On MSNBC today, David Axelrod said that Barack Obama "never disputed the fact that if you throw a surge of American soldiers in an area that you can make a difference."

Oh really? Here's what Obama said on January 14, 2007: "We can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops: I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground."

Watch it:

We went through similar times in the early 1990’s. The Berlin Wall fell, the Soviet Union crumbled and we won the Cold War. Yet it was beyond the typical liberal’s ability to acknowledge that Ronald Reagan had anything to do with these accomplishments. So you had the ludicrous spectacle of bespectacled college professors arguing that Jimmy Carter could have won the Cold War or the Soviet Union would have fallen apart regardless of what we did. In 1992 after Reagan addressed the Republican convention, Tom Brokaw speculated from his national TV perch that the government debt run up under Reagan’s watch would be the Gipper’s principal legacy.

We’re seeing something similar happen now. In the past couple of weeks, two extremely promising news stories have sprung from the War on Terror. The situation in Iraq is looking promising, and there is a real possibility and perhaps even a likelihood that the Iraq war will leave as its legacy a remarkably civilized and progressive country by the standards of the region. More importantly, the war may leave behind a stable and humane nation that will not be hostile to American interests, one that may serve as a beacon for it neighbors.

Perhaps more noteworthy is the CIA’s assessment that “portrays Al Qaeda as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.” While I always take CIA pronouncements of this sort with a grain of salt given the agency’s limitations and recent history of sloppy analysis, this conclusion does square with Al Qaeda’s declining and practically disappearing activities.

Since these have been George W. Bush’s wars, one would think he would receive at least a modicum of credit for any progress. Alas, if Bush is to receive credit, he’ll have to be patient just like Reagan was.

Regarding Iraq, yesterday this week saw the disheartening spectacle of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claiming that “some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians-they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities-the Iranians.” This is an obscenity on two levels. Most people will naturally focus on the fact that Pelosi’s refusal to credit the Bush administration also means she must refuse to credit our Armed Forces who have sacrificed so much and fought with such skill and bravery to make the surge a success.

Still more disgusting is Pelosi’s bizarre desire to credit our enemies in Iran for our progress. This claim is so at odds with the truth and so offensive, it’s shocking that even the most partisan Democrat would make it. General H.R. McMaster described Iran’s purported “goodwill” this way:

In the case of what Iran is doing in Iraq, it is so damn obvious to anybody who wants to look into it, I think, that is drop the word “alleged” and say what they’re doing, which is, we know for a fact organizing and directing operations against the government of Iraq and against our forces – the government of Iraq forces and our forces – we know they have done that, certainly in the past. We know that they are supplying them with weapons and the most effective weapons that they used to attack the Iraqi people and our forces and these include the long-range high payload rockets that have been coming in from Iraq as well as the explosively formed projectile roadside bombs that come from Iran.

As far as winning the battle against Al Qaeda is concerned, many will argue that Islamic populations, once exposed to fundamentalist barbarism, have decided that going back to the 7th century looked a lot more attractive on paper than it turned out to be in reality. This is true to a certain extent, but it is no more the sole cause of any victory we’ll achieve than a struggling Soviet economy was the sole cause of victory in the Cold War.

A guiding principle of the War on Terror was and still is the need to prove to the world that Jihadism is a dead end. To some extent or another, every war has had a similar endgame. WWII did not conclude until Japanese society accepted the fact that the policies of Imperialist Japan had led to its nation’s ruin and, if continued, would lead to its nation’s total destruction.

What bin Laden said about the strong horse and the weak horse was right. And he and his minions don’t look like the strong horse running for their pathetic lives in Waziristan for years on end. The Islamic world has watched as al Qaeda has become the weak horse. President Bush deserves credit for fighting the war with the steadfastness he has. Remember, it was less than four years ago when John Kerry implored us to fight a more sensitive war on terror. Somehow I doubt sensitivity would have had the same impact on the Jihadists as the predator drones that now fill their skies.

I’ve never been reticent about pointing out the Bush administration’s shortcomings. Its spendthrift ways, its elevation of unqualified lackeys to positions of importance, its longtime adherence to ineffective tactics in Iraq, its inability to communicate…I better stop – I could go on all day. My point is that the Bush administration has been a flawed vehicle, and I’ve never shied away from saying as much.

But President Bush is on the verge of winning the big ones. It will be no small thing if he has shown and mostly secured the path to victory in Iraq and in the War on Terror before leaving office. It will drive the left crazy and as was the case with Reagan, it will take liberals decades to admit it, but Bush will strut back to Crawford a big winner.

Few remember that Abraham Lincoln spent years running a dreadful war effort presided over by the ineffective likes of George McClellan and Joe Hooker. And those who do remember such things view them charitably, as Lincoln got things right by the end. If President Bush does wind up also having gotten the big things right, something that seems increasingly likely, the enormous successes of his administration will dwarf the failures in history’s eyes.

Saleh Riqab, Hamas’ deputy minister of religious endowment, took the time on a TV interview a couple of weeks ago to explain Bill Clinton’s scandals to the Al Aqsa TV audience:

Riqab: Both Democrats and Republicans compete to please the state of the Jews. That's why when a Democrat comes to occupied Palestine, he puts on a religious skullcap, goes to the Western Wall, bangs his head against the wall, and says: 'Your philosophy and the need to please you is now inside my head.' They all compete with one another, but the Jews maintain a balance, and they always prefer the Christian Zionists.

If a Democrat comes to power, like [Bill] Clinton - who served them well in Oslo and elsewhere, and almost served them in the second Camp David, but then made statements [they didn't like] - what did Zionism do? It sent him the Jewish Monica, with whom Clinton had sex in the American White House.

Clinton left [the White House], but there are thousands of pages documenting his sexual depravity, because he had sex in the White House. I read a report that Clinton used to call Arab leaders and talk to them while she was having sex with him.

Interviewer: My God!

Saleh Riqab: These things are documented, but the Arabs don't read them.

After reading this report, is there any wonder why Hamas is the one group of lunatic tyrants that Barack Obama is not eager to chat with?

HT: Memri

Of all the positions on a political campaign, the so-called body-man is the most peculiar. As a group, they tend to be young and politically inexperienced. Yet they have more access to a candidate than any other staff-member. Obama's body-man is 26-year-old Reggie Love, who played football and basketball at Duke, but is now tasked with tracking down the Junior Senator's favorite line of Honest Tea (Black Forest Berry) anywhere they happen to be in the country. Apparently Love is also charged with teaching Obama about rap.

After the Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia in April, Mr. Obama borrowed a move from the rapper Jay-Z and mimed brushing off his shoulders, but it was Mr. Love who had uploaded his music to the senator’s iPod in the first place — a silver Nano that he bought the senator for his 46th birthday.

“So I’ve gotten pretty fond of Jay-Z,” Mr. Obama said. “He’s broadened my horizons in the hip-hop world.”

In turn, Mr. Obama said he had gotten Mr. Love into “everything from John Coltrane to Frank Sinatra.”

“I think he’s got the most eclectic music of any 26-year-old,” the senator said.

This may come as a surprise to WEEKLY STANDARD readers who have come to know me as a voice of the common man, but I can only name five (living) rap stars off the top of my head. Jay-Z is on that list. How eclectic can he be? Or rather, how clueless is Obama?

Just as he did with Barack Obama, The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg scored an interview with John McCain. Once again, the results were fascinating. A couple of snippets:

JG: Do you think that Israel is better off today than it was eight years ago?

JM: I think Israel, in many respects, is stronger economically, their political process shows progress – when there is corruption, they punish people who are corrupt. The economy is booming, they have a robust democracy, to say the least. Bin Laden has not limited his hatred and desire to destroy the United States to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, though Israel is one of the objects of his jihadist attitude. What you’re trying to do is get me to criticize the Bush Administration.

JG: No, I'm not, what I'm --

JM: Yeah, you are, but I’ll try to answer your question. Because of the rise of Islamic extremism, because of the failure of human rights and democracy in the Middle East, or whether there are a myriad of challenges we face in the Middle East, all of them severe, all of them pose a threat to the existence to the state of Israel, including and especially the Iranians, who have as a national policy the destruction of the state of Israel, something they’ve been dedicated to since before President Bush came to office.

If Israel is less well off than it was eight years ago, a principal cause is because the unqualified bumbler Ehud Olmert is now running the country. But you’d have a tough time making the case that Olmert’s elevation under tragic circumstances was Bush’s fault.

More from the interview:

JG: What is the difference between an American president negotiating with Ahmadinejad and Ehud Olmert negotiating with the Syrians?

JM: You don’t see him sitting down opposite Bashar, do you? (Bashar al-Assad is president of Syria.) I mean, that’s the point here. It was perfectly fine that Ryan Crocker spoke with the Iranian ambassador in Baghdad. The point is you don’t give legitimacy by lending prestige of a face-to-face meeting, with no preconditions.

JG: But Obama has shifted off that position.

JM: Sure, and the next time he sees where he’s wrong, maybe he’ll shift again. The point is is that he doesn’t understand. Look, in the primary, he was unequivocal in his statements. And now he realizes that it’s not a smart thing to say. I didn’t say he wasn’t a smart politician.

And some more:

JG: A final question: Senator Obama talked about how his life was influenced by Jewish writers, Philip Roth, Leon Uris. How about you?

JM: There’s Elie Wiesel, and Victor Frankl. I think about Frankl all the time. “Man’s Search for Meaning” is one of the most profound things I’ve ever read in my life. And maybe on a little lighter note, “War and Remembrance” and “Winds of War” are my two absolute favorite books. I can tell you that one of my life’s ambitions is to meet Herman Wouk.* “War and Remembrance” for me, it’s the whole thing.

Then there’s Joe Lieberman, who lives a life of his religion, and who does it in the most humble way.

JG: Not a big Philip Roth fan?

JM: No, I’m not. Leon Uris I enjoyed. Victor Frankl, that’s important. I read it before my captivity. It made me feel a lot less sorry for myself, my friend. A fundamental difference between my experience and the Holocaust was that the Vietnamese didn’t want us to die. They viewed us as a very valuable asset at the bargaining table. It was the opposite in the Holocaust, because they wanted to exterminate you. Sometimes when I felt sorry for myself, which was very frequently, I thought, “This is nothing compared to what Victor Frankl experienced.”

Finally! A presidential candidate who publicly recognizes Philip Roth’s pretentious drivel for what it is. I’ve never felt closer to or more supportive of the McCain campaign.

Far more important are the differences that emerge between McCain and Obama in their respective interviews with Goldberg. Even when it comes to something as seemingly off-topic as favorite Jewish authors, the fact that one candidate has led a life that has prepared him for the presidency while the other has led a life that has prepared him to be an English professor becomes obvious.

Still more noteworthy is Obama's well-documented inability to say a sentence sans teleprompter without displaying his shallow understanding of global affairs. Hence his simplistic recitals of tedious liberal tropes, e.g., putting an over-emphasis on the Palestinian issue. McCain, on the other hand, knows what he’s talking about, e.g., he realizes that “if the Israeli-Palestinian issue were decided tomorrow, we would still face the enormous threat of radical Islamic extremism.”

I'll make a prediction: At some point some of Obama's serial mistatements but more importantly his serial shallowness will cause even his champions to publicly wonder whether he knows enough to adequately carry out the responsibilities of the position he seeks.

*Much to my surprise, Herman Wouk is indeed still alive, a spry 93 year-old currently living in Palm Springs. Not to be indelicate, but if McCain is serious about meeting Wouk, there’s no time like the present.

Maxine Waters is talking about nationalizing America's oil sector. She might want to consider an object lesson on how that's working for one of the world's major oil producers:

Venezuela's state petroleum company, Petroleos de Venezuela, increased petroleum imports by nearly 150% between the first quarter of 2007 and the same period this year, bank statistics show...

Venezuela's state oil company says it produced 3.15 million barrels per day last year. Analysts including the Paris-based International Energy Administration put Venezuela's production at around 2.4 million.

Mr. Garcia [an economist at a Caracas business school] said that while the petroleum sector reported growth of 3.3% in the first quarter, this figure is "not consistent with the number of active rigs." PDVSA declared an emergency shortage of oil rigs last July, and the company's year-end report showed they had just 111...

In mid-April, Venezuela's National Assembly Tuesday passed a new oil windfall tax, a new blow to foreign oil companies operating in the country. Observers say the law, as it stands, would further hamstring PdVSA's cash situation and would also discourage private-company investment.

Venezuela should be awash in wealth derived from the high price of oil, but Chavez's government has been siphoning off oil profits rather than reinvesting them in production. Combine that with the seizure of assets from private companies and the confiscatory windfall profits tax on the private firms that remain, and suddenly Venezuela seems unable to make money off its vast oil resources. (More on the failures of state-owned oil companies here.)

This is more bad news for Hugo Chavez, who has seen Brazil check his ambitions in the region, and who has been embarrassed by the discovery of his ties to FARC (the death of whose leader is mourned by Chavez). At home his enemies are finally presenting a united front against him. It may be only a matter of time before Chavez has to decide whether to depart the scene gracefully, or to cling to power by force.

Representative Waters, take note.

At a campaign event yesterday, John McCain said, "I can look you in the eye and tell you [the surge] is succeeding. We have drawn down to pre-surge levels." Obama-supporter John Kerry then attacked McCain on his "comprehension" of Iraq:

"It’s very disturbing to have John McCain constantly raise questions about what he knows and what he bases his judgments on,” Kerry said. “If you don’t know the number of troops it’s very difficult to make a judgment on if they are over-extended.” Kerry continued, “It raises serious questions about his comprehension of this challenge.”

Does the Obama campaign really want to go there?

Team McCain just held a media conference call with the campaign's foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann and Senator Jon Kyl, who conclude that no, Obama doesn’t want to go there. "It's instructive that the Obama campaign, rather than deal with that real issue and Obama's lack of experience, is trying to nitpick the verb or the tense of the verb about the surge troops being home," said Kyl. Obama hasn’t been to Iraq since January 2006, and McCain has been five times since then.

"The real point is that al Qaeda has been significantly, significantly degraded in Iraq as well as other places, that the surge that General Petraeus put into place last year has significantly worked, that violence is significantly down, and that as a result of these successes, we are able to bring troops home," said Kyl. Three of the five surge brigades are home and the rest will be home by July, so McCain wasn't incorrect in his statement that we have "drawn down to pre-surge levels."

Scheunemann focused on the Obama camp's dismissive response to the idea of a trip to Iraq with McCain and Obama's numerous gaffes this week. "Senator Obama has said he will follow his withdrawal plan which amounts to retreat and surrender regardless of the events on the ground, regardless of the advice of military commanders," said Scheunemann, responding to a reporter who questioned McCain's verb usage. "If we're going to talk about verb tenses in this level of detail rather than the fact that Senator Obama doesn't care enough about what's going on in Iraq to either meet General Petraeus or to take the time to visit the country in the last 873 days, let's talk about some of the other things Senator Obama has said, like campaigning in 57 states...or...a nonexistent uncle that helped the Red Army liberate Auschwitz."

Last week, Muqtada al Sadr, the leader of the Mahdi Army and the Sadrist political movement, called for massive demonstrations against the negotiations between the US.. and the Iraqi government over the basing of U.S. troops in the country beyond 2008. This Friday, the Sadrist movement carried out its first nationwide protest. The turnout was a flop.

The Associated Press put the best face on the turnout, saying “tens of thousands of Shiites” joined in. But the AP does not provide a breakdown on the protests.

AFP, Multinational Forces Iraq, and Voices of Iraq, an Iraqi news service, put the number in the thousands. Multinational Forces Iraq said more than 5,000 protesters were in Sadr Cit, and another 200-300 attended the protest in the Kadhamiyah district of Baghdad. AFP said “hundreds of Sadrists staged similar demonstrations” and said demonstrations were held in Basra, but no numbers were given.

There was a time when Sadr’s calls for protests put hundreds of thousands of Shia into the streets. Yet Sadr couldn’t get more than 6,000 to 7,000 join in on a protest on the day when most people attend mosque.

To put the current numbers into perspective, and estimated 2,000,000 Shia are estimated to live in Sadr City alone, and the Baghdad district is considered the bulwark of Sadr’s support. Yet Sadr couldn’t muster more than one quarter of one percent of the district's residents.

Sadr called for weekly protests, to be held every Friday after prayers. He may want to cancel the protests and blame the poor turnout on heavy handed tactics of the security forces, just as he has done in the recent past.

I guess Scott McClellan won’t be brunching with Bob and Liddy Dole this Sunday. Jonathan Martin at the Politico got a copy of an email the former Senate Majority Leader and presidential candidate sent to McClellan yesterday. Dole does not skimp on his famous biting rhetoric when he smells disloyalty. Read Jonathan’s full story here.

A couple of the money quotes from Senator Dole:

“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."

And there’s more….

“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"

Martin confirmed the authenticity of the note with the former Senator’s law firm. The email did not conclude with “have a nice day,” just “Bob Dole.”

Jon Henke makes an interesting point about those who believe the economy is terrible:

Yet those who have become extremely concerned about the economy since last fall show no significant difference from everyone else in backing a presidential candidate. Both groups divide about evenly between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, and between McCain and the other Democrat, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

In addition, those who expressed most concern about their personal financial situations have done just what those less concerned have done — they are a bit likelier to back McCain now than they were to prefer a Republican candidate in last November's AP-Yahoo News poll.

Henke cautions that we should probably not read too much into these very early findings, and he's right to do so. While past performance is not a prediction of future behavior, exit polls for the last three presidential elections show the Democratic candidate doing much better than the Republican among voters most concerned about the economy. The reverse has been true among voters concerned about taxes. Right now however, taxes don't even appear on the list of voters' top worries. McCain will have to raise awareness of Obama's plan to raise taxes between now and November.

Note that Jon Henke's post appears on the excellent new site 'The Next Right,' where he writes with Patrick Ruffini and Soren Dayton. You should bookmark the site and read it regularly for excellent analysis of Republican politics and the presidential race.

Warner Huston points out that when Barack Obama was first elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996, he sought (and received) the endorsement of Illinois' Marxist New Party:

The New Party was a Marxist political coalition whose objective was to endorse and elect leftist public officials -- most often Democrats. The New Party's short-term objective was to move the Democratic Party leftward, thereby setting the stage for the eventual rise of new Marxist third party.

Most New Party members hailed from the Democratic Socialists of America and the militant organization ACORN. The party's Chicago chapter also included a large contingent from the Committees of Correspondence, a Marxist coalition of former Maoists, Trotskyists, and Communist Party USA members.

The agenda of the New Party is laid out here. This doesn't demonstrate that Obama is a Marxist, nor does it prove that he agrees with the full agenda of the New Party. In states where many parties earn a spot on the ballot, it's typical for politicians to seek the cross-endorsement of minor parties. However, you don't seek (or receive) the endorsement of a minor party unless you have a certain comfort level with the party's agenda. Again we see that Barack Obama is pretty comfortable with some radical ideas and people.

More from Rick Moran here.

If this guy were American, he’d be President Obama’s Secretary of State:

Britain should negotiate with leaders of al-Qaida as part of a new strategy to end its violent campaign, one of the country's most senior police officers has said.

Speaking to the Guardian, Sir Hugh Orde, head of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, said the experiences of his force tackling the IRA had convinced him that policing alone - detecting plots and arresting people - would not defeat al-Qaida inspired terrorism.

Sir Hugh is spot on in one respect. Hunting down and arresting terrorists is pretty silly. But hunting down and killing terrorists--now you’re talking!

Alicia Kolar Prevost, who writes for the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies blog, notes that 366 Democratic delegates could be at stake tomorrow as the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) meets to decide the fate of the Michigan and Florida delegations. That’s more delegates than the states of Pennsylvania and Ohio have combined. The RBC will meet at the Wardman Park Marriot Hotel. Here is the agenda for the meeting. This Politico piece describes the background on the controversy, as well as some of the potential solutions.

Prevost, who is also a DNC volunteer, has some good insights into the inner workings of the arcane world of national political committee processes:

The Clinton-Obama breakdown on the 30-member committee is 13 Clinton, 8 Obama, and 9 uncommitted. There is also one committee member from Michigan (Mark Brewer, the State Party Chair, uncommitted) and one from Florida (Alan Katz, Obama supporter), who may not be able to vote on the fate of their own state delegations, but even they could vote we should expect they will support fully restoring the delegates (consistent with the Clinton position, even though Katz publicly supports Obama). So the number in favor of the Clinton position could be as high as 15 votes, and Obama's support as low as 7.

But even though Clinton has an advantage, I wouldn't expect to see members' votes guided only by their candidate preference. In addition to their publicly-expressed candidate loyalties, these committee members--many of whom helped write the delegate selection rules and are guided by decades of experience in presidential nominations--will be guided by their commitment to the party's chances of winning in November, and also with an eye towards the 2012 nomination process.

She also links to this timely analysis at Democratic Convention Watch that discusses several outcomes and how they will impact the pledged delegate count. And for those of you looking for a good excuse not to mow the lawn on Saturday, Prevost notes that the proceeding will be covered by C-SPAN and maybe CNN or MSNBC. Can’t wait!

A sign of reconciliation in Iraq:

Some 800 Sunni Muslims are among 2,000 newly trained recruits in the Iraqi National Police, a force that a Pentagon report a year ago called a brutal organization infiltrated by Shiite militias and even death squads.

Another 2,000 Sunnis are expected to be trained and to join the National Police in coming months, a U.S. general in Iraq said Thursday...

[Army Brigadier General David Phillips] said the efforts to include more Sunnis in the National Police would be used to help newly trained units "stand up" in such crucial areas as Mosul, Salahuddin, Samarra and al Anbar province, at various times the scenes of bitter sectarian battles and attacks on U.S. forces.

I believe this is the Pentagon report referenced by McClatchy. It's actually an independent assessment prepared by a team of experts at the mandate of Congress, and released in September 2007. The report painted a grim picture of how the National Police Force was regarded less than a year ago, and concluded (page 115):

The National Police have proven operationally ineffective. Sectarianism in its units undermines its ability to provide security; the force is not viable in its current form. The National Police should be disbanded and reorganized.

The unit has come a long way in a year.

If you're not big enough to have a Washington lobbyist, it's hard to take you seriously. According to lobbyists.info, there are currently more than 22,000 registered federal lobbyists, representing everyone from the Thai Frozen Foods Association to the Religious Broadcast Music License Committee. Now the Ultimate Fighting Championship has hired a lobbyist, as well:

Brownstein lobbyists don’t face any big fights on Capitol Hill. They say their mission is to let lawmakers know how far the sport of mixed martial arts (MMA), which combines karate, jiu-jitsu, boxing, kickboxing, wrestling and other forms of martial arts, has come.

“The sport that McCain objected to many years ago is really a sport that doesn’t exist anymore,” said Lawrence Epstein, general counsel for the UFC. In the mid-’90s, mixed martial arts were marketed as a sport with no rules. There were no time limits, rounds, weight divisions or judges.

But Zuffa now says it has turned MMA into a highly regulated sport that emphasizes the safety of fighters. Zuffa purchased the UFC in 2001.

Who knows -- maybe someday the National Hockey League will be big enough to merit D.C. representation.

While Barack Obama’s serial gaffes had a strangle-hold on my attention this week, I completely ignored the story of the ongoing lunacy being spouted from his church’s pulpit..

Personally, I consider Father Michael Pfleger’s oratory from this past Sunday at Obama’s Trinity United Church less striking than Jeremiah Wright's. Nevertheless, it’s still odd how Obama wound up in the company of so many people for 20 years whose true natures eluded him. By his own reckoning, the candidate is clearly a less-than-canny observer of human nature. I certainly hope he acknowledges this shortcoming before attempting mano-a-mano diplomacy with the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadenijad.

