advertisements on shows ranging from "American Idol" to "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." It highlights the extent to which Americans' growing awareness of global warming has yet to translate into national policy changes, Gore said in an hour-long phone interview last week. He said the campaign, which Gore is helping to fund, was undertaken in large part because of his fear that U.S. lawmakers are unwilling to curb the human-generated emissions linked to climate change.

"This climate crisis is so interwoven with habits and patterns that are so entrenched, the elected officials in both parties are going to be timid about enacting the bold changes that are needed until there is a change in the public's sense of urgency in addressing this crisis," Gore said. "I've tried everything else I know to try. The way to solve this crisis is to change the way the public thinks about it."

No, the way to solve this "crisis" is first to determine whether there actually is one.  Then, if there is one, some very good people not connected to the New Church of Global Warming have to come up with solutions that actually work, benefit the human race, and don't destroy economies that are sustaining billions of people.  Is this hard to understand?

Notice how Gore, like Obama, makes generous use of the word "change."  We must "change."   Fine.  If there's a problem, I want change, too.  But I want a complete printout of every change and what it is likely to do.  I've read the opinions of enough first-class scientists to be very skeptical of "change" merchants with weak solutions and questionable science.

Good luck, Al.  I guess we'll be seeing you on TV - too many times.

Oh, an afterthought:  I'd like to see all the leading figures involved in "change" publish a statement revealing whether they have any financial stake in said "change."  Could be interesting, don't you think? 

Be back later.  I'm going out to build my windmill.

March 31, 2008.  Permalink

MONDAY,  MARCH 31,  2008

I JUST CAN'T WAIT

The Democrats may well hold the first contested political convention in years.  You have no idea what music that is as I write it.  I want to see fights.  I want to see fists.  I want to see votes.  I want to see contested ballots.  ("Mr. Chairman, we've noticed that there is not a single Cherokee with an Asian-American wife in that entire delegation.  What is this, the Ku Klux Klan?")

That's what I want to see.

But how do you win at such a festive gathering?  Karl Rove, writing in Newsweek, has some answers.  He analyzes the Democratic dilemma:

After the last Democratic primary is held in early June, neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama will have enough votes from delegates elected in caucuses or primaries to be declared the nominee. Obama would have to win 76 percent and Clinton 98 percent of the 535 delegates that are at stake in the final eight contests. Neither will happen.

If the superdelegates don't make their decisions early, thus putting one candidate over the top, the fight may well drag onto the convention floor.  Rove advises these rules to win:

1.  Control the convention mechanism.

2.  Watch the platform.

3.  It's all about delegates.

4.  Have a strategy to win.

5.  Focus on staging.

Read the whole thing.  Rove fills in the details for a battle plan.  For most Americans, a contested convention would be a new experience.

Frankly, I think the odds are still against it.  Chances are, Hillary will be forced from the race, especially if Obama is only a small number of votes away from victory. 

But if someone slips her a DVD of "Samson and Delilah," and she watches Samson tear down those columns, she could get wonderful ideas.

HILLARY URGED TO FIGHT

Meanwhile, editorial writers at The Washington Post, gleefully writing with matches on paper soaked in gasoline, urge Hillary to fight on:

One proffered justification for ending the campaign now, in fact, is the assumption that we know pretty much how everything will turn out. Ms. Clinton will win Pennsylvania, Mr. Obama will carry North Carolina and so on. But throughout this campaign, just about everything we've "known" has been wrong: Mr. McCain was finished, Ms. Clinton was inevitable, Mr. Obama had New Hampshire locked up. No doubt the Democrats have gotten themselves into a fix with rules that may leave the final decision to unelected superdelegates -- but why is the answer to that less democracy? Why not give as many voters as possible a chance?

You know, that makes sense.  Why hurry?  The Post argues:

But instead of continuing to blur the line between civil discourse and destructive denunciations, the candidates and their campaigns could talk more substance. Last week they tackled the economy and the mortgage meltdown. But there are plenty more questions for voters to consider. How would the candidates pay for their billions in increased spending on health care, energy and education? With diplomacy toward North Korea faltering, how would they handle its nuclear ambitions? What's the future of affirmative action? The list of issues to hash out is endless, and doing so in polite political combat could produce a stronger Democratic candidate for the fall and a better-informed electorate.