Anyway, don’t take my word regarding Fr. Pfleger’s sermon. Judge for yourself. Click the video above or read the transcript below. Or do both – we’re all about options here:

I must now to address the one who says, 'Don't hold me responsible for what my ancestors did.' But you have enjoyed the benefits of what your ancestors did! And unless you are ready to give up the benefits — Throw away your 401 fund! [sic] Throw away your trust fund! Throw away all the money that been put away in the company you walked into 'cause your daddy and your granddaddy and your great grandaddy —

Unless you are willing to give up the benefits, then you must be responsible for what was done in your generation! 'Cause you are the beneficiary of this insurance policy!

[garbled] expose white entitlement. And supremacy, wherever it raises its head. I said before, I really don't want to make this political, because you know I'm really very unpolitical.

When Hillary was crying, and people said that was put on, I really don't believe it was put on. I really believe that she just always thought, 'This is mine. I'm Bill's wife. I'm white, and this is mine. I just gotta get up and step into the plate.'

Then out of nowhere came, 'Hey, I'm Barack Obama!'

And she said, 'Oh, damn! Where did you come from? I'm white! I'm entitled! There's a black man stealing my show!'

(mocks crying)

She wasn't the only one crying, there was a whole lot of white people crying!

I'm sorry. I don't want to get you in any more trouble. The live-streaming just went out again.

What I really like about this scandal is Fr. Pfleger’s apology: “I regret the words I chose on Sunday. These words are inconsistent with Senator Obama’s life and message, and I am deeply sorry if they offended Senator Clinton or anyone else who saw them.”

I’ve grown awfully fond of these non-apology apologies and the way they suggest that the fault lies not with the offender but with the offended. I think I’ll try one out this weekend with my wife: “Honey, I’m sorry if my failure to honor my promise to clean out the gutter has angered you, however inexplicable your anger might be.” If public figures are able to get away with such nonsense, I should be able to, also. I’ll let you know how it works.

(HT: Jim Geraghty, with a special thanks for doing the hard work in preparing a transcript.)

"We weren't interested in a book that was just a defense of the Bush administration." Peter Osnos, founder of PublicAffairs books and publisher of Scott McClellan's new book. More here.

Eagle-eyed TWS reader Jose Antonio points us to the lede of a New York Daily News story about the romance between Congressman Anthony Weiner and Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

"Rep. Anthony Weiner, a likely 2009 mayoral candidate, is pouring his heart into Hillary Clinton's White House bid - literally."

Literally? That could get messy.

Lest you think there's no hope at all for Republicans in Congressional races this year, I'll point you to some good news in an unexpected area--New York:

Four of NY's six GOP seats could swing to Dems this fall. But one of those four, retiring Tom Reynolds' (R) NY-26, looks less and less everyday like it belongs with those other three. -- Today's news that yet another Dem is filing to run in NY-26 has further clouded the party's prospects. Despite '04/'06 nom/businessman Jack Davis' (D) attempts to improve his image and skills, he's not the candidate most Dem insiders want this year. But w/the further dilution of the field, his name ID and his millions, he could be the early fave. Some Dems are high on Iraq vet Jonathan Powers (D), but can he raise enough to compete? -- Conversely, the GOP appears to be getting its act together. While businessman Christopher Lee's (R) nom bruised some egos within the GOP brass, he was Reynolds' choice and will have the cash to compete. The party has also been working to clear the primary field of its only remaining candidate, and is trying to move Iraq vet David Bellavia (D) to the NY-28 race. -- So, Dems have a messy primary that could produce a flawed candidate, while the GOP could have an attractive candidate who doesn't have to deal with a primary...

We've written about the impressive Bellavia before. Whichever seat he ends up competing for, he will earn fans and make his supporters proud. That said, the former Reynolds seat is clearly far more hospitable for a Republican candidate. Congresswoman Slaughter, by contrast, has won this seat with no less than 63% of the vote since Congressional lines were redrawn.

That said, if New York Republican leaders succeed in setting up Lee and Bellavia to run competitive races in two districts rather than one, it will better their chances of winning both.

It has been 20 years since a Republican won Michigan in a presidential election. George H. W. Bush carried the state over Michael Dukakis in 1988, but Democrats prevailed in 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004. Most agree Barack Obama cannot win the White House without carrying the state’s 17 electoral votes. That’s why these two polls are significant.

Both show the race as highly competitive, with John McCain holding a four-point lead in both--just within each survey’s margin of error. This is better than expected news for the Arizona Senator in a state that has become a Democratic stronghold at the presidential level over the past two decades.

The poll results get a little murkier, however, when it comes to the impact of the vice presidential choice. Survey USA gives McCain a bump over most of the potential Democratic tickets by adding Mitt Romney as his running mate. Specifically, it shows a McCain/Romney combination leading a Obama/Clinton ticket by five points. But the EPIC/MRA poll shows opposite results when Hillary Clinton gets added as the VP choice. McCain leads 44%-40% in a head-to-head against Obama in this survey. But a potential McCain/Romney ticket trails Obama/Clinton 44%-51%, quite a big swing comparing the two polls.

The EPIC/MRA poll supports the thesis that adding Clinton produces the strongest ticket, unifying the party and possibly reconnecting Obama to lower-income white voters who could otherwise defect to McCain. The Survey USA poll does not support that view.

Putting Michigan in play is good news for team McCain. Both the Arizona Senator and Barack Obama may need even more polling data to accurately assess how a VP selection plays out in this critical battleground state. These two recent polls point in different directions.

Has the surge been a success? If so, Pelosi says the credit belongs to Obama's friends in Tehran:

Well, the purpose of the surge was to provide a secure space, a time for the political change to occur to accomplish the reconciliation. That didn’t happen. Whatever the military success, and progress that may have been made, the surge didn’t accomplish its goal. And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians-they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities-the Iranians.

Just two months ago, Pelosi said, "I hope we don't hear any glorification of what happened in Basra." It seems she was only talking about glorifying the role of the U.S. military and our Iraqi allies, who were in fact victorious. Apparently glorification of the enemy is still allowed.

More from Ace.

Given the attention to Scott McClellan's book, it was only a matter of time before Democrats' dreams again turned to impeaching the president. How much time did it take? Less than a day:

Today Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL) called for former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan to appear before the House Judiciary Committee to testify under oath regarding the devastating revelations made in his new book on the Bush Administration’s deliberate efforts to mislead the American people into the Iraq War...

“The allegations by this former top White House aide – that Rove and Libby deliberately coordinated their stories in order to obstruct justice in the Plame case, that the President deliberately disregarded contradictory evidence related to Iraq, should outrage every American and Congress must respond by initiating immediate aggressive oversight starting with an appearance by McClellan before the House Judiciary Committee...

Congressman Wexler has led a nationwide campaign in favor of holding impeachment hearings for Vice-President Dick Cheney. Congressman Wexler is Chairman of the Europe Subcommittee and a senior member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the House Judiciary Committee.

And by no means is Wexler alone. According to a major pro-impeachment site, more than 100 candidates for the House and 13 for the Senate favor impeachment. Are the American people aware that such a broad swath of Democratic candidates promise to push for impeachment in the two weeks between the swearing-in of Congress and the next President?

One pro-impeachment candidate is Democrat Mark Lawrence (ME-D). He's even running an ad touting his support (above right). Lawrence is an underdog in his primary, but all the leading Democrats in his district favor impeachment, as well.

For the Clinton bitter-enders out there, comes big news: Rickey Martin has endorsed the Senator from New York! From the campaign:

"These elections will have historic repercussions both in the United States and the world. Senator Clinton has always been consistent in her commitment with the needs of the Latino community.

Whether fighting for better education, universal health care and social well-being, as First Lady and Senator from New York -- representing millions of Latinos -- she has always fought for what is most important for our families," said the 5-time Grammy award winning artist.

If this was 1999, the Puerto Rico primary would be in the bag!

Bonus: Will there be any Third Wave feminist blow-back because of Martin's old dark secret?

Now the Grey Lady waddles in, desperately trying to make sense of Barack Obama’s hyper-nuanced pledge to chat with foreign despots. Yet even the Grey Lady seems to be scratching her head.

This week, Mr. Obama said that he was still considering meeting with Iranian leaders, though he would not necessarily guarantee a direct meeting with Mr. Ahmadinejad.

“There is no reason why we would necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad before we know that he is actually in power,” Mr. Obama told reporters. “He is not the most powerful person in Iran.”

Last week, Mr. Obama offered a similarly nuanced explanation about meeting with President Raúl Castro of Cuba, saying he would do so only “at a time and place of my choosing.”

The caveats belie the simple answer Mr. Obama gave during a debate last summer, when the issue was first raised in a major public forum. Without hesitation or qualification, Mr. Obama said he would hold direct talks with America’s enemies, drawing strong and immediate criticism from his rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

Of course, no story of this sort would be complete without Obama displaying a dollop of smug, self-satisfied ignorance:

“I think that it is an example of how stunted our foreign policy debates have become over the last eight years that this is an issue that political opponents try to seize on,” Mr. Obama said in an interview on Wednesday. “It is actually a pretty conventional view of how diplomacy should work traditionally that has fallen into disrepute in Republican circles and in Washington.”

Predictably, Obama has it perfectly wrong again. It’s true that Reagan met with Gorbachev, but he didn’t meet with Daniel Ortega, Fidel Castro, the Ayatollah Khomeini or Daffy Khadaffy. Actually, he did sort of meet with Khadaffy, but I don’t think that’s the sort of meeting that Obama has in mind.

Believe it or not, Bill Clinton was cut from a similar cloth. During his eight intern-chasing years in the Oval Office, he didn’t make time to personally meet with Kim Il Sung or Kim Jong Il although he did dispatch Jimmy Carter as an emissary to appease the former. Clinton also didn’t meet with Saddam Hussein or the crackpots who were running Iran. So Clinton didn’t subscribe to Obama’s so-called "conventional view." Perhaps Obama was referring to the legendary Jimmy Carter/Ayatollah Khomeini summit. Or maybe the Eisenhower/Castro sit down?

It’s rather amazing that Obama can’t distinguish between direct presidential diplomacy and sending a Bill Richardson-type shlub to chat with a dictator. It’s even more amazing that as wrong as he is, he still thinks he’s the only person out there with a proper understanding of this corner of diplomatic history.

Susan Sarandon is doing the rounds promoting her latest movie, Speed Racer. She found time to talk to the Telegraph about the movie, her career, and U.S. politics:

Her financial and vocal support for Barack Obama has not endeared her to some fellow Democrats.

"I've got a lot of flak from feminists who feel that I should be supporting Hillary Clinton, but I thought the whole point of feminism is that you're not supposed to be defined by gender," she says...

Always busy, Sarandon is about to start work on the romantic period drama The Colossus, but with the presidential election campaign being heatedly contested, she also has bigger things to consider.

"If McCain gets in, it's going to be very, very dangerous," she says.

"It's a critical time, but I have faith in the American people. If they prove me wrong, I'll be checking out a move to Italy. Maybe Canada, I don't know. We're at an abyss."

It's a valiant try by Ms. Sarandon, but the voters are unlikely to be fooled. We'll never know how many cast votes for George Bush in 2004, anticipating that Alec Baldwin, Robert Redford, Janeane Garofalo, Michael Moore, and many others would pack up and move to Canada. Alas, they failed to hold up their end of the deal.

Tell me Ms. Sarandon: how do I know that if I vote for John McCain, you'll keep your promise?

Gallup has released the results of a lengthy survey on gas prices, which asked both about causes and responses. Only 20 percent of Americans believe oil companies are responsible for the high prices, and 57 percent believe the correct response is to allow drilling in areas currently off limits:

When Americans are asked what steps should be taken to reduce gas prices, no consensus appears, but somewhat surprisingly, a majority favor imposing price controls, by a 53% to 45% margin. Americans also support releasing supplies from the federal government's strategic petroleum reserve (58%) and drilling in U.S. coastal and wilderness areas now off limits (57%). On the other hand, a majority oppose rationing gasoline (79%), re-instituting the 55 mph speed limit (56%), and suspending the federal tax on gasoline for the summer (52%)...

Ironically, the intensity with which Americans see oil companies as "gas price villains" may be fading a little, according to opinions respondents volunteered in a new Gallup Poll, conducted May 19-21. Over the past year, the percentage of Americans blaming the oil companies for skyrocketing gas prices fell from 34% to 20%; the percentage pointing to oil refinery problems fell from 16% to 9%; and those attributing the increase in prices to problems in the Middle East and the Iraq war fell from 13% to 8%.

Overall, the results are a jumble. A majority favors releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but there's barely a plurality for ceasing to add to it. Almost as many favor price controls as want more drilling. But the results overall should cheer Republicans. More Americans agree with Republicans on the causes (supply and demand, refinery problems, government involvement, crude prices, the shortage of oil, and dependence on foreign oil) than they do with Democrats. Support for new drilling has risen by 16 percent in just a year.

According to recent national polls, gas prices remain relatively low among Americans' top priorities. Unless Republicans can quantify the price effect of failing to increase domestic production, it's likely to be hard to make this a cutting issues.

We know that elite German commandos are not permitted to kill known Taliban commanders, even if they are behind the most gruesome suicide attacks in Afghanistan to date or are directly targeting German soldiers or civilians. The Taliban, on the other hand, are eager to kill German soldiers and civilians. How do some of the other NATO allies respond to Taliban attacks in northwestern Afghanistan?

It seems the Norwegians are more than willing to kill Taliban. During several days in May, Norwegian forces based in Badghis province came under attack, and they responded forcefully. Thirteen Taliban were killed during the battles.

Major Rune Wenneberg said the Taliban rebels conducted "a well-coordinated assault" from a distance of about 1,200 meters against Norway's Telemark Battalion.

"The only dramatic moments were the first few seconds," Wenneberg claimed. "Then we did what we've been training to do at Rena, seize the initiative and respond with massive, precise fire."

The Taliban have been attempting to expand their influence from the southwestern provinces into the northwestern provinces. Badghis is at the center of this push, but the Norwegians aren't likely to give much ground. Unfortunately, their German neighbors don't seem to posses the same fighting spirit.

A tipster tells Wizbang's Kevin Aylward that Arthur Culvahouse -- who is heading up McCain's vice presidential search team -- is in Alaska:

...There's only one reason he would be there - to meet with Alaska Governor Sarah Palin about the Vice President position.

This comes on the heels of McCain's Memorial Day weekend barbecue attended by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, former White House budget director Rob Portman, and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman. Supposedly that was in informal affair, not a vetting session, but it appears that the VP selection game is very much afoot.

We were on the Palin bandwagon early, and Fred Barnes profiled Palin nearly a year ago. In many ways, Palin is an ideal choice: a governor, a woman, a conservative, a Christian, a budget-cutting fiscal hawk known for opposition to pork-barrel projects. And even as an Alaska governor who favors drilling in ANWR, she is known for standing up to 'Big Oil.'

Would McCain really make such an unorthodox selection? And does the fact that Governor Palin merits a clandestine visit, rather than an invitation to McCain's VP cattle call indicate that she is a more serious candidate than the others, or is it simply because Palin gave birth just over a month ago?

After ending 2007 with abysmal approval ratings, Congressional leaders seemed to recognize that protracted fights over Iraq funding bills were damaging their credibility. They acknowledged that it made little sense to split their conference, only to capitulate to the president at the last minute. It seemed like Democrats simply wanted the Iraq issue to go away. Along those lines, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer made clear a few weeks ago that Democrats would no longer try to play games with Iraq funds:

"Clearly we're at war, or it's a different kind of war, but we have, as you know what my position has been, we have men and women that we have asked and sent in harm's way," he said. "And obviously we have a responsibility to address that. The President says that they need additional sums to fund that effort. And my position, as you know, is until such time as we take them out and have a policy of redeployment we need to support them while they're there."

Either Hoyer doesn't speak for his party, or he can't marshal the votes he needs to deliver. That became clear yesterday, when the Pentagon requested authority to shift money among defense accounts to ensure that our troops in the field don't have their funds cut off due to Congressional inaction:

The Pentagon has asked Congress for the authorization to borrow and transfer $9.7 billion from various accounts to pay for war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The so-called reprogramming request is necessary because a new war supplemental funding bill is still pending in Congress, the Department of Defense stated...

The Army will run out of money to pay its soldiers, including those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, after June 15, Gates told the Senate defense appropriations subcommittee last week.

Around July 5, all services starting with the Army will run out of operations and maintenance funds.

Democratic leaders have tried to move legislation to fund the ongoing war, but their domestic spending has alienated fiscal conservatives without buying the votes of anti-war liberals. Assuming Democrats retain control of the Congress in 2009, the calculus won't suddenly change: leaders will still need to cobble together a majority.

But if Barack Obama is elected president, there's no way that Congressional leaders will suddenly tack right -- and force on the president spending bills that require a more aggressive stance in Iraq and the war on terror. Rather, the majority position will be dictated by the anti-war liberals, who regard the 'War on Terror' as a police action, at best. Will President Obama stand up to them?

The highly enjoyable website 538.com has updated its review of the pollsters. A word about the site before getting into the pollster’s grades – While a former Daily Kos diarist runs the site, his statistical analysis is insightful. His commentary, while leftish, is thoughtful and decidedly non-screedish. In a more perfect world, 538.com would be the most popular left of center blog. Alas, it isn’t but I still highly recommend you bookmark it.

Now on to the pollsters. It won’t come as any surprise to people who have paid close attention this primary season that among national polling outfits, Survey USA comes in first by a decent margin while Rasmussen comes in second. Bringing up the rear are CBS/New York Times in next to last and Zogby Interactive in last place. Kudos to the kids running Zogby Interactive – they came in last by a country mile. In fairness to the Z-Man, his traditional polls rank in the middle of the pack which suggests that Zogby may have some interest in reclaiming his reputation and the ability to do so. Then again, his hideous Interactive polls imply just the opposite.

And then there’s the forlorn Grey Lady, continuing to issue wretched polls. One can’t help but feel a twinge sympathy for the old gal – I bet she never guessed that anyone would track her record on these matters.

Biggest surprise? ARG didn’t come in last, but merely did much worse than average. Still, ARG outperformed reputable outfits such as Gallup and Fox/Opinion Dynamics. I guess that means I should ease up on ARG, but I have no interest in doing so.

What’s most interesting about the gold and silver medalists, SUSA and Rasmussen, is that they’re the two pollsters who have most prominently attempted to devise new methods to poll a changing public in a new communications era. In other words, pundits who mock the “robocalls” can now officially stop doing so. Although they also could have stopped doing so after Rasmussen nailed the 2004 election.

Jim Manzi has established himself as a brilliant writer over at National Review’s The Corner, but he has outdone himself with this post on Barack Obama’s commencement address at Wesleyan. This passage from Obama’s speech especially stood out:

But during my first two years of college, perhaps because the values my mother had taught me —hard work, honesty, empathy — had resurfaced after a long hibernation. . . .

I wrote letters to every organization in the country I could think of. And one day, a small group of churches on the South Side of Chicago offered me a job to come work as a community organizer in neighborhoods that had been devastated by steel plant closings. My mother and grandparents wanted me to go to law school. My friends were applying to jobs on Wall Street. Meanwhile, this organization offered me $12,000 a year plus $2,000 for an old, beat-up car.

And I said yes.

Wow. He said yes. I think I just swooned.

As Manzi points out, “Does Obama not get that he’s running against a guy who spent the directly analogous years of his life in a fetid jungle prison being hung upside down and beaten with sticks until his bones broke?” But the difference between the two candidates are even more profound. It’s true the Obama said “Yes,” but it’s still more striking that John McCain said “No”- “No” to special treatment at the hands of his captors, “No” to early release, “No” to leaving his brothers-in-arms behind at the Hanoi Hilton.

It’s a unique comment on Obama’s increasingly tiresome and solipsistic narcissism that he couldn’t resist holding himself up as a role model for America’s youth without realizing that in doing so, he made a tacit comparison between himself and his opponent. Positing oneself as a model of selfless sacrifice as Obama did at Wesleyan is off-puttingly arrogant and vain regardless of one’s deeds. Doing so when your rival’s personal narrative happens to be the real deal makes it beyond foolish.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out the dreadful political tactics here. When it comes to biography, Obama ought to realize that he can’t compete with McCain. He should just stick with that Hope/Change mumbo jumbo – it’s worked so far. The Obama campaign should refuse to embrace biography as a topic with the same eagerness that it avoids discussing Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers.

Not to belittle my own insights, but the foregoing is rather obvious. You don’t have to be a Karl Rove in the making to realize as much. So you must wonder, why did Obama pay homage to his own biography? Is he so impressed with himself that he just couldn’t refrain from doing so?

Fulsome Obama supporter Andrew Sullivan writes today:

“Obama is one of the least gaffe-prone politicians out there.”

You know what else Barack Obama is? The most qualified presidential candidates ever!

The blinkered nature of the Obama supporter never ceases to amaze, does it?

I've always scoffed at the notion that the Democrats could win control of a 60-seat filibuster-proof Senate majority in November, but the Hill's Aaron Blake points out that "Democrats have now polled ahead or within the margin of error in 11 Republican-held seats, as polls conducted in recent weeks show openings in second-tier targets including Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina and Texas. . . Democrats have also polled ahead in at least some of the polling in Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Virginia, polling substantial leads in the latter three. They have also been within the margin of error in Minnesota and Oregon."

Just a couple months ago, Republicans really weren't expecting they'd have to invest significant resources in Kentucky, North Carolina, or Texas. But now Democratic challengers have emerged from recent primaries, and they're running neck and neck with GOP incumbents. And of course, Travis Childers' win in Roger Wicker's old congressional district made clear that Wicker's race for the Senate is not going to be a cakewalk.

As Gary Andres noted yesterday regarding the race in Kentucky: "This is one of those times when I like to remind readers that 'early Senate polls don't matter.'" Let's hope.

Gallup recently released the results of a survey showing a large partisan “confidence gap” in terms of who will win in November. The study finds 61% of Democrats are confident (37% not confident) their candidate will prevail this fall. Among the Republicans, only 39% are confident the GOP will win the White House (58% not confident). Read the report here.

Gallup sums up its numbers this way:

Rank-and-file Democrats are optimistic that the current political environment, which is favorable to them, will allow them to win the presidency, in the same way it allowed them to take control of Congress following the 2006 midterm elections. A number of important political indicators underscore the Democratic advantage heading into the 2008 election, including party identification, favorable ratings of the two political parties, and party members' enthusiasm about voting in the fall election. Turnout in the Democratic primaries this year has dwarfed that in the Republican primaries, even in the early months when both contests were competitive.

No doubt these numbers reflect the ongoing Republican brand problems and the growing angst in the party due to low presidential approval and special election losses.

Will this confidence gap hurt John McCain in November? It could. Here are some additional numbers to put the Gallup survey in perspective. Using the American National Election Study from the University of Michigan -- which has conducted national surveys since 1952 -- I ran some numbers of my own. Every presidential election cycle the survey asks Americans which party they think will win. Here are the results since 1980:

Percent of Republicans and Democrats (including leaners) who think their party will win the presidency:

Year Republicans Democrats
2004 86% 48%
2000 67% 68%
1996 20% 95%
1992 49% 74%
1988 83% 37%
1984 95% 20%
1980 62% 62%

In five of the last seven presidential contests, the more “confident” party won. In two years (2000 and1980) there was no “gap” between the parties. Republicans won both of those elections. It may be time for Republicans to either buck up or take some mood altering pharmaceuticals.

Jake Tapper reports on how Scott McClellan trashed Richard Clarke's tell-all during a March 2004 press conference:

McCLELLAN: Well, why, all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he's raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book. Certainly let's look at the politics of it. His best buddy is Rand Beers, who is the principal foreign policy advisor to Senator Kerry's campaign. The Kerry campaign went out and immediately put these comments up on their website that Mr. Clarke made. ...

Al Franken's bid to unseat incumbent Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) has hit a rough patch, as he tries to explain why he failed to pay worker's compensation insurance on his employees in New York. The state says that he failed to pay for insurance on as many as 17 workers at a time, and that they began notifying him that he was breaking the law in April 2005 -- after he was already in violation for three years.

Officials first sought an explanation. Receiving no response, they sent a penalty notice to Franken in June 2005 that outlined rights to appeal.

The state then turned to a collection agency to reach Franken. When that didn't work, the state tried again in July 2006. Penalty statements were sent in August and December of 2006 and March 2007, Keegan said.

The judgment was finally entered against Franken in May 2007, and another notice sent by certified mail to his Manhattan apartment. Since then, Keegan said, three more statements have been sent -- the most recent in January -- without response.

Franken says he never received any of the communications from the state, so he didn't know he was breaking the law. Blogger Michael Brodkorb notes that someone seems to have forged -- badly -- the signature of Franken's doorman on one certified mail receipt. So who really signed it? As Ed Morrissey points out, the signature looks a lot like Franken's.

I believe that Ed made at least one mistake though: he asserts that if Franken forged the signature, he's known about the violation since at least July, 2007. But unless Franken regularly and routinely forges signatures, he would have known about it before 2007. Presumably he would have signed his own name, unless he thought this was something he needed to avoid.

Joe Trippi served as a senior adviser to John Edwards before he gave up his presidential bid earlier this year. In the journal Politics, Trippi laments that he didn't press Edwards to stay in the race:

I didn't tell him what I should have told him: That I had this feeling that if he stayed in the race he would win 300 or so delegates by Super Tuesday and have maybe a one-in-five chance of forcing a brokered convention. That there was a path ahead that would be extremely painful, but could very well put him and his causes at the top of the Democratic agenda. And that in politics anything can happen-even the possibility that in an open convention with multiple ballots an embattled and exhausted party would turn to him as their nominee. I should have closed my eyes to the pain I saw around me on the campaign bus, including my own. I should have told him emphatically that he should stay in. My regret that I did not do so-that I let John Edwards down-grows with every day that the fight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continues.

But would things have turned out much differently if Edwards had remained in the race? Let's assume for a minute that Edwards would have remained an afterthought through Super Tuesday and beyond. He would have had a few hundred delegates. Obama likely would have had a lead in total delegates, but -- as now -- would have needed a large chunk of the superdelegates to give him the nomination.

So what changes?

Obama would still have argued that his lead in pledged delegates should earn him the nomination -- regardless of what the superdelegates thought about his electability, or who won the popular vote. That's Obama's argument now, and no one seems willing to disagree. And amidst all the recent debate over what the delegates would do if Obama appeared too wounded to win the general election, has anyone suggested nominating the 3rd place finisher?

Someone here should say something about the Scott McClellan’s Bush-bashing book that has turned out to be the rage of the day in the blogosphere. Having drawn the short straw, the task falls to me.

First reaction: Who cares?

Second reaction: Knowing a little about how the publishing industry works, McClellan’s memoirs would probably only have been a viable project if he took the tack that he did. McClellan could hardly write a serious book about the Bush administration. There were many more qualified hands for that job, e.g. Douglas Feith. More to the point, let’s face it – no one would have read or cared about the reminiscences of a charmless and charisma-deprived former press secretary unless there was a hook.

So McClellan’s hook had to be that he has seen the light since leaving the dark shadow of the president he served. Unfortunately for McClellan, his bid for a “strange new respect” is off to a predictably stumbling start. Daily Kos front pager “Bill in Portland Maine” wrote this morning:

MASSIVE JEERS to Scott McClellan. The latest former Bush lapdog---he was press secretary from '03 to '06---to come out of the woodwork has several juicy nuggets in his hot-off-the-presses tell-all book. Bottom line: he confirms everything that we dirty hippie bloggers were screaming about at the top of our lungs, but which the traditional media ignored because...well, because Scott McClellan stood at his little White House podium and denied it all, lying out of his fat little elitist face as the stenographers printed his crap without scrutiny.

Once again, we come face to face with a White House official who could've done the right thing...but instead decided that the lives of American troops, Iraqi civilians, Katrina victims, and a network of covert CIA operatives were worth less than the luster of his master's lapel pin. When our country needed him to tell it straight, he hid behind propaganda and spin and bogus talking points and outright bamboozlement

As I intimated up top, I don’t care much about Scott McClellan and never have. My indifference for the man is boundless. But the just-concluded McClellan saga provides some valuable information regarding the Bush White House. For too long, the president retained lackeys who were poor at their jobs because he prized loyalty. Quite frankly, after seeing McClellan maladroitly dispense of his press secretary responsibilities for a few years, it’s hard to imagine what he could possibly have brought to the table other than the promise of loyalty. Now that the tell-all books are beginning to flow, the White House’s management strategy is looking ever more dubious.

Hopefully both of the president’s potential successors are paying attention.

If you’re a fan of Project Runway, you may appreciate Hillary Clinton’s Project T-Shirt, where you can be Heidi Klum for a day and vote for Hillary’s next campaign t-shirt design (H/T TNR). I think the popsicle-colored Warhol-inspired design is the best choice, because it will make a great beach coverup once you are no longer attending Hillary campaign rallies (like next week). But for some reason I am drawn to the headless business suit, pictured below, which has a pearl necklace, but no neck. It’s tres pantsuit chic. It may be a little late to sport a Hillary campaign shirt, but like Project Runway’s Tim Gunn says, you can “make it work”--in the Goodwill pile.

There is a case to be made:

Republican Mitt Romney, whose father served as governor of Michigan from 1963-1969, would help John McCain beat Barack Obama in the presidential election in that state, according to this latest SurveyUSA poll looking at Vice Presidential pairings. When Michigan registered voters are asked if they would vote for McCain or Obama, with no running mates mentioned, McCain leads Obama by 4 points, just within the survey's 4.3 percentage point margin of sampling error. When Mitt Romney is added into the mix as McCain's running mate, McCain performs better against nine possible Obama tickets, and worse against just one. John Edwards is the one Democrat who helps Obama, who still loses by 3 points to a McCain/Romney ticket -- again within the survey's margin of sampling error.

The Washington Post’s official “fact-checker,” Michael Dobbs, has taken Barack Obama to the woodshed over his Auschwitz-related ignorance:

“Many Americans might have problems distinguishing Buchenwald and Ohrdruf from Auschwitz. But should we not expect more from a Harvard-educated presidential candidate? Is it too much to ask that an aspiring commander-in-chief knows (1) that Auschwitz (like many of the other Nazi death camps) is in Poland, and (2) that the eastern advance of the U.S. Army in World War II stopped on the river Elbe?”

A couple of things:

1) It’s not often that I rush to defend my dear old alma mater, but Obama received a Harvard education only at the law school. I would be willing to bet that if he was asked to produce the holding of Capron v. Van Noorden, he could do so quite ably. Unfortunately, such knowledge isn't the most useful thing in the world for a potential future president. The blame for Obama's ignorance in other areas rightfully rests with the lesser institution where he did his undergrad work, Columbia University.

2) The key phrase in the fact-checker’s beef is not “Harvard-educated” but rather “aspiring commander-in-chief.” Back in their school days, John McCain was a dreadful student where Barack Obama was a spectacular one. But for an aspiring commander-in-chief, John McCain knows what you have to know. It’s becoming increasingly apparent that Barack Obama doesn’t.

HT: LGF

Above is a commercial from the advocacy group Vets for Freedom urging Barack Obama to go to Iraq, see for himself what’s happening there and meet with David Petraeus. Go ahead, watch the spot – I’ll wait.

We all know this idea will have absolutely zero interest for Senator Obama. If there’s one thing we’ve learned about Obama in the past few weeks, he likes his narratives clean and simple. Once he’s settled on one, he won’t allow the actual facts to confuse him.

For example, somewhere somehow Barack Obama decided that the Cuban Missile Crisis provided an object lesson on the salubrious effects of negotiating with our malefactors. Even though the actual facts of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the disastrous Kennedy/Khrushchev Vienna conference that preceded it prove the precise opposite, Obama has determinedly hewed to the comforting narrative he dreamed up in his ignorance.

Isn’t it ironic? The left has come to champion a candidate who is as dogmatic and close-minded as they’ve always accused George W. Bush of being.

Yesterday, the AP reported that John McCain "sharply criticized Democratic rival Barack Obama for not having been to Iraq since 2006, and said they should visit the war zone together." Why not? They could visit the troops, bond a little before the coming bitter end of the campaign season, and not to mention, Obama could at least create a better-informed foreign policy platform. But Obama's spokesman told TPM that the "proposal is nothing more than a political stunt."

At Contentions, Jennifer Rubin says, "It is odd that on the most important foreign policy issue of the campaign (and of the next presidency) Obama can’t bestir himself to run down all the facts, get all the viewpoints, look Iraqi and U.S. officials in the eye, and demonstrate to the public he can operate confidently with a wide array of military and diplomatic officials." So, why won't he go?

Bloggers agree: He is scared of what he will find in Iraq. Stop the ACLU Blog sums it up: "Obama is too scared he will see something outside the lines of his pre-conceived notions of failure. He obviously doesn’t want to find a reason not to surrender." Redstate's Dan McLaughlin adds, "McCain is betting that Americans want a wartime leader who actually cares what the war looks like from Baghdad to the people charged with fighting it--not what it looks like from the streets of Chicago to the people fighting against the mission." And Jules Crittenden is more blunt.

Obama might have problems whether or not he goes. Hot Air's Ed Morrissey says, "If Obama goes, he risks his standing with the hard-Left haters of the military and exposes himself to the optimistic findings in the briefing. If he doesn’t go, McCain can openly wonder why Obama wants to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and not David Petraeus." It is interesting who Obama thinks is fit to visit. Drew M. at Ace of Spades explains, "I guess the idea of sitting down with American troops, their leaders and the elected government of Iraq isn’t as interesting as a world tour of thugs and killers. Perhaps if McCain had suggested skipping Baghdad and going right on to Tehran to chat with Ahmadinejad Obama would have been more interested."

Why should Mother Nature have to bear the burden of man's cruelty toward his fellow man? After all, if we can send a man to the moon, why can't wet we find a way to kill people and break things, but still leave the battlefield in a pristine, park-like setting? Well, the Germans are working on it:

To make safer, more environmentally friendly explosives, scientists in Germany turned to a recently explored class of materials called tetrazoles. These derive most of their explosive energy from nitrogen instead of carbon as TNT and others do.

Tiny bombs were made from two promising tetrazoles with the alphabet-soup names of HBT and G2ZT. These materials proved less apt to explode accidentally than conventional explosives...

In initial experiments, G2ZT and HBT produced fewer toxic byproducts than common explosives. Still, they did generate some dangerous hydrogen cyanide gas. But mixing these compounds with oxidizers not only avoids making hydrogen cyanide, but also improved performance, Klapötke said.

This is encouraging, but it's really just a first step. Researchers should not rest until we can have a world war that's genuinely carbon neutral. That would demonstrate that mankind has truly achieved a higher consciousness.

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...

Members of the British Parliament don't just earn a fixed salary; they receive a salary plus $44,000 a year in expenses for a second home. Fortunately, for rabble-rousers, a list of these expenses has just been released. My guess is if he had known his expenditures would see the light of day, Gordon Brown would not have submitted that receipt for $30 worth of light bulbs. The most curious expense, however, is not the thousands spent on dishwaters, satellite television, and window cleanings. Rather, it is disgraced Liberal Democrat Mark Oaten's bunk-bed. For his two children? Or his rent-boys?

David Cameron has played this smart. Having only submitted receipts for his phone bill and mortgage, he managed to avoid the appearance that he's living it up on the public dole. It would seem Cameron never even submitted a receipt for the mini-windmill that he installed atop his London home to establish his street-cred in the green community. That means Cameron's either too rich to be bothered with clipping coupons let alone pocketing receipts, or he's been plotting the release of these expenditures for years. Perhaps both are true.

While fringe benefits allow pols to pretend they earn far less than they do, they also expose them to withering political attack when such benefits are itemized. Therefore it is unsurprising to learn Parliament is weighing a proposal to raise compensation in lieu of such stipends. Whether or not MPs are entitled to higher pay, it would be a mistake to assume political wages are just a conspiracy to further entrench wealth in the upper class. Charles Beard made such a frivolous claim about congressional salaries in An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, and undoubtedly, some MPs (probably the wealthiest) will argue there is no need to incentivize the privilege of public service. But of course, this analysis fails because without salaries, only the rich can afford to represent their communities.

Early last evening, I was speaking with a friend and he jokingly asked if Obama had made any gaffes during the day. “Well,” I responded, “only if you consider his claim that his uncle was one of the first soldiers in to liberate Auschwitz a gaffe.” My friend laughed, knowing that the Red Army had liberated Auschwitz and figuring that it was highly unlikely that Obama had an uncle who was a foot soldier for Stalin.

Some people think that Obama was caught red-handed in a lie with the statement about his uncle. That’s ridiculous. He did have a great-uncle who served in Europe during WWII and was one of Patton’s soldiers who liberated the Ohrdurf camp at Buchenwald. The mangling of facts here isn’t a lie, just another misstatement and another surprising sign of Obama’s historical ignorance.

The facts that Auschwitz was in Eastern Europe and that Eastern Europe was the Soviets’ theatre aren’t exactly obscure historical data-points. One would expect the typical “Jeopardy!” contestant to know as much, and one would certainly expect a presidential candidate who is basing his campaign in no small measure on his vaunted (and purportedly un-Bushian) intelligence to know it, too. And yet such things keep happening.

In relaying tales of Obama’s stumblebum ways, I often concede something to the effect that “he’s a bright guy.” I’ve received a bunch of letters asking how I can say this, since really bright people can usually place Auschwitz in Poland and know which country defeated the Germans there. By saying Obama’s a bright guy, I’m referring to the cognitive ability he demonstrated earlier in his life. You don’t graduate Harvard Law School magna cum laude if you lack an ample supply of intellectual firepower.

But the time has come to be more precise with our terms. Yes, Obama undeniably has a high level of cognitive ability. But it’s becoming increasingly apparent that he either has read few books or retained very little from the books he read. Either that or he’s spent his time reading books that don’t help him understand history and won’t help him carry out his tasks as president.

Worse still, Obama seems to have a vague sort of arrogance that prohibits him from acknowledging what he doesn’t know. If I were going to shoot my mouth off on WWII or the Cuban Missile Crisis with the world watching, I’d make sure I had my facts straight before I did so. For some strange reason, Obama seems allergic to having his staff perform even the most basic fact-checking.

And there’s also what appears to be a lack of intellectual curiosity. Abe Greenwald of Commentary’s blog calls our attention to this nugget from an enjoyable New York Times profile of Obama “body man” Reggie Love:

Along the way, some unofficial rules have emerged between the candidate and his aide. From Mr. Obama: “One cardinal rule of the road is, we don’t watch CNN, the news or MSNBC. We don’t watch any talking heads or any politics. We watch ‘SportsCenter’ and argue about that.”

So how, pray tell, is Obama staying informed about what’s going on in the world? When he’s pressing the flesh at crummy rural diners and speaking before 75,000 adoring acolytes, he’s talking, not listening. Don’t you think a guy who might be president would be obsessed with world events? Don’t you think that obsession would have driven him into the race? And don’t you think as a potential wartime leader he might be using his downtime to study, just in case he wins? For instance, Barack Obama obviously knows nothing of war, but he could help himself if he opted to read some Thucydides rather than watch SportsCenter.

Obama has made a habit of coming across like a man who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. That’s bothersome enough, but what’s more worrisome still is how comfortable he is with not knowing what he’s talking about, and how convinced he seems that his rhetorical flourishes will obscure his ignorance. That strategy may work on the campaign trail, but it certainly won’t help him govern.

You add it all up, and you got a guy who despite his high cognitive abilities doesn’t know what one needs to know to be president. Jimmy Carter was also “a bright guy,” but as a president and a free-lancing ex-president, his naivete and arrogance made him a functional dunce. If Obama really thinks the lesson to be gleaned from the Cuban Missile Crisis is that a president should always sit down with our enemies, then perhaps the same could be said of him.

Ask fifty Washington reporters for an assessment of Scott McClellan and forty-nine of them will give you some version of this: He's a nice guy who was in way over his head. (Most of them will be tougher in their analysis of his intellect.)

Given the imminent release of McClellan's "surprisingly scathing" book about the Bush administration, in the words of super-reporter Mike Allen, expect him to be praised as insightful and wise beyond his years in the coming weeks.

A common narrative about the war in Iraq is that fighting against the enemy in urban environments creates more insurgents, thus it is fruitless to even try. But today's Los Angeles Times finally asked Iraqis in Sadr City what they think about the recent fighting and how it impacts their views of the Mahdi Army. The answer: The Mahdi Army has lost significant support from not only residents caught in the crossfire, but from Mahdi Army fighters themselves.

In fact, some Mahdi Army fighters were so discouraged by the recent fighting that they vowed to never join the ranks again. "I had faith. I believed in something," a former Mahdi Army fighter told the LA Times. "Now, I will never fight with them."

"People are fed up with them [the Mahdi Army] because of their extremism and the problems they are causing," a merchant in central Baghdad said. The situation was so bad that the Sadrist movement was forced to sue for a cease-fire.

It's a public relations problem that even some Mahdi Army members acknowledge, and a fragile truce reached by Sadr and the Iraqi government this month, which allowed Iraqi troops to deploy into Sadr City, suggested that at least privately, Sadr's political wing recognized the need to back down from the fighting.

We're constantly being told that the fighting in Sadr City has ended in a stalemate at best, or was a failure for the Iraqi government and military as the Mahdi Army has lived to fight another day. But the attitudes of the Iraqis in Sadr City and in surrounding Shia areas paint a different picture.

These developments would not be a surprise to the readers of The Long War Journal. Bill Ardolino was embedded with U.S. forces in the Rusafa District, which abuts Sadr City, several weeks ago. During patrols in the markets with U.S. forces and the Sons of Iraq, he interviewed several locals about their views on the Mahdi Army. The Shia still feared the Mahdi Army, but were fed up with the militia and the fighting was only causing them to lose support.

Because of his recent string of gaffes and his unrepentant super-liberalism, many supporters are having if not second thoughts then a touch of buyer’s remorse regarding Barack Obama. Even Andrew Sullivan has shown diminished enthusiasm, commenting today, “Intellectually, I find so much of Obama's substance domestically to be anathema…I haven't sat through a single Obama speech without ideologically wincing at something. I fear that in the general election, his recourse to liberal tropes will begin to wear thin.”

So it doubtlessly comes as good news for Obamaphiles everywhere that Obama picked up a highly coveted albeit tacit endorsement earlier today when Fidel Castro called Obama “the most-advanced candidate” in the presidential race. Admittedly, “most advanced” sounds an awful lot like some of that elitist talk, but Castro’s implied endorsement will surely dazzle them in Hollywood.

Exit question: What could Obama possibly be saying and doing that make our enemies find him so appealing? Or does Castro merely have America’s best interests at heart?

Over at Commentary, Jennifer Rubin notes this oddity from a Telegraph profile of failed statesman and Barack Obama advisor Zbignew Brzezinski:

Mr Brzezinski said “it’s not unique to the Jewish community – but there is a McCarthyite tendency among some people in the Jewish community”, referring to the Republican senator who led the anti-Communist witch hunt in the 1950s. “They operate not by arguing but by slandering, vilifying, demonising. They very promptly wheel out anti-Semitism. There is an element of paranoia in this inclination to view any serious attempt at a compromised peace as somehow directed against Israel.”

Silly me - I didn’t even know Joe McCarthy was Jewish!

Anyway, who are these Jews with McCarthyite tendencies? And is the “Jewish community” the only one in America so plagued, or are Italians, Irish and African-Americans saddled with their own McCarthyites? Perhaps Zbig could identify some Greek-American McCarthyites, just to satisfy my curiosity. Of course, Brzezinski does allow that other groups have McCarthyites, but I still can’t help but wonder how come Jews got singled out for special observation in this regard.

I would wager that Zbig will soon be joining Jeremiah Wright under the Obama campaign bus. And when that happens, we’ll all have to forget that Obama said about Brzezinski, “(He’s) someone I have learned an immense amount from (and) one of our most outstanding scholars and thinkers.”

This is one of those times when I like to remind readers that "early Senate polls don’t matter." Nevertheless, these numbers showing Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell trailing in his reelection bid will likely get a lot of attention among lefty blogs in the next few days. It shows the Kentucky Republican trailing his Democratic opponent Bruce Lunsford 49 percent to 44 percent among likely voters. The poll finds McConnell essentially tied among men, but losing to women 49 to 41 percent. It also shows him leading among younger voters, but trailing within other age groups. McConnell is also behind among independent voters by 4 points.

Democrats certainly would like to take out a Republican leader. It would be a handsome payback for the GOP victory by Senator John Thune over then-Senate Democratic leader Senator Tom Daschle in 2004. So this poll will no doubt get some hype in the liberal netroots community, like this. It will also circulate widely in Democratic fundraising circles.

Senator McConnell, however, is an extremely strong political tactician. He also knows the generic headwinds facing him this cycle and is taking steps to prepare. McConnell has repeatedly told pundits and his colleagues here in Washington his race will be tight despite the state’s Republican tilt in 2000 and 2004. At the presidential level, McCain leads Obama in Kentucky by 25 points in a head-to-head Rasmussen poll--another factor that might help offset the anti-GOP headwinds.

The Democratic challenger is no stranger to controversy either--even with his own party. These are all points that will no doubt receive more attention as the campaign unfolds.

Those looking to build a bonfire of bad news for the Senate GOP have lots of kindling to use this year. But despite this poll, once this campaign comes into focus, I don’t believe Kentucky will catch fire for the Democrats.

Above is video of John McCain dealing with some hecklers at the University of Denver. A quick question to ponder while you enjoy the highlights: How come this kind of rudeness seems to be almost the exclusive province of the left? Regardless, these protesting types probably cost the Democrats swing voters every time they make their obnoxious presence known.

You know, I just may cut a check to Code Pink so a lack of funds doesn't keep them from getting their message out.

Russian president Dmitry Medvedev was the first foreign head-of-state to visit China since the May 12 earthquake. Although the May 23-24 trip had been planned before the quake struck, Chinese media nonetheless characterized it as "earthquake diplomacy” that provided the Chinese people with "mental support” in the aftermath of the disaster. Much was also made of the fact that the first shipment of international aid to reach hard-hit Sichuan province was donated by Russia.

Other than the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan, China is the first country Medvedev has visited since taking office on May 7. Official Chinese media regarded the trip as one that was based on "thoughtful considerations." To reciprocate the gesture, a Chinese-language version of Russian National Development Issues, a collection of 13 speeches by Medvedev during his tenure as vice prime minister, was released in Beijing a day before the Russian leader’s arrival. Also marking the state visit were a newly designed set of stamps and commemorative envelopes.

In the lead-up to Medvedev’s visit, the Chinese media made a special point of reporting on a recent survey of the Russian public. In the poll, conducted by the All-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion, China was mentioned most frequently when Russians were asked "Which country is friendliest towards Russia?"

Beyond the cordial welcome, Beijing’s assessment is that Medvedev’s decision to travel to China so soon after his inauguration reflected a number of geopolitical considerations. In addition to further consolidating bilateral ties which had reached "a historical high" under Putin, Medvedev saw in China "a breakthrough point" and "a special diplomatic arena" at a time when Moscow’s relations with Georgia, the EU, and the United States have all been strained.

Liberation Daily predicted that despite Medvedev’s "looking East," Moscow will continue to strive for "a balanced diplomacy":

When Putin first assumed office, and especially after the September 11 incident, U.S.-Russian relations experienced a "honeymoon period" as a result of mutual cooperation in anti-terrorism. Bilateral relations started cooling as the U.S., while accusing Putin of amassing dictatorial power, supported "color revolutions" in some CIS countries. The tensions intensified alongside America’s attempts to extend its missile defense shield to Eastern Europe. The straining of relations between Russia and the West in general, and between Russia and the U.S. in particular, means that Moscow is in greater need of reliable partners and allies in the East. However, Russia, although defiant, has no intention of engaging in total confrontation with the West. Objectively speaking, it does not yet have the strength required.