Okay, but the term "polite political combat" doesn't exactly describe the way Hillary goes about things. 

I'm sure she can't wait to run on her record on North Korea.  She fought in the Korean War, you know.  Wounded and evacuated, and Chelsea was with her.  ("No, mom, no, mom, you were two years old.")  Oh.

HILLARY AND MONEY

One thing could stop the Clinton effort:  Money.  She's running out.  Bills aren't being paid.  She may even leave home without her American Express card.   The Politico reports the trouble she's seen:

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s cash-strapped presidential campaign has been putting off paying hundreds of bills for months — freeing up cash for critical media buys but also earning the campaign a reputation as something of a deadbeat in some small-business circles.

A pair of Ohio companies owed more than $25,000 by Clinton for staging events for her campaign are warning others in the tight-knit event production community — and anyone else who will listen — to get their cash upfront when doing business with her. Her campaign, say representatives of the two companies, has stopped returning phone calls and e-mails seeking payment of outstanding invoices. One even got no response from a certified letter.

Their cautionary tales, combined with published reports about similar difficulties faced by a New Hampshire landlord, an Iowa office cleaner and a New York caterer, highlight a less-obvious impact of Clinton’s inability to keep up with the staggering fundraising pace set by her opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.

And get this...

Some of Clinton’s biggest debts are to pollster and chief strategist Mark Penn, who’s owed $2.5 million; direct mail company MSHC Partners, which is owed $807,000; phone-banking firm Spoken Hub, which is waiting for $771,000; and ad maker Mandy Grunwald, who’s owed $467,000.

Look, I don't bedgrudge anyone their living, but there's been rumbling for weeks about the extravagant salaries paid, er, promised, by the Clinton campaign.  There's an indecency here.  The $467,000 owed to Mandy Grunwald is larger than the annual salary of the president of the United States.  The $2.5 million owed to Mark Penn is the president's salary for a term and a half.  Where are we going with this? 

I wonder how much Lincoln's first campaign cost.  Let's see:  hat, paper for speech writing, pen with some ink, some tickets on the railroad, attendant to be with Mary Todd to prevent her from talking, lawyer to handle movie rights.  How much could all that cost? 

The need to raise huge amounts is pushing good people out of politics. 

THE OBAMA MYSTERY

A reader wrote to us a few days ago, wondering who Barack Obama really is.  What does he want?  What does his high-talkin' wife want?  Those may be the questions of the decade.

American Spectator has a solidly juicy piece exploring some of the contradictions and fantasies in the life of Barack Obama.  It isn't pretty:

We have come a long way since Chris Matthews told us his leg was "tingling" when he listened to Barack Obama. Well, sure, the liberal punditocracy is still playing defense for Obama -- insisting he is not really all that liberal (as the New York Times did last week) or trying to convince us that he was actually wise not to break with Reverend Wright (as the New Republic did). But more and more you see the MSM sharing tidbits of information that show him to be less than the Gandhi-like figure he originally was made out to be.

True.  For example...

Newsweek's largely biographical cover story did a little digging and found that his personal life stories as told by Obama are frequently contrived, and not entirely accurate: "like any good mythmaker, Obama sands down pieces that don't quite fit." Reverting to the name "Barack" after years of being known as "Barry," he was, according to Newsweek, a "bit of a poseur" -- a master of "self-creation" whose own yarns "made the murkier aspects of life coherent, or at least gave him confidence -- that he could author his own life story, and thus become a master of the tale and not a victim."

And...

In short, Obama is short on authenticity and long on imagination, putting him in the same league with internet inventor Al Gore or Sir Edmund Hillary Clinton. It's possible that the Illinois senator lacks the ability to tell the difference any longer.

These are distinct signs Obama's media free ride is coming to an end.

And it's going to get bumpy.  I suspect Rev. Wright isn't the only strange guy that Obama has hung with over the years.  He was just the most public, the most obvious.

The ticking time bomb:  Michelle Obama's huge salary at a hospital, far beyond what someone normally earns in the job.  Was it paid in return for her husband's political favors?  This is bound to come out.

Whatever the facts, you can be sure Hillary's people will unearth them.  In politics, meanness has its uses.

I'll be back later, probably in the afternoon.

March 31, 2008.  Permalink