Barack Obama continues to use weasel words and equivocations in his lame effort to step back from his pledge that as president he would chat with any malefactor willing to stand still with him long enough for a photo-op. Let’s first remember the policy pronouncement from the YouTube debate:

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

OBAMA: I would.

Just reading that clips gives me nostalgic pangs for the Obama of old: Bold, forthright, not given to avoiding delicate topics like so many politicians. The only problem with this policy was that it meant Obama would make a priority of sitting down with characters like Mahmoud Ahmadenijad. Not that such a pledge was a problem for everyone. The Atlantic’s Matthew Yglesias lionized the pronouncement in the most recent issue of the magazine.

Still, the policy was enough of a problem for a sufficient number of voters that Obama and his eager acolytes like Joe Klein have gone to extraordinary lengths to make it disappear. Today, Obama “clarified:”

"There's no reason why we would necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad before we know that he was actually in power. He's not the most powerful person in Iran," Obama told reporters while campaigning in New Mexico.

So there you have it. It’s not that he will meet with A’jad. And it’s not that he won’t meet with A’jad. It’s “there’s no reason he’ll necessarily meet” with A’jad.

I’m so pleased he cleared that up.

While Americans remembered the servicemen and women who gave their lives for their country, a couple of people who wear make-up and costumes for a living marked Memorial Day weekend a little differently.

Benicio del Toro won the best actor prize at Cannes as the star of Steven Soderbergh’s four-and-a-half hour biopic Che. For those who know Che Guevara only as a t-shirt icon, perhaps this would be a good time to for a Cliff Notes’ version of Hollywood’s favorite revolutionary. Via Slate:

Che was a totalitarian. He achieved nothing but disaster. Many of the early leaders of the Cuban Revolution favored a democratic or democratic-socialist direction for the new Cuba. But Che was a mainstay of the hardline pro-Soviet faction, and his faction won. Che presided over the Cuban Revolution's first firing squads. He founded Cuba's "labor camp" system—the system that was eventually employed to incarcerate gays, dissidents, and AIDS victims. To get himself killed, and to get a lot of other people killed, was central to Che's imagination.

That’s quite a resume to live up to, so Del Toro’s acceptance speech was appropriately modest: “I’d like to dedicate this to the man himself, Che Guevara.” (Fun fact: Benicio del Toro translates as Benny the Bull. Make your own joke.)

Meanwhile, in America, Jessica Lange gave the commencement speech at Sarah Lawrence College. Instead of encouraging the students to get a good job and make money, Ms. Lange took another tack:

"We are living in an America that, in the last seven and a half years, has waged an unnecessary war, established prison camps, condoned torture, employed corporate armies, eliminated the right of habeas corpus, practiced extraordinary rendition, and believe me, this is only a partial list," said Lange, who was most recently seen in 1982's Tootsie

Any guesses as to whether this scenario would bother her under a President Che?

Obama supporters are asking why their man had to go and open his mouth again. As ABC's Jake Tapper says, Obama is a "one-man gaffe machine," and this Memorial Day was no exception. At his Memorial Day speech in New Mexico, Obama said (along with other questionable statements),

On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes--and I see many of them in the audience here today--our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.

What's wrong with this statement? Power Line's John Hinderaker says, "Memorial Day honors those who have died in our nation's military service. Is it possible that Obama does not know this? Sometimes the things that come out of his mouth defy understanding." That wasn't the only bad part of Obama's speech. As Hot Air's Ed Morrissey explains, "Obama decided to use his time to do a lot of self-promotion and criticize the Bush administration as his way of honoring the war dead. In politicizing the holiday, Obama portrayed veterans as victims of the current administration, and used the platform to promise all kinds of new spending, helpfully reminding his audience that we spend $10 billion a month in Iraq."

Bloggers agree that Obama has a gaffe problem. QandO's McQ says, "Of course all pols say things like this from time to time, but in Obama's case, these sorts of utterances seem to be increasing and only reinforcing the growing belief that he's not really ready for prime-time." And Hugh Hewitt concludes that "with his nomination assured and the most important job in the world on the line, the criticism-free zone in which Obama has long prospered simply cannot be sustained, and even MSM's many accommodations cannot camouflage the gaffe parade that is Team Obama from top to bottom."

Many bloggers concede that perhaps Obama does have special abilities. Michelle Malkin quips, "No wonder his supporters attribute Messiah-like powers to their candidate. He sees dead people." Sister Toldjah adds, "Methinks the O-man has watched The Sixth Sense one too many times, eh?" But, as The Corner's Kathryn Lopez concludes, "Perhaps it wasn't a gaffe. Maybe the messianic talk is getting the best of him."

Proving himself prophetic, ABC’s Jake Tapper referred to Barack Obama as a “one man gaffe machine” just prior to the long weekend. The charge was especially poignant as Tapper is inarguably not part of the right wing noise machine (although based on this elegant turn of phrase, I think I may recruit him).

As Allah pointed out this morning, it’s a little late in the game for Republicans to make a federal case over a politician’s inability to express himself precisely. Still, Obama is running on his talents, particularly his verbal skills. If memory serves, George W. Bush never based his political campaigns on similar terrain. By continuing to misspeak, Obama will undercut a central part of his campaign narrative.

All these gaffes are odd. Obama’s a bright guy, and generally well-spoken. You can’t help but wonder why he says so many ill-informed and just plain stupid things. Below is my list of personal theories for why this keeps happening. Please bear in mind, the likely explanation is a combination of all four:

1) As I mentioned over the weekend, candidates work insane 18 hour days for months on end with no time off. The fatigue would get to anyone. Obama likely feels the pinch here more than his rivals. The longtime community organizer is not only a novice politician who has never run a competitive race before, but he also has never logged hours anything like he’s pulling now. A high powered partner at a big law firm or a young medical resident would have experience with a crushing and pressure-filled workload that demands intellectual precision if not perfection. There’s nothing in Obama’s background that suggests he’s had any practical experience that would have prepared him for this campaign.

2) The only solution to the fatigue factor is to stay disciplined and stay on script. That’s one of the reasons why Ronald Reagan had so few gaffes compared to Obama. The current Oval Office resident also had a lot fewer gaffes than Obama as a candidate, and it’s not because he’s a gifted extemporaneous speaker. There’s a reason why Republicans held their breath every time George W. Bush entered the presidential debate arena.

So then the issue becomes why can’t Obama stay on script? Is it arrogance? Is it a desire to “keep it real” by constantly allowing himself the luxury of saying stupid things? I would wager that Obama has advisors who are imploring him to stop vamping as we speak. And yet he keeps doing things his way, a way that could lead to a gaffe that unlike yesterday’s will leave a mark.

3) Many times, Obama doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Kudos to him, though - he doesn’t let that inconvenient fact hinder him from expressing himself on the topic at hand. There are worst personal traits. Some of my best friends are blustery know-it-alls. The problem for a politician with such a characteristic isn’t necessarily the gaffes the trait produces, but rather the ignorance those gaffes reveal.

4) Obama has wonderfully enthusiastic acolytes that ignore his mistakes and overlook his shortcomings. It’s possible that these voices of approval (millions of them!) have led Obama to conclude he can do no wrong, and he thus shows an inappropriate lack of caution when vamping.

One problem with this strategy, though: Soon Obama will be leaving the echo-chamber for good.

When April proved a bloody month for American soldiers in Iraq, the American left swarmed. 52 U.S. soldiers died in April, the most since September 2007, and the left rushed to express its special brand of concern for “the children” as it so often patronizingly refers to our fighting men and women.

Given the promising events of May so far and the left’s silence regarding those events, one has to question the sincerity of the left’s “concern.” With May almost complete, the count of American fatalities stands at 18. Also worth noting is the fact that Iraqi civilian death count stands at 436. The figure for April was 744.

To measure the progress our military has made, it’s better still to look back a year when the Surge and its accompanying change in tactics and strategy were taking effect. In April and May of 2007, we averaged 115 deaths while 1900 Iraqi civilians were dying violently each month. (At the war’s nadir in September ’06, over 3,000 Iraqis died violently.) So in the past 12 months, by the most important metrics, violence in Iraq has dropped over 75% while the Iraqi government has strengthened itself immeasurably.

Needless to say, left wing blogs and the Democratic party have found the May figures much less interesting than the ones from April. Of course, one wouldn’t expect the left to cheer our obvious progress. For many liberals, antipathy to the Iraq war has led them to transparently hope for the war’s failure and to turn every American setback into grist for a particularly ugly propaganda mill. Nevertheless, one would still expect the left to at least acknowledge the progress and somehow jam the facts on the ground into its rickety intellectual construct.

In this regard, the anti-war media has actually been ahead of Democratic politicians. Often fulsome war opponent Andrew Sullivan has mentioned encouraging signs from Iraq on his blog and appears to be open to revisiting his views on Iraq as the improving situation warrants. Even the New York Times has published stories that paint a picture of Iraq different from the traditional grim portrait. But to my knowledge, not a single prominent Democrat has acknowledged the improving situation in Iraq. And no, Joe Lieberman doesn’t count.

None of this is to say that the 18 American fatalities so far this month or the 436 Iraqi deaths are acceptable. Like many people who support the war publicly, I’m in touch with a number of soldiers who have been to Iraq or who are in Iraq or who are going to Iraq. The death count for me is more than an abstraction. Can the same possibly be true for the vultures of the left who so boisterously crowed over the number of casualties in April and yet who have been silent in May?

For those of us who support the mission in Iraq, there’s always a reluctance to highlight good news out of Iraq. This war has already suffered from too much over-promising and under-delivering. We also realize that the situation in Iraq is still dangerous, and that the enemy always has a vote. Our soldiers there remain very much in harm’s way, and no one wants to gloss over that fact. Doing so would diminish our military’s service and valor, while also misleading the public.

Sadly but predictably, it’s becoming increasingly apparent that the left and its leadership class in particular are apparently unbound by any such scruples. Our Matthew Continetti put it well in this week’s editorial:

The Iraqi army and government have done exactly what Democrats have asked of it, and the Democrats remain hostile. Their disdain and animosity has not diminished one iota. Nor has their desire to abandon Iraq to a grim fate. We keep hearing that this year's presidential election will be about judgment. If so: advantage McCain. For when it comes to the surge, not only have Obama and his party been in error; they have been inflexible in error. They have been so committed to a false narrative of American defeat that they cannot acknowledge the progress that has been made on the ground. That isn't judgment. It's inanity.

(All figures from icasualties.org)

Some time last week, the New York Times’ Frank Rich scored tickets to see the highly lauded revival of "South Pacific" that’s currently playing on Broadway. Being the Times’ former theatre critic before he turned his all-knowing eye to politics, this must have been quite the trick. Everyone loves the show, and Rich did too. But if you think Rich skipped out of the theatre humming “Some Enchanted Evening,” you simply don’t know Frank Rich.

(The show) increases our admiration for the selflessness of Americans fighting in Iraq. They, unlike their counterparts in World War II, do their duty despite answering to a commander in chief who has been both reckless and narcissistic. You can’t watch “South Pacific” without meditating on their sacrifices for this blunderer, whose wife last year claimed that “no one suffers more” over Iraq than she and her husband do.

While it’s always nice to see Rich and his ilk declare solidarity with the troops even as they cheer their every setback and ignore or more often deny their progress, I still take strong issue with the assertion that “you can’t watch” the "South Pacific" revival without working yourself into a righteous rage over George W. Bush. I’m so confident that Rich's assertion is incorrect, I’ll even be willing to put it to the test if someone gives me tickets. (Orchestra seats please, but not too close.) Indeed, I’d even wager that the show is a hit because theatre-goers enjoy themselves while watching it, and not because the show drives them into an angry lather over current events.

You have to wonder what will become of Frank Rich when George W. Bush departs from the stage in eight short months. Have the events of the past seven years so scarred Rich that he’ll spend the rest of his career making strained analogies between entertainment vehicles and this particular president, even after Bush has devoted himself to clearing brush in Crawford full time?

This latest column proves how Frank Rich truly has become the mental patient from an old joke: A guy walks into a psychiatrist’s office, and the psychiatrist begins showing the guy Rorschach images and asking the patient what he sees. To each image of blots and scribbles, the guy responds, “Two people making love.” After this happens a dozen or so times, the doctor pronounces, “I’ve diagnosed your problem. You’re obsessed with sex.” The guy responds, “Me? You’re the one who kept showing me all those dirty pictures!”

Think how well the joke still works if you substitute “Frank Rich” for “the guy” and “George W. Bush” for “two people making love.” The punch line could be, “You’re the one who keeps showing me all those pictures of the worst president ever! The blunderer! The way he pranced on an aircraft carrier…”

The only problem is the punch line would probably go on for hours.

There has been lots of buzz this weekend about what the New York Times calls "an unusually blunt and detailed" report on Iran from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Among the findings: Iran's military has produced powerful centrifuges -- the kind that can be used to enrich uranium and speed up development of nuclear weapons.

If the report is a welcome flash of toughness from the IAEA, this assessment, from a "senior official close to the agency," shows that it's still wise to temper our expectations about what comes next.

"There are certain parts of their nuclear program where the military seems to have played a role..We want to understand why."

We all expected it, and most of us still do, but it's odd that it has failed to materialize. Obama has slipped in the new poll from Newsweek and now runs even with McCain at 46-46. More interesting is his decline in both Gallup tracking polls. Those polls don't reflect the brouhaha over Clinton's RFK gaffe, so maybe he gets his bounce back this week in the race for the nomination, but it is hard to explain how Clinton has bounced back from a deficit of 16 points less than ten days ago. Also, Clinton still holds a significant lead over McCain, and she has consistently held that lead since the beginning of the month. In the Obama-McCain match up, McCain has jumped ahead by two points in what looks to be a far less stable race. But if there's one thing we know for certain, Democrats aren't going to be swayed by electability arguments. Or are they?

A most predictable editorial:

Mr. Bush — and, to his great discredit, Senator John McCain — have argued against a better G.I. Bill, for the worst reasons. They would prefer that college benefits for service members remain just mediocre enough that people in uniform are more likely to stay put.

They have seized on a prediction by the Congressional Budget Office that new, better benefits would decrease re-enlistments by 16 percent, which sounds ominous if you are trying — as Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain are — to defend a never-ending war at a time when extended tours of duty have sapped morale and strained recruiting to the breaking point.

Their reasoning is flawed since the C.B.O. has also predicted that the bill would offset the re-enlistment decline by increasing new recruits — by 16 percent.

Even for the editors at the New York Times this is amazingly, and willfully misleading. They do not even acknowledge the existence of an alternative (McCain-Graham) GI Bill, let alone examine the substantive arguments in favor of it. Reihan offered a more even-handed approach in assessing the two bills (it helps that he mentioned the existence of the other bill):

Overall, the Graham-Burr-McCain approach seems more likely to yield an effective fighting force composed of women and men interested in making a long-term commitment. The Webb bill, in contrast, could lead to more college-bound Americans signing up, but it will also probably mean a higher number will leave the military once they reach the maximum benefit level. It's no surprise that McCain, who has a shot at being commander in chief, would rather not see reenlistment rates plummet. Webb, in contrast, who is always fighting the war over the war, is far less likely to have a philosophical objection to making wars like our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan far more expensive to fight.

The New York Times, committed as it is to fighting no wars at all, does not even acknowledge the potentially deleterious effect the Webb bill would have on the capacity of the U.S. military to fight, opting instead to focus purely on the numbers of new recruits versus those who opt out in favor of added benefits, i.e. the size of the force. If the priority is to win the war in Iraq, and the wider war on terror, than the effect of losing 16 percent of your force only to have them replaced by new recruits is ominous. That's not to say there isn't a strong case for Webb's GI Bill, but that case doesn't include making Bush and McCain out to be warmongers indifferent to the concerns of the troops.

An interesting piece in Haaretz includes this tidbit:

Until the war in Iraq in 2003, CENTCOM refused any direct contact with Israelis. Dan Shomron, who visited MacDill as chief of staff in 1989, visited only SOCOM; he was not permitted to cross the fence to CENTCOM, lest the shocking presence of an Israeli officer become known to the Saudis and others. In recent years the Americans have been more daring, but it is still unusual for an Israeli to speak openly with a commander of CENTCOM Special Forces.

And later in the piece:

A general, one of Olson's subordinates, dared to walk the borderline of expressing an opinion about the U.S. elections: The strategic interests are basically unchanging, and the next administration must, after studying them, determine its policy accordingly. In other words - words the disciplined American officers would not utter - an operation in Iran is definitely being planned, no matter who is the next president. Iran's nuclear arming is supposed to be ready at the beginning of the decade, and there is the assistance to America's enemies in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Lebanon and in Gaza. The outcome of the presidential election is more likely to affect the definition and timing of the mission than the decision itself.

Read the whole thing here.

I don't much care for the article in today's Washington Times making the case for Sarah Palin. It focuses almost exclusively on the fact that she recently gave birth to a son with Down syndrome, rather than aborting the child. I'm sure everyone will agree that was an admirable choice, but it also has little to do with Palin's strengths as a prospective VP candidate.

We were on the Palin bandwagon pretty early. She's extremely sensible on energy and environmental issues, she's extremely popular at a time when few Republicans are, and she might be able to help McCain make inroads with Hillary Clinton's base as well as his own (El Rushbo is a huge fan). She's be an interesting choice.

Fred Barnes profiled her for THE WEEKLY STANDARD last July. Read it here.

Andrew Sullivan links this report from Iran's Press TV:

Iraq's most revered Shia cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has strongly objected to a 'security accord' between the US and Iraq.

The Grand Ayatollah has reiterated that he would not allow Iraq to sign such a deal with "the US occupiers" as long as he was alive, a source close to Ayatollah Sistani said.

The source added the Grand Ayatollah had voiced his strong objection to the deal during a meeting with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in the holy city of Najaf on Thursday.

Other important news from Press TV this week includes an essay by Dr Nicholas Kollerstrom:

In his essay, Dr Nicholas Kollerstrom argues that the alleged massacre of Jewish people by gassing during World War II was scientifically impossible.

It's troubling that Obama's signature foreign policy issue is the promise of face to face meetings with Iran's holocaust denying leader. That his cheerleader in chief in the blogosphere would link wholly unsubstantiated propaganda from Iran's English-language, holocaust-denying website in order to make the case for that foreign policy doesn't instill a lot of confidence either.

HT: Hot Air Headlines

Obama's been hitting McCain over and over about his ties to lobbyists, so obviously we're all shocked to learn that Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, has some seedy lobbying of his own to account for:

When Illinois utility Commonwealth Edison wanted state lawmakers to back a hefty rate hike two years ago, it took a creative lobbying approach, concocting a new outfit that seemed devoted to the public interest: Consumers Organized for Reliable Electricity, or CORE. CORE ran TV ads warning of a "California-style energy crisis" if the rate increase wasn't approved—but without disclosing the commercials were funded by Commonwealth Edison. The ad campaign provoked a brief uproar when its ties to the utility, which is owned by Exelon Corp., became known. "It's corporate money trying to hoodwink the public," the state's Democratic Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn said. What got scant notice then—but may soon get more scrutiny—is that CORE was the brainchild of ASK Public Strategies, a consulting firm whose senior partner is David Axelrod, now chief strategist for Barack Obama.

Trying to "hoodwink the public" on behalf of an energy company? It gets better:

ASK last year proposed a similar "political campaign style approach" to help Illinois hospitals block a state proposal that would have forced them to provide more medical care to the indigent. One part of its plan: create a "grassroots" group of medical experts "capable of contacting policymakers to advocate for our position," according to a copy of the proposal.

Creating front groups to "advocate" (another word for lobbying, I think) against providing health care to the poor, nothing unseemly about that. Axelrod's defense: "I'm not going to public officials with bundles of money on behalf of a corporate client." Yes, it's a whole new kind of politics.

Weigel reports:

I've seen Barr chatting with Gravel and Ruwart delegates, making the electability case.

So is the Democratic party the only political party that frowns on the electability argument? And how is it that Barr's electability argument is taken seriously when he has zero chance of being elected, while Clinton, who really does look more electable than Obama, and who is likely to secure a larger share of the popular vote in the Democratic primary, is ridiculed for making the same case?

HT: the Page

The New York Post on Obama's GI posturing:

For a good illustration of just how vulnerable Barack Obama apparently feels on national security, look no farther than the fight he picked with John McCain on the Senate floor last week.

Obama lashed out at McCain over the latter's opposition to an expansive, $52 billion benefit package for War on Terror vets. The bill would grant tuition assistance up to the cost of the most expensive in-state public college to any vet who's served at least three years since 9/11.

"I respect [McCain's] service to our country," Obama said, "but I can't understand why he would line up behind the president in opposition to this GI Bill."

McCain, of course, has his reasons - most significantly, the fear that the measure would encourage battle-toughened soldiers and Marines not to re-enlist at a time when their skills are most needed.

Not that this matters to Democrats in general - and Obama in particular - for whom veterans' compensation forms an all-too-convenient smokescreen to cover their utter lack of substantive ideas when it comes to the thing our troops care about the most.

That's to say: victory.

That's what ABC's Jake Tapper calls Obama in this report:

On Thursday Obama told the Orlando Sentinel that he would meet with Chavez and "one of the obvious high priorities in my talks with President Hugo Chavez would be the fermentation of anti-American sentiment in Latin America, his support of FARC in Colombia and other issues he would want to talk about."

OK, so a strong declaration that Chavez is supporting FARC, which Obama intends to push him on.

But then on Friday he said any government supporting FARC should be isolated.

"We will shine a light on any support for the FARC that comes from neighboring governments," he said in a speech in Miami. "This behavior must be exposed to international condemnation, regional isolation, and - if need be - strong sanctions. It must not stand."

So he will meet with the leader of a country he simultaneously says should be isolated? Huh?

Tapper also offers a litany of Obama's more trivial recent gaffes, but this business with Chavez is deeply troubling. As Matthew Yglesias writes in the new issue of the Atlantic, Obama entire approach to foreign policy is the product of an "early gaffe"--the pledge at last summer's YouTube debate to meet, without preconditions, with the leaders of rogue regimes.

This pledge was immediately ridiculed by both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, but Obama stuck to it--until now. While Obama still insists he will meet these leaders without preconditions, he's carving out all kinds of wiggle room. He emphasizes the uncertainty of the future (we don't know who the leader of Iran will be a year from now) and the need for "preparations." In some instances the preparations sound identical to preconditions, as in Obama's policy toward Cuba. As Obama explained in Florida last week, talks would be contingent on Raul Castro submitting to an agenda including "freedom of religion, of press, travel, and to organize politically." In other words, the preconditions that have precluded presidential talks ever since Raul's brother first seized power nearly 50 years ago.

Even Joe Klein, Obama's staunchest supporter, has come to rely on words like "muddy" and "fuzzy" to describe the enormous gaffe that Yglesias calls Obama's "accidental foreign policy." Tapper mocks the inconsistency on Chavez, but the same contradictions exist in Obama's policy towards Iran and Cuba. Will he meet with these leaders or won't he? And what will be on the agenda? Nobody knows.

Elisabeth Bumiller writes in the New York Times:

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain have both derided Mr. Obama as “elitist” for his remarks about bitter rural voters who “cling” to guns and religion, even as Mr. Obama, in a counterpunch, mocked her courtship of gun owners, depicting her as a kind of ersatz Annie Oakley “packing a six-shooter” in a duck blind. And Mr. McCain, throwing a haymaker of his own, pointed out in a recent speech to members of the National Rifle Association that “someone should tell Senator Obama that ducks are usually hunted with shotguns.”

Apparently she didn't get the memo.

The U.S. military is doing a lot of good these days:

The increasing success and pace of airstrikes this year indicates that American spy agencies and their allies have made progress in infiltrating Al Qaeda in Pakistan, said Louis Caprioli, a former anti-terrorism chief of France's DST intelligence agency.

"You have to have good intelligence on the ground to hit a target like that," Caprioli said. "It requires human as well as technical intelligence. I think the money that the Americans are spreading around is having an effect.

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

If only killing and interrogating bad guys could address the "root causes" of terrorism and the "legitimate claims" of terrorist groups. And just imagine what the military could do if it wasn't distracted by winning the war against al Qaeda in Iraq.

HT: Hot Air

At the risk of waddling in late to a controversy, I simply must comment on Hillary Clinton’s latest gaffe. As you’ve no doubt heard by now…well, let’s let the New York Times tell the story:<

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton defended staying in the Democratic nominating contest on Friday by pointing out that her husband had not wrapped up the nomination until June 1992, adding, “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

Her remarks were met with quick criticism from the campaign of Senator Barack Obama, and within hours of making them Mrs. Clinton expressed regret, saying, “The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy,” referring to the recent diagnosis of Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s brain tumor…

Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, an uncommitted superdelegate, said through a spokeswoman that the comments were “beyond the pale.”

I really don’t care to hazard a guess as to what was running through Hillary’s mind when she made this comment while chatting up the editorial board of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader. Glenn Reynolds and others believe she was just trying to make the case that other contested primary races hadn’t ended before the middle of June, albeit in an exceptionally clumsy manner. Other observers believe she made the comments in the same vein that campaigns raise concerns about their opponents’ health, albeit in an exceptionally craven manner. Andrew Sullivan, who like me tends to assume the worst where the Clintons are concerned, titled his post on the matter “Paging Dr. Freud.”

Ultimately, none of us will ever know what was going through Hillary Clinton’s head when she made the comment. And you know what? Who cares? Her campaign is now as relevant to our politics as Tom Harkin’s 1992 bid for the White House. For the love of God, let her stinking corpse of a campaign rest in peace.

What I find interesting about this incident is that any way you spin it, it’s a monstrous gaffe, definitely the biggest of the campaign. And this campaign cycle has seen many gaffes. Perhaps my mind is playing tricks on me, but I think we’ve seen more gaffes from top tier candidates in 2007-2008 than we saw in the past 20 years combined.

I don’t think it’s just a distortion because the internet and other modern media implements are amplifying each faux pas. Even back in the Paleolithic era of politics (1988), Bob Dole could snarl “Get back in your cage” at a New Hampshire voter and do his campaign enormous harm. Candidates are just saying more dumb things these days. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney are all extremely intelligent and energetic office seekers, and yet they all made multiple, inexplicable gaffes.

Inexplicable until now that is, for I will endeavor to explain them. The modern workaholic candidate puts in 18 hour days for 18 months with hardly a day off. The fatigue gets to him (or her), and he (or she) says stupid things. Working themselves as hard as they do, the candidates make the gaffes inevitable. No human being can stay sharp when demanding so much of himself (or herself) for such an extended period of time.

At some point a really forward looking candidate will do a sophisticated cost-benefit analysis of whether it makes more sense to get a few hours sleep or to shake 30 indifferent hands at a rural diner or to raise another $20k at a rubber chicken function. Fred Thompson based his campaign on the decision that it always made more sense to get the extra sleep than make an appearance, but there has to be a happy median. I know candidates feel that they have to stay busy all the time, but Olympic athletes in training don’t work at it 18 hours a day. At some point, even politicians have to consider the laws of efficiency and diminishing returns.

Pajamas Media called Hillary Clinton’s comments yesterday the “mother of all gaffes.” It may turn out that way. If it winds up chasing her from the race, it may well go down as the biggest campaign blunder ever. A distorted and simplified version of history will perhaps argue that it cost her the election, just the way liberals now recall Al Gore getting more votes in Florida than George W. Bush.

Was it really necessary that Hillary talk to some newspaper in Sioux Falls while intellectually, emotionally and physically exhausted? Clinton supporters today anyway would probably answer no. Personally, I hope the McCain campaign is paying attention to this affair and crafting its schedule accordingly.

Christie Hefner, Playboy's CEO, recently hosted a fundraiser for Al Franken, and now, the Hill's Aaron Blake reports, "Minnesota Republicans unleashed one of their harshest piece [sic] of opposition research yet on Democratic Senate candidate Al Franken, pointing out a 2000 column, including graphic sexual descriptions, written by Franken for Playboy magazine." Clearly the real story here is the harshness of the right-wing freak-show, not Franken's vulgarity. As Blake explains, Franken's article was "clearly intended to be humorous."

Blake prefers to paraphrase Franken's work rather than quote much from the Playboy article itself, so I dug up a copy of the piece (on Nexis! I swear!). Now you, gentle reader, can judge Franken's work on its own merits:

I was escorted through the modest single-story cinder block think tank by IPS senior fellow Dr. Julie DeVine, a futurist trained at MIT, the Minnesota Institute of Titology, which has a controversial doctoral program.

As Dr. DeVine led me to the Future wing of the institute, I couldn't help but notice that she is an extremely attractive blonde with a tight, round ass, legs that won't quit and firm but ample breasts. So ample, in fact, that she received a full scholarship from MIT.

At first I thought it was my imagination, but when Dr. DeVine escorted me into the virtual reality room, she seemed to be coming on to me. She allowed her bodacious breasts to brush against my face as she lowered me into the prototype of the Virtu-Screw 2000. "How does that feel?" she cooed. I didn't know if she was referring to the Naugahyde bucket seat or to the two erect nipples pushing through her white lab coat and nearly poking my eyes out. ...

I found myself extremely attracted to the vulnerable side of this sexy scientist, and when I offered to comfort her, she accepted, kissing me full on the lips and inserting her tongue into my mouth and moving it around suggestively. Then she reached down and started rubbing my crotch, and within just five or ten minutes my cock was again hard and ready for action.

So, yeah, Franken's wit is about as subtle as a sledgehammer to the face. How did he make a living telling jokes again?

Obama talks about a possible meeting with Raul Castro:

HOLLIS: If I can ask one more question. Sort of a follow-up to comments you made yesterday. Will you meet one-on-one with Raul Castro and other leaders of the Cuban government?

OBAMA: Not immediately. But what I've said is that if we start low-level talks, and at the diplomatic levels, to explore areas of potential mutual interest, then that's something we should continue. Our primary interest is making sure the people of Cuba are free. Freedom of religion, of press, travel, and to organize politically, and that would be the agenda. We would press them. If there appeared to be progress in the area of liberalization--as I've said repeatedly, I would be willing, if it is going to move the progress, to move forward, with any leader that is willing to consider these issues.

So is a willingness to "consider these issues," i.e. freedom of religion, of press, travel, and to organize politically, now considered "preparation" for a meeting with the leader of Cuba? Because those sound like preconditions.

This is not a complicated issue. Will Obama meet with A'jad, Castro, Kim Jong-Il, and Bashar Assad without preconditions? And if so, what on earth does he mean by "preparations." If preparations involve these leaders surrendering on every major issue of contention, how is Obama's position any different that President Bush's?

Max Boot has a good piece on absurdity of the latest "lobbying scandal" to engulf the McCain campaign:

In other words, McCain (whose campaign I advise on foreign policy issues) was in favor of NATO expansion long before Randy was lobbying on those issues. Anyone who knows either McCain or Scheunemann would laugh at the notion that their support for the embattled democracies of Eastern and Southern Europe is the result of payoffs from those countries....

So what Randy has done is not illegal. It’s also not unethical under Senate ethics rules or the more stringent ethics rules of the McCain campaign. Now that the candidate has banned lobbyists from the campaign, Scheunemann has stopped lobbying. Which suggests that there is no story here.

Boot also notes the "lack of outrage over Senator Obama picking a major lobbyist to lead his vice presidential search effort." I'm shocked that the press hasn't dug into that story.

There's some truth to this, but surely one of the first things Obama will do after wrapping up the nomination is make a trip to Iraq to meet with the commanders on the ground there. The question then will be whether he takes anything they say to heart. If Petraeus and Maliki plead with Obama to press on with the mission, will he dismiss their counsel on the campaign trail and continue to push for a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces? Or will the magical strike force reemerge as the answer to all our Iraq problems?

Israeli Defense Forces allegedly shot dead Mohammed al-Dura, a 12-year-old boy, on September 30, 2000 during a gunfight in Gaza, and it was all supposedly captured on video. Al-Dura's martyrdom was hailed by millions of Muslims at the outset of the second intifada. Osama Bin Laden even commented, "In killing this boy the Israelis killed every child in the world." The only problem? Based on their position, IDF forces could not have been responsible. Indeed, there are plenty of analysts, including Professor Landes of Boston University, who have concluded the entire video is staged and the boy's death was possibly fabricated.

In 2006, years after fairly conclusive evidence had emerged, Philippe Karsenty was nevertheless found guilty of libel by a French court for claiming that French TV staged the footage. Fortunately, that decision has just been overturned.

After threatening to sue anybody who questioned the authenticity of its story, France 2 Television filed defamation charges against three Web sites that challenged the network's allegations that the incident really took place.

But Karsenty on his Media Ratings Web site detailed various analyses of the network's video, raising questions about whether scenes included in the news report had been staged, whether the child had been hit by bullets, and whether he had been killed at all.

Karsenty presented the same material to the court during his appeal last February.

This is good news to be sure, but the battle still isn't over. The Court of Appeals refused to rule on the veracity of the footage, and French TV is appealing the decision. Given the expense of speaking up even when there is ample evidence that one is speaking truth, how long can it really be before everyone instead opts for silence?

Chris Bowers is one of the brighter minds on the left side of the blogosphere -- particularly when it comes to political strategy and analysis. Bowers writes that despite the pro-Democrat mood of the country, Obama cannot be regarded as a favorite in a race against McCain:

The answer is simple, and two-fold. First, John McCain has long outperformed generic Republicans, and is not tightly associated with their brand. Second, no one can unite all of the different Democratic voters on a national level... Had someone else other than John McCain been the Republican nominee, it is probably likely that virtually any Democratic nominee could have united all of the groups.

Off-hand I can think of three solutions to this problem. First, lower-ticket Dems are actually going to have to help out the top of the ticket this time around, with Democrats in more Clinton-friendly areas campaigning with Obama (an with both of them campaigning as Democrats). Second, McCain needs to be defined as the conservative Republican that he is. Third, Obama needs to pick a good VP, someone who can bring more of the various Democratic groups together without emphasizing Obama's weakness among some groups. I might be asking for too much on that one, a pick that is both reinforcing and balancing, but one can always hope.

It seems as if the vice presidential selection will bedevil Obama, particularly given that Clinton seems to be sending clear messages that she wants the job. If she's perceived as having been shunned, good luck putting the Democratic party back together. Can any other Clinton loyalist accept the nomination if Hillary is denied? Any effort to pull the varied Democratic factions together becomes much harder if the Clintons are undermining the effort.

Obama better hope that his vice presidential search manager does a better job than he has in the past.

Earlier this week when fundraising numbers were released for the major campaign committees, there was a little bit of good news for the GOP. While the Republican House and Senate committees still trail their Democratic counterparts badly, the RNC is far outraising the DNC. Further, the RNC has already raised the full amount allowed by law for coordinated expenditures with the McCain campaign. In fact McCain and the RNC have more cash on hand and are raising money faster than the Obama campaign and the DNC.

Now Congressional Quarterly reports that the Democratic National Convention is falling behind its fundraising goals:

The host committee needs to raise $40.6 million by June 16. It fell $5 million short on its most recent deadline, March 17, by which point the host committee promised to raise $28 million, according to its contract with the Democratic National Convention Committee (DNCC)...

The Republican committee by contrast, is planning to raise $58 million -- $19 million more than it is required to raise. Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper doesn't sound like he takes the shortfall all that seriously, however:

The only penalty in the DNCC contract for missing the fundraising deadlines is the threat the party would relocate the convention, Hickenlooper said.

“Are they going to move the convention to a different city?” he asked rhetorically.

It should be heartening for Republicans to see that the Democratic money machine seems to be hitting some potholes. While the GOP is sure to be vastly outspent in this election cycle, maybe the troubles of the DNC and the convention committee are a sign that there are limits.

Meanwhile, the Recreate 68 alliance (about which I've written before) will do its part to make sure the convention goes smoothly. They're promising not to 'share information with police,' and to be aware if violence does occur, they'll do what they can 'to help prevent it from being blown out of proportion and dominating the media coverage.'

This party sounds like it's set to go swimmingly!

Joe Klein gets Clintonian in his defense of Obama:

[Novak] goes on to misrepresent (a) my questioning of McCain this week and (b)Obama's position on talking to Ahmadinejad, which is muddy, to say the least, but has never included the following statement, "I will meet unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

When Obama was asked if he would meet Ahmadinejad without preconditions in the first year of his presidency, he answered "I would." Apparently Klein needs him to spell it out, and yet remains completely unconcerned by the fact that Obama refuses to clarify his position on the issue. But Klein is also working another strategy, which involves minimizing A'jad's role in Iranian foreign policy:

Ever since [the YouTube debate], Obama has been creatively fuzzy when asked directly if he would meet with Ahmadinejad — and he has begun to point out that the real leaders of Iran are the clerics led by the Supreme Leader Ayatullah Ali Khamenei, who controls Iran's foreign policy and its nuclear program.

This will come as news to the rest of the players in the Middle East:

According to the newspaper, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem updated Ahmadinejad during a visit to Teheran some weeks ago on the status of his nation's secret diplomatic contacts with Israel.

Why are the Syrians updating A'jad when he doesn't have any say in the matter? Aren't they reading Joe Klein?

Various lefty blogs are having fun with a 2000 quote from Senator McCain in which he speculates that he might be too old to run for president in 2008:

Well, in 2004, I expect to be campaigning for the reelection of President George W. Bush, and by 2008, I think I might be ready to go down to the old soldiers home and await the cavalry charge there.

Apparently McCain isn't quite ready to retire. But since we're on the subject, it's worth noting that in 2004, after Obama was first elected to the Senate, he flatly rejected a bid for the White House in 2008:

Calling it as "a silly question," Sen.-elect Barack Obama (D-IL) pledged "he would resist any overtures to run for president or vice president before the end of his six-year term as a U.S. senator," the Chicago Sun-Times reports.

"I was elected yesterday. I have never set foot in the U.S. Senate. I've never worked in Washington. And the notion that somehow I'm immediately going to start running for higher office just doesn't make sense."

Obama '08, Because It Just Doesn't Make Sense!

With the Iraqi Army's push into Sadr City after Muqtada al Sadr blinked and cut a deal with the government, the narrative on failure in Iraq has shifted. The latest story from the Associated Press indicates that Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani has secretly issued fatwas, or religious edicts, to select individuals that would allow them to conduct attacks on Coalition forces.

So far, al-Sistani's fatwas have been limited to a handful of people. They also were issued verbally and in private — rather than a blanket proclamation to the general Shiite population — according to three prominent Shiite officials in regular contact with al-Sistani as well as two followers who received the edicts in Najaf.

All spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

While this certainly isn't beyond the realm of possibility, I have spoken to several US intelligence sources who think this is highly unlikely. The primary reason is that one of the groups cited in the article, the Jund al Marjaiyah, which means the Soldiers of the Religious Authorities or Army of the Marja, essentially serve as "the Shia version of the Swiss Guard for Sistani's religious circle." This means their purpose is to protect the religious sites and the senior leadership of Sistani's circle. If the Jund al Marjaiyah starts to conduct attacks on Coalition forces, this would invite reprisals and directly endanger the senior leadership and religious sites.

All of the sources believe the Associated Press may have been fooled by Sadrist members purporting to be close to Sistani. "It is not unheard for Iraqi Shiites to secretly claim Sistani's blessings," one source said. "We have seen Sadrists put words in Sistani's mouth," he added, noting that this happened when Sadrists claimed Sistani and other senior Shia clerics told Sadr to keep the Mahdi Army after Prime Minister Maliki ordered the Mahdi Army to disband.

The media often falls for this type of trick. Take this article today in the AP, where a monitor for the Sadr City ceasefire is saying the Iraqi Army is violating the truce and assaulting and mistreating Iraqis in the Mahdi Army stronghold. The AP cites Mohannad al Gharawi but does not tell you who he is. A quick search will tell you that Mohannad al Gharawi is a member of the Sadrist movement, which has a vested interest in making such claims.

Back to the Sistani piece, the Associate Press relies on none other than Juan Cole for analysis and predictions. Cole certainly takes the word of the AP's anonymous sources as gospel and predicts Sistani will organize an uprising. "'Al Sistani clearly will give a fatwa against the occupation by a year or two,' but he said it would be 'premature' for the cleric to do so now."

Cole has fallen flat on his face with predictions such as this in the past. Last year, Cole's coblogger Barnett Rubin predicted an imminent attack by the U.S. military against Iran, a prediction which Cole continued to insist was "perfectly accurate" some five months later. Of course, this never came to pass, and Cole is never held to account for his repeated failures to properly predict the course of events in an area in which he is purported to be an expert.

Finally, the article just flat out contradicts Sistani's role in Iraqi politics since the U.S. invasion in 2003. Sistani has repeatedly avoided interjecting himself into the political sphere. This is in line with his "quietist" approach to Islam. The quietist approach says that the form of government is not important to Shia Islam, just as long as the followers are free to practice their religion. The Iraqi government has sanctioned the presence of U.S. forces. There is no U.S. occupation government in the model of the Bremer viceroyship that existed for roughly the first year after the invasion, but an elected Iraqi government that Sistani has not opposed. So Sistani's secret edicts would go against his own teachings.

Sistani has kept silent during some of the most critical periods in recent Iraqi history, including when the sectarian violence was at its height and Iraq was in danger of breaking apart. It isn't impossible that Sistani has issued secretive fatwas to kill U.S. and Coalition forces, but with nothing but blind quotes to substantiate the report, it seems extremely unlikely.

Update:

IraqSlogger reports that senior clerics in Sistani's organization dispute the claims:

Sources close to prominent Shi'a clerics in Najaf have expressed "surprise" at reports in the Western media which claim that Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has issued religious opinions suggesting support of armed resistance against the foreign forces in Iraq, going so far as to dismiss the reported rulings as "false," according to a report by an online Iraqi news agency.

Al-Malaf Press writes in Arabic that "Reliable, well-placed sources in the offices of four high-ranking Shi'a clerics in Iraq denied what was reported" regarding "fatwas" (religious opinions) issued by the Shi'a ayatollah Ali al-Sistani on the matter of armed resistance in Iraq against the foreign forces in the country.

...

One source in the office of Muhammad Sa'id al-Hakim contacted by al-Malaf Press threatened to hold responsible those "airing false fatwas." The source said that fatwas that do not bear Sistani's seal or signature are considered false.

The same source told al-Malaf Press that the reports of the pro-resistance Sistani fatwas were "media stunts" intended to "effect confusion" among the Shi'a community.

With special thanks to IraqSlogger's Eason Jordan for making the full article viewable to non-subscribers.

For political junkies, it may be a finding against interest, but this recent Pew report demonstrates that the content of cable news coverage and Americans’ news interest are out of sync. Media is heavily focused on the 2008 presidential race, devoting nearly 40% of its total coverage to this topic in mid-May. During the same period of time, however, one out of three (31%) Americans said gas prices were their greatest news interest, followed by information about the recent earthquakes in China (22%).

As Pew notes, obsession with politics is most pronounced on the cable side of the media business:

There were dramatic differences in coverage across media sectors last week. Cable TV news focused on the campaign almost to the exclusion of other top news stories. According to the Project for Excellence in Journalism's (PEJ) News Coverage Index, national cable TV news outlets devoted 74% of their coverage last week to the campaign and only 4% to the Chinese earthquake. By contrast, network TV news and national newspapers split their coverage about equally between these two stories.

Moreover, the recent heavy focus on politics among cable outlets is not a new phenomenon:

Throughout the year, cable news has consistently devoted more coverage to the presidential campaign than have other news sources. And cable news coverage of the campaign has typically exceeded the public's interest in the election.

And, while cable news coverage of the presidential campaign has increased in the past month, according to Pew, public interest in the campaign is well off its high:

Interest in the campaign declined from 30% the previous week, and is down substantially from earlier in the campaign. In mid-February (Feb. 11-17), 46% cited the presidential campaign as their top news story, more than double the percentage last week.

Yet despite the surplus of political coverage, a news deficit still exists when it comes to Republicans, unless of course it’s about the McCain campaign’s relationship to lobbyists. Despite some important speeches from the presumptive nominee about his plans as president, Pew reports this:

John McCain continues to lag behind Obama and Clinton in terms of media coverage and public visibility. While news coverage of McCain was up significantly last week, only a small minority of Americans (17%) heard a lot about McCain's speech outlining his plans for his presidency, including his prediction that most American troops will be withdrawn from Iraq by 2013. Some 45% heard a little about the speech and 37% heard nothing at all. Only 22% of Republicans heard a lot about the speech.

I suppose this all makes sense. After all, if Keith Olberman actually had to explain the intricacies of why gas price have gone up -- instead of taking cheap shots at President Bush or smothering Barack Omama with political wet kisses -- he might have to do some homework.

Maxine Waters let the cat out of the bag yesterday. Congressional Democrats talk a moderate game, but when they speak candidly it's clear they have an extreme agenda in mind. It may be unfair to pick on Representative Waters; she is probably the most confused Representative in Congress. Want proof? She's introduced legislation to reverse the Kelo decision. So she's a fierce defender of private property rights, who thinks a critical sector of the economy should be taken over by the government.

It may be lost on Ms. Waters, but it should be pointed out that two of the other nationalized oil companies in our hemisphere are currently collapsing because their governments are skimming their profits and underinvesting in future production:

Petróleos de Venezuela, or PDVSA, ''is overstretched to capacity with any number of needs,'' said Patrick Esteruelas, an analyst at the New York-based Eurasia Group.

The firm is borrowing billions from foreign lenders, while independent estimates show its output falling. U.S. data shows imports from Venezuela last year hit a 12-year low after dropping 8.2 percent from 2005...

PDVSA is not the only state oil company in Latin America to face such problems. Mexico's Petróleos Mexicanos, or Pemex, now faces rapidly shrinking reserves and outdated technology. Company executives agree they must reinvest much more but are hamstrung by Mexico's constitution. Nearly 60 percent of Pemex's revenues go to the federal budget each year, while debt and pension obligations total upward of $100 billion.

So while Barack Obama is campaigning on a promise of bringing the parties together on a practical, problem-solving agenda, senior Democrats in Congress are talking about nationalizing oil, nationalizing health care, slamming Americans with higher taxes, and re-creating the New Deal. Obama should be asked where he stands on this extreme agenda (and not least because he's the proponent of nationalized health care I linked to above).

HT: Hot Air

Break out your love beads, dust off your Moby Grape albums -- it’s 1968 again!

Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin is catching grief for suggesting John McCain’s family history of military service makes the presumptive Republican presidential nominee unfit to be commander-in-chief.

Harkin, who has a history of embellishing his own military record, told Iowa reporters last week that McCain’s background as the son and grandson of Navy admirals creates a “dangerous” situation because he can only view the world through the prism of the military.

Harkin’s slur appears to be a finely-tuned offshoot of the "McCain is nuts" meme currently floating around. It’s a rather strange one, since you would think that in this day and age a candidate with military experience might be a plus. That was John Kerry’s entire raison d’etre in 2004. Democrats loved him, because Kerry spent 30 years apologizing for serving in Vietnam. Harkin, strangely, never shied away from speaking of his military background. In fact, you might say he was almost too proud:

He served in the Navy on active duty for five years, and remained in the reserves until 1989. But while running for president in 2004, he was forced to admit that he never did combat air patrols or photo reconnaissance in Vietnam as he had claimed.

It seems like Democrats feel OK about their military history, whether inflated or not, as long as they make sure to remind their base that it was all a mistake.

From the Philadelphia Inquirer: Clinton Has the Numbers, by Jonathan V. Last.

From the Washington Post: Obama's Metastatic Gaffe, by Charles Krauthammer.

From the Wall Street Journal: Republicans and Our Enemies, by Joe Biden.

From Contentions: Biden to the Rescue, by Max Boot.

From the Wall Street Journal: The Death of Conservatism Is Greatly Exaggerated, by Fred Thompson.

John Mercurio writes on the speculation over who will be appointed to the Senate to succeed either John McCain or Barack Obama. For the moment, I'm concerned only with McCain's seat, since in the case of Barack Obama, a Democrat Governor will undoubtedly appoint a Democrat to succeed a Democrat. In Arizona however, things are a little bit trickier:

A state law requires [Governor Napolitano] to replace McCain with another Republican, but unlike other states that force governors to choose from a list drawn up by the party of the departing senator, she does have some discretion. With that in mind, will she choose a “weak” Republican who would face a strong Democratic challenge in 2010? Someone like, say, former Rep. J.D. Hayworth? Or will she select a party maverick, in the spirit of McCain, who would force the GOP into a bitter and expensive primary battle two years from now? (Rep. Jeff Flake’s name comes to mind.) Or will she choose a moderate like former Rep. Jim Kolbe?

This speculation is sound, as far as it goes. But I think Mercurio and others lack imagination in assuming that Napolitano will pick a 'real' Republican -- one who will caucus with Republicans, support the Republican agenda, and back a Republican for Senate leader. She may not. If the law requires only that she appoint a Republican, why not name a RIRO -- a Republican in Registration Only. After all, Arizona law does not require that Republican leaders approve her selection -- or even take part in the process. She may appoint a liberal Republican, or even a Republican who would caucus with Senate Democrats.

Yesterday Obama offered this rationale for putting Hillary on the ticket:

I can tell you this. My goal is to have the best possible government. And that means me winning. So, I'm very practical in my thinking. I'm a practical guy. One of my heroes is Abraham Lincoln. Awhile back, there was a wonderful book written by Doris Kearns Goodwin called 'Team of Rivals,' in which she talked about how Lincoln basically pulled all the people he'd been running against into his Cabinet. Because whatever personal feelings there were, the issue was, 'How can we get the country through this time of crisis?' I think that has to be the approach one takes to the vice president and the Cabinet.

Lincoln needed a cabinet that could help him preserve the Union and overcome the crisis of secession. To what crisis does Obama refer? If he means the war in Iraq (and not his struggle with white voters), how much help will he need to coordinate a unilateral withdrawal? Defeat does not require unity, it requires political cover. Perhaps Hillary Clinton can provide that, and perhaps Obama will find it political expedient to enlist her in doing so. But that wouldn't make Obama some kind of modern day Lincoln. Lincoln will be remembered as the greatest president in this nation's history because he delivered victory. Everything Obama promises hinges on a graceful defeat.

As noted the other day, the Germans have serious reservations about killing the Taliban in Afghanistan. So much so, that its elite commandos have been restricted from attacking known Taliban murderers. They are only allowed to detain these "fugitives."

The Taliban, on the other hand, have no such qualms about killing Germans. Spiegel followed up its sickening story about German rules of engagement in Afghanistan by interviewing a Taliban commander named Qabir Bashir Haqqani. Here is what Haqqani has to say:

SPIEGEL ONLINE: The three Germans killed weren't even combat troops, they were army employees in charge of purchasing refrigerators for the troops' kitchen.

Haqqani: It is not important what kind of soldiers they were. What's important is to kill and hammer out the Germans in Kunduz. The Germans are the most important enemy in the north and because they are stationed in Kunduz, the city will soon become the Kandahar of the north.

The Germans are treating the war as a police action. The Taliban are treating the war as a war. Security in the North will only suffer because of the German's failure to properly use their military forces to hunt and kill Taliban.

David Saltonstall of the NY Daily News writes that "John McCain is winning the fund-raising battle [against Obama]--when cash from the increasingly rich Republican National Committee is added to his tally." That's true enough: If you look at cash on hand at the end of April, McCain's $24 million plus the RNC's $41 million is more than Obama's $47 million plus the DNC's $4 million.

But what the writer omits is that the RNC will have to pick up the slack where the Republican House and Senate campaign committees have fallen behind their Democratic counterparts. At the end of April, the Democratic House and Senate campaign committees had $45 million and $38 million, respectively, in cash on hand, while the Republican House and Senate committees had $7 million and $19 million, respectively.

As I wrote yesterday--with some fundraising totals only through the end of March--if you look at all of this money as coming from the same pot, then Republicans are trailing Democrats about 2 to 1. With the updated April figures, the Democratic advantage is now only 3 to 2.

Also, it's worth pointing out that the GOP would be closer to matching the Democrats if it weren't for the accounting scandal that has contributed to the NRCC's anemic fundraising. Enthusiasm among Republicans in general might not be as low as many think.

Bob Barr may not have such an easy waltz to the highly coveted Libertarian Party presidential nomination after all. Rumors are sweeping the Libertarian Party convention, which in fact is being held this weekend in Denver and not in the Sheboygan Days Inn’s secondary function hall as rumored, that Tucker Carlson may seek the party’s nomination.

Best known for his work on cable TV, Carlson did his best work for this very magazine where his snappy and often hilarious prose enlivened the festivities each week for several years. While Carlson and I missed overlapping at the Weekly Standard by a mere six years or so, I feel like I know him through his writing and his years of jousting with nitwits on cable TV. I am certain that Carlson would be a better and certainly funnier ambassador for the Libertarian Party than the far less likable Bob Barr. Besides, it’s not like he’s going to win or anything.

If the Libertarian Party is serious about growing its movement and spreading its philosophy, its choice is obvious. Vote Tucker!

I just knew that the equivocations issued by the Obama campaign and its eager surrogates like Joe Klein regarding the longtime community organizer’s diplomatic plans with Iran were bound to confuse the slow-witted. Sure enough, Joe Biden has taken to the pages of the Wall Street Journal and shown that he has become lost in the farrago of the Obama campaign’s contradicting edicts:

Sen. Obama is right that the U.S. should be willing to engage Iran on its nuclear program without "preconditions" – i.e. without insisting that Iran first freeze the program, which is the very subject of any negotiations. He has been clear that he would not become personally involved until the necessary preparations had been made and unless he was convinced his engagement would advance our interests.

Okay, as they say, let’s go to the videotape! Or the transcript anyway. Here once again is the relevant portion from the YouTube debate where Obama pronounced his foreign policy revolution:

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

OBAMA: I would.

Careful readers will note there’s nothing there about “preparations.” Still more careful observers of this ridiculous sage will note that Biden, in his bewilderment, has introduced the stuff about “advancing our interests” all by his lonesome. Perhaps the following snippet from Obama’s conversation with Jake Tapper from a few days ago confused him:

TAPPER: In recent days, it has seemed that some of your staffers and supporters have walked back from your statement that you would be willing to meet with the leaders of rogue nations, countries hostile to the U.S., without preconditions. Your foreign policy adviser Susan Rice said you wouldn't necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad, Sen. Daschle said of course there would be conditions -- (Obama interrupts)

OBAMA: You know, Jake, I have to say I completely disagree that people have been walking back from anything. They may be correcting the characterizations or distortions of John McCain or others of what I said. What I said was I would meet with our adversaries including Iran, including Venezula, including Cuba, including North Korea, without preconditions but that does not mean without preparation.

TAPPER: Well, what's the difference?

OBAMA: There's a huge difference.

He didn’t go on to elaborate on precisely what the difference might be, but I’ll take his word for it – it’s huge. Some might think that by introducing this wrinkle, Obama himself tried to “walk back” the YouTube pledge, but as you know I prefer to view Obama and his campaign without cynicism. What can I say? All the talk of hope and change has moved me. I’ve been elevated. So I choose to believe that Obama still pines to meet with all our adversaries, and so long as he can make the proper “preparations” like finding the right caterer and an appropriate function hall, all systems will be go.

One last word – I wonder if Obama supporters who have developed an entirely appropriate disgust for Clinton-style politics are wincing over the ludicrous parsing of “preparations” and “preconditions?” Regardless, I think Obama’s supporters and his detractors better get used to him trying to be on both sides of controversial issues. He may well demonstrate an aptitude for straddling that dwarfs John Kerry’s formidable talent in that regard. Of all the many unnerving things we’ve seen of Barack Obama, this may be the biggest cause for concern – he talks one way and acts another (think of bipartisanship or earmarks), usually with the sole intention of securing his own popularity.

And one last question: Did Biden take to the pages of the WSJ with the Obama campaign’s sanction, or was he merely an officious volunteer trying to butter up the presumptive nominee while tossing his weave into the Secretary of State ring?

During General David Petreaus’ confirmation hearing for his appointment as CENTCOM commander, he released the latest statistics on the violence levels in Iraq (click the image to view a larger version). The data shows that the attack incident levels have largely remained constant since September 2007, when the ‘surge’ was in full effect. The spike seen from the end of March up until the beginning of May represents the recent fighting against the Mahdi Army in Basra, Sadr City in Baghdad, and the wider South, as well as an operation against al Qaeda in Mosul.

The Basra, Sadr City, and Mosul operations have all been Iraqi planned and executed, with U.S. forces in supporting roles. Despite the size and scope of these operations, the attack incident levels figures failed to come even close to the numbers seen last summer. By May 9, the last week charted, the incident levels were at their lowest level since April 2004.

There are still many challenges ahead in Iraq. Al Qaeda must be rooted out of Mosul and the northern regions. The Mahdi Army truce is holding, and the Iraqi Army is taking over security in the former lawless areas of Sadr City and Basra. Dealing with the Sadrist movement and the Mahdi Army will require a delicate balance of political and military pressure from this point on.

But at this point is impossible to argue that the surge has not led to dramatic improvements in security and allowed the Iraqi military to take the lead. The numbers don't lie.

This new Zogby poll is interesting for a couple reasons. First, as I’ve suggested in earlier posts, Obama’s numbers will creep up in head-to-head match-ups as it becomes clear to people he’s the nominee, giving Clinton partisans some time to reassess--and conduct anger management therapy. This poll offers some evidence of that, showing Obama now with a 10 point lead (47%-37%) among likely voters.

Adding third party candidates Ralph Nader who draws 4% overall and Bob Barr who garners 3% into the mix also has an impact. Many other public polls either don’t ask about the third party candidates or don’t report results. Adding Nader and Barr, along with the 10% of undecided voters, shifts these numbers compared to other surveys. According to the crosstabs, Nader draws 6% support of the self identified liberals and 3% among those that describe themselves as “progressives.”

Barr cuts into McCain’s potential base support a little more, drawing 22% of those that describe themselves as “libertarian” and 10% of the very conservative.

So will the Barr and Nader voters just offset each other? If they both stay at around 4% of the total electorate, yes. But as the race heats up, monitoring how the numbers rise or decline among the Barr and Nader voters, particularly in battleground states bears watching.

General Petraeus, in testimony today before the Senate Armed Services Committee, suggested that he will be able to recommend further troop reductions in the September time frame:

“My sense is that I will be able to make a recommendation at that time for further reductions,” Gen. David H. Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee, saying his recommendation “could include major combat formations.”

Petraeus is in the process of removing five brigades of U.S. troops brought in last year in a “surge” designed to stabilize the security of Iraq and buy time for political reconciliation among its warring factions. That will reduce force levels in Iraq to about 140,000 troops. During his testimony to Congress in April, he called for a 45-day pause at the end of July to assess the situation.

Petraeus also said the United States “likely will do a bit more” with its troop commitments to Afghanistan, acknowledging the comments of U.S. commanders there of the need for more forces.

This would seem to further reduce the likelihood of Iraq becoming a major issue in the fall campaign. The Iraqi government will take over full responsibility for security by the end of the year. And given the sensitivity of the issue, it's hard to imagine Petraeus entertaining lightly the idea of reducing troop levels unless he was convinced that such reductions were feasible without badly damaging the progress that has been made in the last year.

If Iraq is largely stable and U.S. troops are out largely of harm's way, would a President Obama remain committed to the idea of withdrawing our forces to another spot in the Middle East?

It seems to be pretty universally recognized that something needs to change for Republicans to avoid another significant loss in November. Opinions vary on precisely what must be done, but many conservatives have argued that the party needs to return to its fiscal conservative roots, while at the same time offering practical solutions to genuine problems.

Along precisely those lines, Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee, has introduced the Road Map for America's Future:

Currently, we are on a path of unsustainable Federal spending. The main problem is the looming crisis of entitlement spending. The well-intentioned social insurance strategies of the past century – particularly Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid – are headed toward financial collapse.

Not only will these programs grow themselves into extinction, they will immensely burden our economy and budget – piling massive amounts of debt on future generations, crippling our ability to compete in the international marketplace, and dramatically reducing Americans’ standards of living.

We can and must set a different course. But the time for talk has passed. We need a plan.

Ryan's plan ensures universal access to affordable health care, sets federal spending at sustainable levels, addresses the problem of outstanding federal debt, and promotes sustained economic and job growth over time. The ambitious plan is extremely broad -- too broad to fit into a 30 second sound bite. But it is the core of a plan that fiscal conservatives can coalesce around.

Think of the Road Map as a 'Kemp-Roth Tax Cut' for the 21st century. Before President Reagan adopted the tax cut plan that became the signature economic achievement of his presidency, the legwork was done in Congress by energetic Republicans like Jack Kemp, Bill Roth, and even by then-Democrats like Phil Gramm. The Kemp-Roth tax cuts were the economic message of the Reagan campaign, and their passage was largely ensured when he won a resounding victory in 1980.

Some of the central elements in the Ryan plan -- tax reform, health care choice, retirement accounts, etc. -- may become the key elements of the GOP economic message in this election, and potentially beyond. Visit the site that Ryan has set up to see what the Road Map includes.

I finally got around to reading that George Packer piece in the New Yorker that heralds the fall of conservatism and that everyone is talking about. I would offer the old “read the whole thing,” but it’s awfully long, kind of rambling and not particularly insightful. So instead I’ll say have a trusted friend read the whole thing and highlight it. Once that’s done, you can just read go ahead and read the highlights. It will save you about an hour.

Pronouncing the death of political movements is a facile thing, especially when one appears as down in the mouth as conservatism appears at this moment. But in truth, it’s not conservatism that’s down in the mouth, but the politicians and the party that conservatives entrusted to carry out conservative principles that are in peril.

Much of Packer’s article focuses on political tactics and strategy, particularly the uniquely craven ones devised and implemented by Richard Nixon and a young Pat Buchanan. What Packer never completely acknowledges is that politics is supposed to be only the means, not the ends. One of the reasons so many nostalgic conservatives tiresomely invoke Ronald Reagan is that Reagan often seems like the last successful Republican politician to fully personify that standard. Not only did Reagan come to office with a full set of conservative principles to guide him, he only sought office because his passion for those principles compelled him to do so.

American conservatism has a set of core principles that includes a belief in free markets, free people, and in the greatness of the American people and the American nation. Those principles are timeless. They are also pure and, in the eyes of conservatives, true. The principles in turn should dictate conservative policy. Here’s how it shouldn’t work: The hideous farm bill that passed the senate this week violates just about every conservative tenet imaginable, but still got a thumbs up from a lot of Republicans. That’s a disappointment. But it’s also a reminder that the Republican party and conservatism aren’t one in the same. In spite of devoting roughly 97,000 words to his story, Packer never stumbled upon that simple fact.

Yes, the Republican politicians entrusted to put conservative principles into action have proven a disappointment as a class. But the Republican party faces such difficulties this year because of its inability or unwillingness to govern according to its conservative core principles. The principles themselves remain solid. And they’ll remain solid and relevant well beyond 2008.

The New York Times is catching on to Obama’s Jewish problem, but still manages to miss the point. The article doesn’t focus on Obama’s desire to meet with Iranian leaders without precondition. Rather, it attributes the lack of support to racism and his lack of experience.

Because Mr. Obama is relatively new on the national stage, his résumé of Senate votes in support of Israel is short, as is his list of high-profile visits to synagogues and delis. So far, his overtures to Jews have been limited; aside from a few speeches and interviews, he has left most of it to surrogates.

If Jews aren’t supporting Obama, it's more likely explained by his determination to meet with Holocaust deniers who have called for the destruction of Israel without first insisting that they repudiate these views. This issue transcends race and isn’t going to be solved by ordering a pastrami sandwich at the 2nd Ave. Deli.

On Fox News yesterday, Obama, asked about Iran, said:

"The fact that we have not talked to them means that they have been developing nuclear weapons, funding Hamas, funding Hezbollah."

This statement goes to the very heart of what's wrong with Obama's foreign policy view, and the leftward swing of the Democratic party back toward the orthodoxies of McGovern and Carter. The fact is, the Iranians have not been developing nuclear weapons and funding terrorist proxies across the Middle East because "we" won't talk to them. They are doing these things because their country is run by a fanatical, revolutionary regime that wants to dominate the Middle East.

But, as Jeane Kirkpatrick once said, "They always blame America first."

Update: A readers send a link to the video.

Bob Wright, in his latest bloggingheads segment with Mickey Kaus, endorses the idea of General Petraeus serving as Secretary of State in an Obama administration (around 2:37), but can't finish the thought as he begins laughing. He also compliments Petraeus for his strategy of 'killing the irreconcilables, and talking to the reconcilables.' Wright regards this Petraeus strategy as critical to the country's stabilization. He says that Petraeus takes the approach that a left-of-center Secretary of State might -- but it's hard to imagine Warren Christopher or Madeline Albright as strong advocates of the surge.

The idea is (unfortunately) laughable, and not just because it would be odd for a presidential candidate to preemptively name a Secretary of State who can't either accept or decline the job. Rather, it's inconceivable because the Democratic base hates Petraeus and has engaged in the vilest sort of slander against him. When MoveOn.org ran its 'Betray Us' ad, the best Senator Obama could do was to label the attack 'a distraction.'

Wright later laments that Obama is 'running away' from the success in Iraq, and 'denying the success that there is.' Eventually, if Obama wants to win the presidency, he will probably be forced to acknowledge it.

Those of us with children in their junior and senior years of high school are quite familiar by now with the wringer that is the college admissions process. At the center of that process is the dreaded Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) administered by the College Board, supposedly as a predictor of student performance in a college environment. For decades, it had the same basic format, a math section and a verbal section, each worth 800 points, for a combined "perfect" score of 1600. Two years ago, the College Board added a third section to the test, a "writing" section centered on a series of essays, each graded on a scale of 1-6 (six being perfect), using a set of "objective" criteria developed by the College Board. The "perfect" SAT score is now 2400.

However, many schools, including most of the Ivy League schools, do not yet use the scores of the SAT writing section in their student admissions process. Most require their own essays, which are judged and scored by their own reviewers using their own criteria. The reasons cited by most (and I sat through these lectures at several schools) are (a) lack of a track record for the section as a predictor; and (b) disagreements with the evaluation criteria used for scoring the test.

Over at the Phi Beta Cons blog at National Review Online, Robert Verbruggen is upset by this:

Last night I learned that Northwestern University, for the most part, just ignores the new writing portion of the SAT. This isn't uncommon, and it's a shame, because that part is the best of the three tests at predicting college GPAs.

Surely VerBruggen jests when he suggests that the writing test is the most accurate at determining GPA? First of all, the test has not been given long enough to determine whether it is a predictor of anything, let alone student performance. Second, VerBruggen cites as evidence a story in USA Today (!) that in turn cites a representative of the College Board (!) who merely asserts that "studies" (conducted by the College Board!) show this to be the case ). Well, where are the data, who peer reviewed the studies, and is the College Board, which administers the SAT, and which makes millions each year from it, really an impartial, unbiased observer? (In fairness, VerBruggen also informed me privately that there is a second study by University of California that parallels the College Board, but he did not provide data.)

Finally, the writing test is the least objective and most biased portion of the test, which proves nothing except the ability of the student to write in accord with the College Board's conception of good writing. I had long ago proposed an experiment in which works by great authors were subjected to the same grading criteria used on the SAT writing test. Too late! The Princeton Review had already done it, submitting essays by a number of modern writers. Results: Ernest Hemingway got a 3;, William Shakespeare a 2; Gertrude Stein, 1. Only one writer received the coveted perfect 6--Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. As Princeton Review relates:

The Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, scores highest, owing to his following the highly formulaic requirements detailed by the test's creators. The article also shows that Shakespeare might have saved himself a lot of grief if he'd dropped the poetic flair and focused on what the SAT graders look for. Results also show that Hemingway wouldn't test out of freshman composition, and that Stein would most likely be taking remedial courses at her local community college.

In other words, because of its mechanistic approach to writing, the writing test rewards people who follow arbitrary and generally false "rules," such as short sentence structure, avoidance of the passive voice, and not beginning sentences with "and" or "but." One can generate the same effect by evaluating the works of great writers by using the grammar checker in Microsoft Word. It's useful, if you are totally illiterate, but the tendency is to homogenize writing and make it conform to a very low common denominator of style.

This video is rather lengthy, but you don't need to watch the whole thing. The interesting portion is about 45 seconds in:

"Believe it or not, a majority of union members like John McCain right now."

The AFL-CIO however, wants to 'educate' its membership on how McCain opposes their agenda. Most notably, McCain opposes the 'Employee Free Choice Act, which I've written on before.

Bush lost union households by 59%-40% in 2004. Given Obama's well-publicized problems winning blue collar workers, McCain's target will be to improve on that number in 2008.

The American Idol finale last night provided a ray of hope for the McCain campaign. How is that, you ask? Follow along with me on the most tortured political analogy of the decade. If. You. Dare!

Okay, so the Idol final pitted David Cook against David Archuleta. For non-Idol watchers, Cook is a 25-year-old (which is ancient in Idol years) semi-professional rocker who was making ends meet as a bartender. He's got a very interesting voice and a ton of stage presence. He's also in possession of some fine musicianship, with a good eye for arrangements and a taste for the sometimes off-beat.

His rival was David Archuleta, a 17-year-old high school student. Archuleta had none of Cook's musical background and no pretensions to being much more than a karaoke singer. But boy, was he a karaoke star. With a big, showy, Broadway voice and puppy-dog eyes, Archuleta never met a flourish he wouldn't murder. His song choices were entirely predictable--always geared toward pop standards. On Neil Diamond night, for instance, he sang "They're Coming to America." For his final song on Tuesday night, he brassed the heck out of John Lennon's "Imagine."

By any objective measure, Cook was the more deserving Idol. He was the more interesting singer and the more talented musician. Yet Archuleta-mania was running wild. The Idol judges continually lauded him as a prodigy. He was an early, and heavy, favorite to win in sports-books. (Cook was a 14-1 longshot.) And after the Tuesday night competition, Simon Cowell declared that he had scored a "knock-out" over Cook. Even the anecdotal evidence suggested that Archuleta was sweeping to victory: During the Wednesday night results broadcast, Idol had cameras in Cook and Archuleta's home towns. Cook had a crowd of a couple hundred people at a strip-center in Kansas City. Archuleta had a stadium of screaming, adoring fans at his Salt Lake high school.

For my own part, I was certain that Archuleta would win the competition. I do not, as a rule, place much faith in the wisdom of the great and good American people. Or at least not in their capacity to get snap-decisions right the first time around. I believed that Cook would, over the long-haul, have the more successful career in music, but that Archuleta would win the Idol vote.

But after two hours of in-program product placement and normal commercial breaks, Ryan Seacrest announced that--amazingly--Cook had won.

You don't need me to point out the obvious parallels, but I will anyway. Cook is a stand-in for John McCain--competent, old, an impeccable pedigree, and the obvious choice under any normal circumstances. Archuleta makes for a fair Obama--young, inexperienced, a one-trick-pony whose one trick is so sock-you-over-the-head dazzling that it makes people take leave of their senses. Archuleta and Obama are also darlings of the youth vote and the judges (or the media, in Obama's case).

Yet despite all that, the Idol audience chose Cook.

Why? Search me. I still can't believe it.

Is this entire parallel ridiculous? Oh yes. Entirely. Yet at the same time, I couldn't help thinking that David Cook's victory says something about the nature of phenomena, how they can be overstated, and how, if they don't have any serious underpinnings, they can dissipate, overnight.

I’m starting to see a pattern here:

While Senator Barack Obama gingerly commended his rival's "perseverance," the shrinking candidacy of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has all but vanished from the television set, sidelined by bigger news.

For several weeks, editorial cartoonists and others have alluded to classic movies when speaking of Hillary Clinton’s campaign: Dracula, Frankenstein, A Night at the Opera. Thanks to the New York Times, we can now add The Incredible Shrinking Man and The Invisible Man--in one sentence yet!

Forget about the presidency. Obama’s first order of business should be to name Hillary as Director of Film Preservation at the Library of Congress. Because, you know, her campaign is just about gone with the wind.

Jonathan Martin reports that Florida governor Charlie Crist, a possible McCain VP choice, "was once pro-choice and is now pro-life, though he displays little enthusiasm for the issue." That's not quite accurate. In this profile for National Review, John J. Miller noted Crist's muddled thoughts on abortion:

More troubling may be Crist's views on abortion. "I am pro-choice," he said a decade ago. "I believe that a woman has the right to choose." As a member of a key committee in the state senate, he cast the deciding vote against a bill that would have required a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking abortions….

Today, Crist calls himself pro-life. "I changed my mind," he says. "I think it's important to protect the sanctity of life." Unlike Mitt Romney, Crist has no story about how and why his beliefs changed. "It's just a maturation of my views," he says. Does he believe Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided? "No. I don't think it should be overturned. I'm not running for the Supreme Court." Can he think of a single new restriction he would place upon abortion in Florida? "No. I'm comfortable with the status quo. So are most Floridians."

So Charlie Crist says he's pro-life, but his position on abortion is nearly identical to Barack Obama's. As McCain said in January: "I don't know how you could nominate a pro-choice VP without a real backlash from the party." That same backlash might occur if McCain chooses a "pro-life" running mate who supports the status quo.

From the Wall Street Journal: Obama's Troubling Instincts, by Karl Rove.

From the New York Times: Florida Jews Express Doubts About Obama, by Jodi Kantor.

From Haaretz: Palestinians' Time is Running Out, by Bradley Burston.

From the New York Times: Contrarian Carbon Cutters, by John Tierney.

From the Washington Post: McCain Stakes His Turf, by Robert Novak.

Hillary Clinton, in a remarkably craven moment even by Clinton family standards, has compared the purported plight of people who voted for her in Michigan and Florida to that of Zimbabweans:

(It is wrong when) people go through the motions of an election only to have them discarded and disregarded.

We’re seeing that right now in Zimbabwe. Tragically, an election was held, the president lost, they refused to abide by the will of the people. So we can never take for granted our precious right to vote. It is the single most important, privilege and right any of us have, because in that ballot box we are all equal. You’re equal to a billionaire. You’re equal to the president, every single one of us.

While it might be fun to show how sloppy Hillary’s analogy is (Obama’s the one not abiding by the will of the people? Hmmmm…), it will be even more fun to mock the people who are surprised by her latest antics. For 16 years now, the Clintons have given a long-suffering nation an education in what happens when rapacious ambition weds itself to moral bankruptcy. People with anything other than selective memories may recall that Bill Clinton’s military responses to terrorism oddly corresponded with his domestic political needs. That is but one of countless examples that illustrates how the Clintons put their own interests above literally everything else.

And yet some people are surprised -- nay, bewildered -- that Hillary is acting selfishly. Steve Benen of the Carpet Bagger Report offers this take on the Zimbabwe comparison:

I’m 35, and have been following politics for quite a while, and I’ve never been so disappointed with a politician I’ve admired and respected. Yesterday’s tactics weren’t just wrong, they were offensive. For that matter, they seem to be part of a deliberate strategy to tear Democrats apart and ensure a defeat in November.

For several weeks, I’ve appreciated the fact that Clinton considers herself the superior candidate, and has kept her campaign going in the hopes, from her perspective, of saving the party from itself. But after yesterday, it’s become impossible for me to consider Clinton’s intentions honorable. Her conduct is not that of a leader.

What’s so striking is the shamelessness of her reversal(s).

A Clinton shameless? A Clinton without honor? These things surprise Benen? I know he’s only 35, but perhaps it’s time Benen stop believing in Santa Claus.

Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll offers some good news today, showing John McCain with a 4 point lead over Barack Obama. While overreacting to each day’s numbers is certainly unwise, for sanity’s sake well have to seize on and cherish every piece of good news that we can find this cycle.

There’s still more good news to be mined on the Rasmussen site. Dick Morris foresees a “GOP senate massacre” this year, one that will possibly be “even greater than the worst of previous GOP years: 1958, 1964, 1974, 1986 and 2006.” As you know, I too have foreseen serious troubles for the Republican party this cycle. But if there’s one thing I know about politics, it’s that Dick Morris is always wrong. So perhaps his essay offers a glimmer of hope.

Sorry, but it’s not all sunshine in the polling world. Survey USA, who has generally done a bang-up job this cycle, shows Obama holding a seven point advantage over McCain in Virginia. While I’m no Dick Morris, I think the electoral math gets pretty tricky for the Republican candidate if he can’t hold Virginia. The internals of the poll do suggest that Virginians perhaps haven’t thought things fully through. According to SUSA, if Obama adds 28,000 square-foot-house-owning populist John Edwards to the ticket, he becomes well nigh unbeatable. Could Virginia really be so crazy for Edwards?

Now that Obama has claimed he wasn't talking about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he said he'd meet with Iranian leadership (even though he was), it's time to take this political brouhaha to the next level. Rove advises, "If Mr. Obama believes he can change the behavior of these nations by meeting without preconditions, he owes it to the voters to explain, in specific terms, what he can say that will lead these states to abandon their hostility."

As of now, it remains unclear what Obama could possibly say to bridge the ideological divide between Iran and the United States. That is, unless he is willing to toss one of our current allies overboard. Israel is out of the question, so what does Obama's secret plan to appease Iran entail? Assuming he isn't just making this up as he goes along, I would guess it might involve more tough talk against Pakistan, a Sunni-dominated country in the region that already possesses nuclear weapons. Obama has previously threatened Pakistan with invasion even though the country has been a critical ally in the war on terror. Selling out a reliable friend in the region might not be so far-fetched after all.

Jonathan Martin and Ben Smith write in the Politico:

The spread of these e-mails has forced Obama to embark on a campaign to Americanize his image and his biography. Pivoting away from his pitch to a primary election audience uninterested in flag-waving and nationalism, he’s returning to the message that first brought him to the national spotlight in 2004: the idea that his is the quintessential American story.

He’s also drawing the campaign into partisan combat, blaming Republicans for the smears even though they have not been traced back to GOP sources. “The Republicans, they’re trying to make [it] ‘this is not about you; it’s about me.’ They’re trying to say, ‘Well, Obama, we don’t know him that well, he hasn’t been around that long, he’s got a funny name; maybe he’s a Muslim,’” Obama said Monday in Montana. “They want to make people worry about me.”

Blaming Republicans for the smears even though there is zero evidence that Republicans are responsible for them--isn't that called a smear?

Jim Geraghty calls our attention to this Houston Press story that appeared a few months ago. Writer Todd Spivak recounts a horrifying encounter he had with Barack Obama while covering Obama’s part-time work as a state legislator back in the year 2000:

It's not quite eight in the morning and Barack Obama is on the phone screaming at me. He liked the story I wrote about him a couple weeks ago, but not this garbage.

Months earlier, a reporter friend told me she overheard Obama call me an asshole at a political fund-raiser. Now here he is blasting me from hundreds of miles away for a story that just went online but hasn't yet hit local newsstands.

It's the first time I ever heard him yell, and I'm trembling as I set down the phone. I sit frozen at my desk for several minutes, stunned.

Some think that this provides a sort of Gotcha! moment as regards the media. Let us not forget that a fortnight ago, the New York Times and others launched searing inquiries into John McCain’s temper. Now we learn that Barack Obama has a temper so fierce that when unleashed even via telephone, it can turn a hardened city reporter into a quivering pile of jello. This story follows hard on the heels of reports of Obama wanting to beat up a colleague in the Illinois legislature so badly, he required physical restraint. And yet the media have shown little interest in these tales, where John McCain’s temper fascinates them.

Alas, the media don’t have a place on the ballot. Additionally, the mainstream media’s reputation can hardly sink any lower. Thus, the real issue is whether such stories benefit or harm the candidate.

Personally, I think stories of Obama having a temper help him. There’s still no getting around the experience issue, but a complementary concern is that Obama is too gentle a soul to be leader of the free world. Details of a pugilistic side to Obama will help allay these concerns for some voters.

Besides, the real shocker of this story is what wimps reporters are. This guy Spivak got yelled at by Obama over the phone and he responded by trembling? He then spent several minutes frozen at his desk in a stunned state? Imagine if Obama had dressed him down in person! Poor Spivak might have spontaneously combusted.

Or perhaps Spivak isn’t such a wimp after all, and some of his recollections are a touch fanciful.

On the New York Times op-ed page, Nathan Thrall and the very coolly named Jesse James Wilkins provide a highly public history lesson to longtime community organizer Barack Obama:

IN his inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy expressed in two eloquent sentences, often invoked by Barack Obama, a policy that turned out to be one of his presidency’s — indeed one of the cold war’s — most consequential: “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.” Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Kennedy’s special assistant, called those sentences “the distinctive note” of the inaugural…

But Kennedy’s one presidential meeting with Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet premier, suggests that there are legitimate reasons to fear negotiating with one’s adversaries. Although Kennedy was keenly aware of some of the risks of such meetings — his Harvard thesis was titled “Appeasement at Munich” — he embarked on a summit meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna in June 1961, a move that would be recorded as one of the more self-destructive American actions of the cold war, and one that contributed to the most dangerous crisis of the nuclear age…

Kennedy’s aides convinced the press at the time that behind closed doors the president was performing well, but American diplomats in attendance, including the ambassador to the Soviet Union, later said they were shocked that Kennedy had taken so much abuse. Paul Nitze, the assistant secretary of defense, said the meeting was “just a disaster.” Khrushchev’s aide, after the first day, said the American president seemed “very inexperienced, even immature.” Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was “too intelligent and too weak.” The Soviet leader left Vienna elated — and with a very low opinion of the leader of the free world.

If the Obama campaign finds itself stung by this bit of Grey Lady perfidy, it should look on the bright side. Authors Thrall and the very coolly named Wilkins didn’t even bother pointing out Obama’s historically ignorant gaffe that began all this Kennedy talk, the one where he suggested Kennedy and Khrushchev sat down for a chat during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In other words, they went easy on him.

There’s still more good news for the Obama campaign to mine. If all this Hope/Change stuff doesn’t work out for Obama, he could consider changing his campaign slogan to “Too Intelligent and Too Weak.” Seems to fit rather well, no?

The key graph in the statement:

"After Senator Obama's own advisors and supporters backtracked from his stated desire to hold summit meetings with the leaders of the world's worst regimes, Senator Obama himself has begun to reinterpret his stand. He now claims that some 'fear' to 'negotiate' with the likes of Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who has called Israel a 'stinking corpse' or Ayatollah Khamenei, who called Israel a 'cancerous tumor.' I have news for Senator Obama: I have met some very bad people before in my life. It is not fear that drives my opposition to unconditional meetings with Ahmadinejad, Khamenei, Kim Jong Il, and Raul Castro; rather it is my clear understanding that such a course will fail to eliminate the threat posed by these rogue regimes. I don't fear to negotiate. Instead I have the knowledge and experience to understand the dangerous consequences of a naive approach to Presidential summits based entirely on emotion.

McCain has fine tuned the attack a bit by focusing on what it is Obama hopes to achieve by holding direct and unconditional talks with Ahmadinejad, among other tyrants. Perhaps John Bolton's latest column has something to do with this new tack. Obama insists that we cannot be afraid to talk, implying that cowardice plays some role in McCain's aversion to engagement with rogue states--a bizarre charge to make against a former POW. Meanwhile, Obama isn't quite showing the courage of his earlier convictions as he continues to waffle on the question and can't quite bring himself to give a straight answer.

At some point, Obama will be forced to explain what his goals are. As Bolton says, "Negotiation is not a policy. It is a technique." And surely Obama has goals, but one suspects they are so unrealistic--diplomatic recognition of Israel, responsible participation in Iraq, a halt to nuclear weapons development--that Obama will, in fact, look naive and reckless. Unless Larry Rohter is reporting is the story.

Gallup has this poll out today with some interesting news on both race and gender in the presidential contest. Not surprisingly, Gallup’s most recent poll shows Obama’s continued weakness among white voters, not only overall, but within certain key subgroups.

For example, the survey shows McCain leading among whites overall by 15 points against Obama, but only holding a 9-point edge over Clinton if she were the Democratic nominee.

Both Obama and Clinton’s deficits balloon among white males in a match-up against McCain. Gallup reports both Democrats trail the Arizona Senator within this group by a whopping 21 points (57%-36%).

But it’s among white women where the Obama and Clinton supporters diverge in a head-to-head contest with McCain. The Arizona Senator leads among white women by 16 points (51%-35%) against Obama. Yet against Senator Clinton, McCain merely ties at 46%-46%.

It’s ironic that a candidate such as Obama -- whose rhetoric and strategy relies so much on building unity -- generates such stark racial cleavages among Americans.

The other day I pointed out that one of the great solutions advanced by Democrats in Congress to help bring down gas prices was to outlaw OPEC. (On tap: legislation to outlaw rainy days and the common cold.)

I wasn't aware at the time however, exactly what the legislation sought to outlaw. The text of the bill is ironic:

It shall be illegal and a violation of this Act… to limit the production or distribution of oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum product…or to otherwise take any action in restraint of trade for oil, natural gas, or any petroleum product when such action, combination, or collective action has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on the market, supply, price... in the United States.

Leaving aside OPEC, what other institutions seem to have an overriding interest in limiting the production and distribution of petroleum products, with an easily foreseen effect on prices in the U.S.? Any guesses? As Congress tacitly acknowledges, the answer is to drill more.

Jaime notes the good news that the RNC has $40.1 million in the bank, while the DNC only has $4.4 million.

Here's the bad news: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had $44.3 million in cash on hand at the end of March; the National Republican Congressional Committee had $7.2 million. As for Senate campaign committees, the Democrats had $37.8 million to the Republicans $17.3 million. Meanwhile Obama's coffers are flush with $51.1 million, compared to McCain's paltry $12.2 million.

Add it all up and the Democrats have a nearly 2 to 1 money advantage over the Republicans.

The first rule about handicapping Congressional races is not to assume that just because Congress is unpopular, individual Members of Congress are endangered. If you mistakenly made that assumption, you might think that just because the Democratic Congress is held in historically low esteem by the voters, individual Members of Congress are threatened for re-election.

This year, the Democratic Congress sees its ratings in the toilet, and Republicans face tougher re-election fights:

When respondents were asked whether they favored their local representative (who was cited by name) in an election against a generic candidate from the other party, voters represented by a Democratic incumbent favored the Democrat, 2 to 1. But those surveyed in Republican districts were much more open to throwing out their incumbents: While 53 percent said they would re-elect their GOP incumbent, 43 percent said they would vote for the generic Democratic challenger.

No wonder more than 60 percent of the DC Republican leaders polled by National Journal now believe that they will lose somewhere between 1 and 20 seats in the House this year. And if the election were being held today, they probably would. There's no question that things need to change dramatically for the GOP between now and election day.

From Newsmax:

Iranians Would Welcome Airstrikes, Sources Say

The "sources" are said to be opposition figures. Of course, it is also an article of faith on the left that Iranians would welcome airstrikes, though there the consensus seems to be that it is the regime that would be doing the welcoming. It's a headline that could just as easily have appeared at the Huffington Post--and no doubt some of the authors there might legitimately claim to be in touch with regime officials. For these folks, logic dictates that an attack would create a rally round the flag effect and allow the regime to (further?) consolidate its control.

But if the opposition would welcome airstrikes, and the regime would welcome airstrikes...

If you've paid any attention at all to politics over the last year, you would think that the American people had clearly shifted to the left and rejected the basic underpinnings of conservative philosophy. That would be a mistake:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 62% of voters would prefer fewer government services with lower taxes. Nearly a third (29%) disagrees and would rather have a bigger government with higher taxes. Ten percent (10%) are not sure.

Those numbers have changed little over the past month.

Republican voters overwhelmingly prefer fewer government services—83% of the GOP faithful hold that view while just 13% prefer more government involvement. Democratic voters are evenly divided on this question: 46% prefer more government services, while 43% prefer less government services.

How skeptical are the American people of bigger government? So skeptical that even Democrats are evenly split on the question. The Republican 'brand' may be badly tarnished, and voters are clearly more prepared than any time in recent memory to consider expanding government. But Republicans retain a basic advantage: the clear majority of Americans are on their side when it comes to dramatically expanded government services. Which will make the Democrats' new 'New Deal' a tough sell even in what is shaping up to be a very good year.

Goldfarb notes below the New York Times’ knee-slapping correction regarding Larry Rohter’s column where he notoriously insisted that Barack Obama had not called for direct talks with Iran and its kook-in-chief. More knee-slapping still is the way the corrected version of Rohter’s column now reads on the Times’ website. I’ve italicized the new additions, just to make things clear:

But important nuances appear to have been lost in the partisan salvos, particularly on Mr. McCain’s side. An examination of Mr. Obama’s numerous public statements on the subjects indicates that he has consistently condemned Hamas as a “terrorist organization,” has not sought the group’s support and does not advocate immediate, direct or unconditional negotiations with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president. Still, Mr. Obama also said in a Democratic debate in July 2007 that he would be willing "to meet separately, without precondition" with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

In case you couldn’t guess, “does not” used to be “has not.”

Just for the record, here’s the transcript from the YouTube debate where Obama made the comment that shook up the presidential race but apparently escaped the Grey Lady’s notice:

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

OBAMA: I would.

Of course, the correction itself isn’t an entirely honest affair. As you’ve seen on this blog and as Obama himself told Jake Tapper yesterday, Obama both “has” and “does” advocate direct talks with Ahamdenijad without preconditions. To do otherwise would be to practice the politics of fear! I also feel wonderfully vindicated that the Times lived up to my prediction that it would ultimately parse the difference between “immediate” and within the Obama administration’s first year. Of course, the corrected version of the story only does this implicitly, stating unequivocally that Obama does not favor “immediate” talks but failing to mention that he favors (and has favored) talks within his first year in office. Innocent oversight, I’m sure.

We should nevertheless give credit to the Times’ editors for bravely admitting (at least sort of) that they missed things on Obama’s side. Besides, the mistake could have happened to anyone. After all, even though 2.6 million people watched the YouTube debate, I’m not sure it should officially count as a campaign entity if Larry Rohter and his editors missed it. In light of the understandable nature of the error, it’s especially noble that the Times bothered to semi-correct the record.

Still, Rohter’s report regarding the McCain camp remains shoddy even in its most current incarnation. One must wonder in light of this correction precisely what nuances were “lost” in the heat of the “partisan salvos” that came from McCain’s side. And given the new concluding sentence to the paragraph in question, one can’t help but be amazed that the sentence regarding the McCain camp’s “partisan salvos” remains in the story’s current iteration. The McCain campaign is due not only a correction but also an apology.

Keep hope alive - tomorrow is another day. And who knows if this story’s evolution is yet complete?

Does killing the enemy have an impact on the outcome of a battle? Over at The Wonk Room, a blog run by the Center for American Progress, I have been criticized for conducting "body counts" of Mahdi Army fighters. The author goes on to state that killing Mahdi fights only breeds more Mahdi fighters, so the effort is pointless.

I think we’ve seen this “dead bodies=success” mentality bleed out into pro-war blogs as well, where the numbers of insurgent dead are credulously relayed and uncritically reported as progress, irrespective of the collateral damage incurred in those deaths and of the galvanizing effects that this has on support for insurgency.

Well, it turns out I've been low balling the Mahdi Army deaths. I've estimated, based on a careful examination of the reports from the U.S. and Iraqi military, that 600 Mahdi Army fighters were killed in and around Sadr City since fighting first broke out on March 25. It turns out my estimate is below that of the U.S. military, which puts the number at 700, and way below that of the Mahdi Army, which puts the number at 1,000.

Col. John Hort, the commander of the Third Brigade Combat Team, Fourth Infantry Division, estimated that some 700 militia fighters had been killed by air and ground fire since fighting erupted in late March. “It is pretty safe to say that we have killed the equivalent of a U.S. battalion,” he said in a recent interview.

Some Mahdi Army leaders put the death toll slightly higher. When a truce was first announced, they threatened to refuse Mr. Sadr’s order to stand down. “What about the martyrs?” a Mahdi battalion leader recently told a reporter. “A thousand martyrs, what did they die for?”

So, if you prefer the word of the Mahdi Army over the U.S. military, you'll see my numbers weren't manufactured.

But the bigger point is the effect the prolonged offensive against the Mahdi Army in Sadr City had on the Sadrist movement. The leadership of Muqtada al Sadr saw that the Iraqi government had no plans to halt the attack and were determined to push into the Mahdi Army stronghold. They saw the Iraqi government had the full backing of the U.S. military. The Sadrists also saw their combat power being ground down, and as the Mahdi commander said, "what did they die for?" The Iraqi government was determined to assert its writ in Sadr City, and was willing to destroy the Mahdi Army in the process.

There should be little doubt the casualties taken in Sadr City by the Mahdi Army had an impact on the Sadrist's decision-making process. Sadr and his political leaders had two choices: fight, and as the New York Times's analysis stated, have their combat power depleted further while they lost Sadr City anyway, or cut a deal and hope to fight another day. This is often portrayed as a “victory” for the Mahdi Army, but the fact is that in Sadr City, as well as in Basra, the Iraqi government achieved its goal of moving its forces into these cities to provide security and push the militias into the background.

On May 10, New York Times reporter Larry Rohter offered this analysis of the back and forth over Obama pledge to meet with Ahmadinejad:

But important nuances appear to have been lost in the partisan salvos, particularly on Mr. McCain’s side. An examination of Mr. Obama’s numerous public statements on the subjects indicates that he has consistently condemned Hamas as a “terrorist organization,” has not sought the group’s support and does not advocate immediate, direct or unconditional negotiations with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president.

The "examination" apparently didn't extend to debate transcripts, and Rohter has since acknowledged his error in a correction posted just six days later:

An article on Saturday about Senator John McCain’s criticism of Senator Barack Obama’s Middle East policy incompletely described Mr. Obama’s position on negotiating with the leaders of countries, including Iran, with which the United States currently has little contact. While Mr. Obama and his aides have indeed described various conditions and limitations on such negotiations, Mr. Obama himself, in a Democratic debate in July 2007, also said he would be willing "to meet separately, without precondition" with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

"Incompletely described." What a lovely euphemism for shoddy, biased reporting. Of course, the correction is all the more interesting as Obama is currently making the case that there is no distance between himself and his aides on this issue. Meanwhile, ABC reports today on Obama's "evolving" position on talks with A'jad. And somewhere Joe Klein is still insisting that Obama never said he'd meet with Ahmadinejad--the Obama campaign says so itself!

HT: Ben Smith

Conservatism is allegedly dead, but the RNC is alive and well.

The national Republican Party had nearly 10 times more cash on hand than its Democratic counterpart at the end of April, a notable GOP advantage in what otherwise has been Democratic fundraising dominance this election.

The Republican National Committee, the party's main political arm, had $40.1 million in the bank, according to a report filed Tuesday with the Federal Election Commission. The Democratic National Committee had $4.4 million.

The RNC raised $15.7 million in April compared to $4.7 million by the DNC.

I wish I could be as choosy as Hillary Clinton about paying debts:

According to a campaign release put out Tuesday evening as election returns revealed her big win in Kentucky and loss in Oregon, Clinton raised "approximately $22 million" from other people in April. The release also touted that $10 million had poured in within 48 hours of another lopsided Clinton victory over Obama, that one in Pennsylvania, and said it was the second best fundraising month of her entire campaign.

But the number collected is actually closer to $21 million and the release also neglected to mention that she spent $28.9 million, nearly $8 million more than she took in. She used personal loans to make up part of the difference. She also delayed payments to consultants. Including the $9.5 million in unpaid bills from April, she owes consultants and other venders $19.5 million.

Not to mention the total $11.4 million she has loaned herself.

Perhaps I have a softer heart than Dean Barrett, but having caught only bits and pieces of Hillary’s Kentucky victory speech last night (during American Idol commercial breaks), I was kind of impressed. If it were me in debt to the tune of 31 million smackers--all because of a 99% losing cause--I’d be ducking my wife’s hurled crockery. Hillary, on the other hand, betrayed no sign of panic. There was a relaxed authority about her that I hadn’t seen until that moment. No shouting, no finger-pointing, no copping Obama’s one-liners. And I realized it was the same relaxed authority I’d seen in other presidential candidates when they knew it was all over.

Still, you can’t say the Hillary folks don’t have a sense of humor. On Monday evening, the un-dead candidate gave a speech at a Kentucky school called--wait for it--the Transylvania University. No sign of Terry McAuliffe hungrily scarfing down flies, however.

From TWS Online: Thwarting the Clintons, by Fred Barnes.

From NRO: To Meet or Not To Meet, by Andrew McCarthy.

From TNR: The Clinton Autopsy, by John Judis.

From the Times: Missing One Concession Speech, by Gerard Baker.

From NRO: Barack Gaffes, by Michelle Malkin.

McClatchy reports:

After eight years of stalemate and periodic tension, Israel and Syria announced Wednesday that they have launched “serious and continuous” indirect peace talks aimed at ending one of the region’s longest-running disputes.

In identical statements issued from Damascus and Jerusalem, the rival neighbors said that they are taking part in indirect negotiations with Turkish diplomats serving as mediators....

If successful, the talks could lead to a broader shift in regional dynamics by returning the Golan Heights to Syria, cutting off critical support for Hezbollah forces in Lebanon, and diminishing the influence of Iran in the region.

If the Israelis were satisfied that Syria would stop aiding Hezbollah, and stay out of Lebanon, then perhaps this kind of deal could go a long way towards assuring the security of Israel. I don't know how they can be at all confident of Syria holding up their end of the deal, but they can do the math on that themselves. On the other hand, the Golan is a magnificent piece of land. If I were an Israeli, I'd be hard pressed to give it away. I'd get rid of the West Bank in a heartbeat, as I think most Israelis would if they thought the result wouldn't mirror the situation in Gaza. But after spending just a day driving around the Golan, I felt an odd attachment to it. Then again I'm not an Israeli, so I don't really get a say in the matter.

No one has commented here yet on the New Yorker article declaring conservatism dead. My weak stomach makes mining liberal blogs unappealing, but I’m sure there are plenty of posts applauding this obit. But before the left gets too excited, a few words: even if conservatism is dead, it’s not at all clear liberalism is alive. Americans have not elected an openly liberal president since Lyndon Johnson, who took office under politically sympathetic circumstance and got reelected based on his support for the Vietnam War (not Great Society). There were also certain fears that conservative forebear Barry Goldwater would trigger a nuclear war.

At the very end of the article, it becomes apparent how premature this protracted obituary is when author George Packer concedes John McCain might still get elected president. He’s right because conservatism still has a pulse. A McCain presidency could usher in a new Republican “brand” that emphasizes strong government (as opposed to big or limited government) and American greatness. Voters long to hear that Fareed Zakaria is wrong (whether or not he is), and that their kids will not be the last to call America the greatest nation in the world. Conservatives still have the opportunity to show that patriotism can be an enlightened sentiment, espoused with elegance and wit.

In communicating this message of American exceptionalism, Republicans can continue to capitalize on popular resentment for liberal academia. Packer’s various assertions about the role of college education in creating a Democratic majority are utterly misguided. Although more people are going to college, the number of Ivy League educated people has remained about the same. More college education doesn’t necessarily translate into more liberal zombies to rep Obama’s po-mo campaign. Not everyone is going to college to study liberal arts, and even those who do are not necessarily entrusting the task to Harvard. Rather, an increasingly large subset are matriculating at religious private colleges that stress conservative values.

The following is an excerpt from Joe Lieberman's speech at the annual Commentary Fund dinner at New York’s University Club this past weekend. You can read the full text here, and his criticism of Obama below. Lieberman's op-ed in today's Journal here.

_________________________
"By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy—not Bin Laden, but Bush—these activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party farther to the left than it has been at any point in the last twenty years.

Instead of challenging their opinions, far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to them. And that, not surprisingly, includes my Senate colleague Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party’s left-wing on a single significant issue in this campaign, nor for that matter has he worked with Republicans in the Senate during his three and a half years there to forge the tough, bipartisan compromises that produce results for the American people.

In this, Barack Obama stands in stark contrast to John McCain, who has shown the political courage throughout his career to do what he thinks is right – regardless of its popularity in his party or outside it, to take on the status quo in our government when it is not working, and to reach across party lines to get things done for our country.

John also understands something else that too many Democrats seem to have become confused about lately—and that is the difference between America’s friends and America’s enemies.

Now, there are of course times when it makes sense to engage in tough diplomacy with hostile governments, times when it is in our interest as well as theirs, and there is some prospect of progress. But what Senator Obama has proposed is not such selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as President, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American rogue regimes on the planet.

Senator Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never met with Khomeini. And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot.

If a President ever embraced our worst enemies in this way, he would strengthen them and undermine our most steadfast allies. In some critical regions of the world, Senator Obama already seems to be doing that.

In Asia, for example, at the same time Senator Obama has offered to meet without preconditions with the dictator of North Korea, Kim Jong Il, he has turned his back on our democratic ally in South Korea, by announcing his opposition to the trade agreement that is rightly viewed by Seoul as pivotal to the future of our alliance.

In the Western Hemisphere, where Senator Obama has said he would be willing to meet without conditions with the anti-American dictators in Cuba and Venezuela, he is simultaneously giving a cold shoulder to the democratically-elected, pro-American government of Colombia.

In the Middle East, Senator Obama has famously said that he would meet without preconditions with the president of Iran—the terrorist leader of a terrorist regime, a man whose government is responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq, and who repeatedly promises to destroy Israel and bring “Death to America.”

At the same time Senator Obama has pledged to meet with the leader of this viciously anti-American totalitarian regime in Tehran, and so many Democrats have struggled to defend his pledge, he and they have simultaneously pledged to abandon the democratically-elected government in Baghdad.

In the course of a rambling speech yesterday at the Center for American Progress about why the United States should embrace the anti-American terrorists who run Iran, while abandoning the pro-American moderates who run Iraq, Joe “Malarkey!” Biden attempted to take a couple swings at John McCain’s vision for Iraq.

Senator McCain, you’ll recall, spoke last week about his vision for victory in Iraq, in which he predicted, among other things, that--provided we continue to follow the advice of General Petraeus and General Odierno--the Iraqi government will increasingly be capable of securing its own country, with only minimal help from the United States.

Senator Biden attempted to challenge this prediction, sneering: “John’s crystal ball also reveals a 'government of Iraq capable of imposing its authority in every province of Iraq.' Right now, it can't even impose its authority in Baghdad.“

Ha! What a wit, that Joe Biden! Alas for the senior Senator from Delaware, he might have wanted to pick up a newspaper before trotting over to CAP. As the lead story in the New York Times yesterday blared:

Iraqi troops pushed deep into Sadr City Tuesday as the Iraqi government sought to establish control over the densely populated Shia enclave in the Iraqi capital.

The long-awaited military operation, which took place without the involvement of American ground forces, was the first determined effort by the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to assert control over the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood, which has been a bastion of support for Moktada al-Sadr, the rebel cleric….
Numerous Iraqi tanks and armored personnel carriers were parked on street corners, relaxed-looking soldiers sleeping in their vehicles or looking out onto the street through steel hatches.

The Iraqi flag was flying from the army vehicles in many areas of Sadr City that had been under the control of the Shia militias.

Other soldiers manned checkpoints, some chatting with children. There were no visible signs of the Mahdi Army, although many walls bore posters of Mr. Sadr, and they seemed to have been put up in the last few days.

When it comes to foreign policy, could Democrats be any more divorced from the reality-based community?

In a moment of graciousness, Barack Obama made a rather charitable comment regarding Hillary Clinton last night:

“Senator Clinton has shattered myths and broken barriers and changed the America in which my daughters and yours will come of age.”

I realize that in this particular campaign, Obama has to summon the graciousness of two candidates since he can hardly count on any similar acts from his foreboding dance partner. Nevertheless, this is nonsense on stilts. Hillary Clinton only became the Democratic frontrunner because she married a guy who became president. Really, is that the message that we want to send to our daughters? There’s no telling how far you can go as long as you marry the right fella?

The Democratic party has long tried to make Hillary Clinton something she isn’t. What makes this ritual particularly absurd at this political moment is that the Democrats have a female politician who has achieved great things all by her lonesome. Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House based on merit and the respect she had earned from her colleagues.

Hillary Clinton perhaps could have built a similar career. Ted Kennedy, in spite of having the country’s most famous surname, made a name for himself by dint of his work in the senate. Hillary Clinton instead premised her political future on her husband’s political past. Nancy Pelosi actually broke glass ceilings. Hillary Clinton’s mercifully concluded career in presidential politics is instead yet another dispiriting reminder of how much having the right name matters even at the highest levels of power.

The Democrats are having a tough time figuring out how to attack John McCain. He’s not a doctrinaire Republican, he has bucked his party on numerous occasions and he has a limited affinity for George W. Bush and his policies. Since the Democrats would prefer to be running against the incumbent president, the stark differences between McCain and Bush have sowed some confusion. This confusion is leading to moments of remarkable foolishness.

A prominent local Barack Obama backer bashed John McCain's military record Monday, calling the Republican presidential candidate a "self-promoter."

In a nearly-half hour speech, Democratic congressional candidate Bill Gillespie praised Obama, his party's leading White House hopeful...

"Admirals' sons," Gillespie said, unopposed for the Democratic nomination in the 1st Congressional District held by Republican Rep. Jack Kingston, "were treated like royalty. They were privileged people. They were given a silver spoon. Their careers were prepared for them."

Gillespie, a former Army officer who served in Iraq, said McCain was the kind of admiral's son who became a "maverick."

McCain, Gillespie added, was "somebody who needed to stand out, someone that needed to draw attention to themselves and ... was usually out for themselves."

He said his "heart grieves" for McCain's suffering as a POW.

"After that," Gillespie said, "he was somewhat of a celebrity and it went to his head. ... I think he was a self-promoter for the last four years (in the Navy.)

Asked to cite specific examples, Gillespie responded, "I don't have one right now."

As Jim Geraghty points out, this Gillespie guy’s comments come hard on the heels of similarly ludicrous efforts by McCain’s senate colleagues Jay Rockefeller and Tom Harkin to disparage his military service. Still, Gillespie’s comments take the prize for sheer stupidity. Forget examples of McCain’s alleged self-promotion. I want to hear details of the silver spoon the privileged son of an Admiral was given at the Hanoi Hilton.

Finally, what has happened to the political party of “Reporting for Duty?” Remember the outrage they felt over George W. Bush’s failure to serve in Vietnam? Only four short years ago, these people revered military service. Apparently military service by a Republican, even while it may do something to remove the stain of the chicken-hawk, remains inherently ignoble.

I didn’t want to watch Hillary Clinton’s “victory” speech last night, but I had to. Since I was analyzing it on TV, I figured I would be derelict in my journalistic duties if I took a nap or switched the studio monitor over to the Celtics game (as I desperately wanted to) while the erstwhile First Lady droned on. A few observations:

1) Hillary has come to resemble a soldier of Imperial Japan stumbling through the jungles of Okinawa in 1961 while clutching a picture of the Emperor. Everyone knows it’s over except her. When she talks like this is still a competitive race, she beclowns herself. Although, to be honest, I find it impossible not to take a certain frisson of pleasure in seeing the Clintons so thoroughly sacrifice their dignity. Not that maintaining personal dignity was ever an obsession of theirs, but it’s still fun.

2) What has become of Terry McAuliffe? In the good old days when the Clintons were riding high, he would shake down billionaires and movie stars to fund the couple’s ambitions. And yet last night, we had Hillary talking about some 12 year-old Kentuckian who hawked his bicycle and video games so that he might bestow a few hundred dollars on the financially bereft Clinton campaign. If the Clintons had any honor, they would personally refund the kid’s money since the race is over and they have tens of million of dollars in the bank. Then again, if the Clintons are looking for a demographic gullible enough to believe that Hillary still has a chance, pre-teens are likely to be their core constituency.

3) On air, our pre-speech conversation centered on whether or not Hillary would extend an olive branch to Barack Obama. Everyone else thought yes. I thought no. The Clintons aren’t into extending olive branches to their political rivals. So I felt personally vindicated when Hillary declared that America needed a president who would be “ready, willing and able” to do the job.

Those are our talking points! We’re the ones always saying that Obama lacks the experience for the job. In a competitive primary season, it would make sense for Hillary to draw this contrast since her additional four years in the senate maker her oh-so-much-more qualified than Obama. But since the nomination fight is over and she has lost, it surprised some people that she would attack Barack Obama’s Achilles heel.

4) The only question left regarding Hillary is whether the party will forgive her for fighting so hard for the nomination, even after the matter was settled. Even by Clinton standards, it’s rather surprising that she introduced this whole “sexist” angle after Obama had become the presumptive nominee. Given the stridency and sensitivity of the feminist lobby, that issue actually could damage Obama in the general election. Then again, Democrats should have learned after the Clintons invented triangulation some 13 years ago that party loyalty was never an obsession for them. So maybe the former first couple will be able to outride this latest act of perfidy, too.

5) The Fall of the House of Clinton – finally! Just as we forecast in January!

This was Obama's rally in Oregon over the weekend, which saw 75,000 people gather on the waterfront, on a sunny summer day, to hear the great one speak. Or did they? The headline in the New York Times was "Obama Draws Huge Crowd in Oregon." So they must have been there to see Obama, right? Wrong.

Hugh points to this report from the local paper:

Obama was the biggest star at Sunday's gathering -- though a popular Portland band, The Decemberists, provided the warmup act. With blue skies and temperatures in the 80s, many in the crowd said Waterfront Park was simply the place to be.

I don't listen to that kind of noise pollution, but I know that on a gorgeous, unseasonably mild day in Portland, a free performance by a hugely successful local band is likely to draw a huge crowd, and it seems that's precisely what happened. Nobody denies that Obama is a phenomenon, drawing enormous crowds wherever he goes, but this was reported like all of Oregon showed up to see Obama. New information has come to light.

Hugh also notes that The Decemberists typically open their shows with what I'm sure is a stirring rendition of the Soviet national anthem. No word on whether they opened the Obama rally with such a performance, but I'm certain our trusted media would have reported it if they did.

Tapper gets an interview:

TAPPER: In recent days it has seemed that some of your staffers and supporters have walked back from your statement that you would be willing to meet with the leaders of rogue nations, countries hostile to the US, without preconditions. Your foreign policy adviser Susan Rice said you wouldn’t necessarily meet with Ahmadinijad, Senator Daschle said of course there would be conditions -- (Obama interrupts)

OBAMA: You know Jake, I have to say I completely disagree that people have been walking back from anything. They may be correcting the characterizations or distortions of John McCain or others of what I said. What I said was I would meet with our adversaries including Iran, including Venezuela, including Cuba, including North Korea, without preconditions but that does not mean without preparation….there’s a huge difference.

First of all, I'm not clear on what the difference is between preconditions and preparations. I'm just a knuckle-dragging warmonger, and perhaps I don't perfectly understand the distinction, so someone will have to spell it out for me. Preparations sounds like scheduling, catering, and protocol, i.e. there is a huge difference, because preparations are meaningless. Unless, of course, the preparations consist of making sure A'jad doesn't blurt out something about wiping Israel off the map in the middle of the summit--but that sounds suspiciously like a precondition to me.

Second, Susan Rice has clearly been walking back Obama's statements. Credit to Obama for standing firm, but he's making a liar out of Rice. It's unseemly to have somebody out there muddying the waters on such a crucial issue. He should put her on a tighter leash instead of accusing McCain of distortion. After all, there is nothing here to distort--Obama wants to meet with Ahmadinejad face to face and without preconditions, McCain does not. Let's have that debate. Both sides are taking a stand on principle, and the outcome could not be more important to this country's national security.

Speculation about disgruntled Clinton Democrats defecting to McCain has been one of the subtexts of this very long primary season. I don’t buy it. I think Obama will eventually unify the self-identified Democrats and score big margins among these partisans in November. Independents may be a different story, but defections among self-identified Democrats have been at 10% or less in every presidential election since 1992, according to data from the American National Election Study at the University of Michigan. I see no reason why that pattern won’t continue.

This Gallup poll released today supports that conclusion. It shows Obama beginning to improve among constituencies where he previously struggled--women, less well-educated voters, and whites. According to Gallup:

Having previously captured nearly the maximum level of support from black voters, Obama's latest gains have come from a broad spectrum of rank-and-file Democrats. At least for now, he has expanded his position as the preferred candidate of men, young adults, and highly educated Democrats, and has erased Clinton's advantages with most of her prior core constituency groups, including women, the less well-educated, and whites.

Expect to see more visible opposition from groups like this that talk about McCain’s "anti-women’s health" background. This will drive Democrat-leaning Clinton supporters into the Obama camp. Once Senator Clinton drops out, I expect the trends in the Gallup poll to continue, which will likely hurt McCain in the head-to-head match ups in the short run.

Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA) embarrasses himself:

Yesterday, while voting on the war supplemental spending bill in the House of Representatives, I couldn't help but notice a contingent of approximately 20 flag rank Army officers sitting in the House Gallery watching the debate and vote for a couple of hours. I was looking from below so I thought they were Army, but there could have been other branches present.

It's possible they were on leave time or vacation. If so, I obviously have no concern. However, if they were doing this on military time, I want an explanation of why they were there.

At a time when our nation is at war, our troops are over-extended, and the Administration is literally asking for emergency military spending, what good to the "war on terror" is having US Generals and other top ranked officers - who were likely accompanied by staff and escorted by their chauffeurs - spending hours sitting in the gallery of the House of Representatives?

Please provide for me the name, rank, branch, and duties of each of these officers, as well as the number of additional staff and drivers that were used to facilitate their attendance yesterday. I would like this information by Monday, May 19th.

Who were they? A class from the Army War College in Carlisle, Pa. Stark did not apologize for his moronic letter, but he did release a follow-up statement: "if these officers were hoping for a lesson in how Congress ought to work, then perhaps the Iraq supplemental wasn't the best debate for them to witness." Insulting military personnel out of ignorance is not how our Congress "ought to work," but it is precisely how Congress does work--and the distinguished gentleman from California seems to have provided marvelous instruction.

HT: QandO

Jim VandeHei and Josh Kraushaar report that "the GOP is heading into the 2008 election without a single minority candidate with a plausible chance of winning a campaign for the House, the Senate or governor." First, note the weasel words: "plausible chance of winning." That's meant to exclude candidates like Allen West. Why didn't VandeHei and Kraushaar simply write: "The five to ten GOP candidates who have a shot of winning Democratic seats are white"? Well, that's not provocative enough to make it up on Drudge, now is it?

Also, VandeHei and Kraushaar ask: "So who's to blame for this diversity deficit?" They cite Jack Kemp, who says it's due to a "pitiful" recruitment effort, and a former black GOP candidate, who says it's because the GOP is broke. Good points. But VandeHei and Kraushaar never mention the vile attacks by liberals upon GOP minority candidates. For example, Democrats darkened Bobby Jindal's skin in a 2003 election, and even after his victory, he still endures accusations of "being a 'potato': brown on the outside, white on the inside," as the Washington Post reported.

And who can forget the case of 2006 Maryland Senate candidate, Lt. Gov. Michael Steele? The Washington Times reported: "attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an 'Uncle Tom' and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log."

So Howard Dean's got a pretty good racket. First, slam the GOP as a "white Christian party." Then ruthlessly attack GOP minority candidates for betraying "their people." When the GOP fails to recruit a decent number of minority candidates, sit back, relax, and wait for the mainstream media to publicize your talking points.

Roggio had an interesting piece the other day on "over the horizon" strikes into Pakistan. There are some technical aspects of such strikes that raise a lot of questions. First of all, "over-the-horizon" implies non-line of sight and a lock-on after launch weapon, probably with some sort of inertial (and GPS-aided) midcourse guidance. The range of such a weapon would be at least fifty and possibly as many as 250 kilometers, depending upon how deep into Pakistan the target is located, and how far back from the border the launch platform wants to stand.

Obviously, there also needs to be some sort of target acquisition and tracking system that can provide target coordinates in real time. Only two methods appear viable; either a high-altitude, long-endurance air platform, such as a Predator or Global Hawk UAV or a manned TR-1 (U-2); or a special operations team (probably 4-6 men) providing surveillance on the ground. Since the terrorists come together at a specific place and time, they need to be tracked and observed, in order that the weapon be launched at the right time to do the maximum damage; at the same time, there has to be a way of diverting the weapon if the terrorists should suddenly pick up and leave while it is in flight (or a bus full of school kids suddenly pulls up in front of the target).

In addition, the weapon has to be fairly fast, to minimize time of flight, and the chances of the enemy getting away. Finally, inertial navigation, even when assisted by GPS and terrain scene matching, is not sufficiently accurate to destroy a point target with minimal collateral damage. This would tend to rule out a Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missile, while the distance involved precludes the use of a short-range missile such as an AGM-130, or a guided bomb such as a JDAM.

Taking all of those factors into account, I believe that these attacks are being conducted using both a deep penetration reconnaissance team on the ground and a long-endurance UAV such as a Predator. The Predator provides wide area surveillance, and keeps track of the terrorist group's activities as they assemble in a building or compound. The ground team then closes with the target area to verify the image intelligence provided by the UAV. They can also provide additional high-resolution video that can be transmitted to the operational commander using the UAV as a communications relay. The standoff weapon, probably an AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) or an AGM-84E Standoff Land Attack Missile-Extended Range (SLAM-ER), would be launched from a manned fighter such as an F-15E Strike Eagle flying at high altitude over Afghanistan.

Secretary of Defense Gates testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee today. He touched on the failure of Congress to provide funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan:

“After June 15, we will run out of funds in this account to pay soldiers, including those in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Gates said.

The second fund affected is operations and maintenance. “Around July 5, O&M funds across the services will run out, starting with the Army,” the secretary said. “This may result in civilian furloughs, limits on training, and curbing family support activities.”

Senator Reid has conceded that no Iraq funding bill is likely before the Memorial Day recess, but he is attempting to push through a short-term measure to obviate the need for furloughs.

This Congress will adjourn in a few months, with little to show for their two years in power. One issue they have steered far away from is the growth of entitlement spending. The Congressional Budget Office has recently responded to a request from Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) for specifics on how much taxes will need to be raised if entitlement spending isn't curbed:

With no economic feedbacks taken into account and under an assumption that raising marginal tax rates was the only mechanism used to balance the budget, tax rates would have to more than double. The tax rate for the lowest tax bracket would have to be increased from 10 percent to 25 percent; the tax rate on incomes in the current 25 percent bracket would have to be increased to 63 percent; and the tax rate of the highest bracket would have to be raised from 35 percent to 88 percent. The top corporate income tax rate would also increase from 35 percent to 88 percent.

Such tax rates would significantly reduce economic activity and would create serious problems with tax avoidance and tax evasion.

We won't be able to tax our way out of this one.

HT: Mankiw

The New York Times reports:

According to the account of Mr. Aubin de La Messuzière, however, his Hamas interlocutors told him nothing that they had not repeatedly stated in public. “They assured me that they were ready to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, which amounts to an indirect recognition of Israel,” he said.

Hamas, however, has always said that such a Palestinian state could be established only if Israel pulled out of all land occupied in 1967, a step Israel is not prepared to take. Hamas would not recognize the state of Israel in perpetuity, allowing only the idea of living side by side with it for 10 to 15 years, in a hudna, or truce.

In a conflict that has lasted so long, it is rare that we are graced with a new euphemism such as "indirect recognition." As the Times, to its credit, points out, what Hamas is actually offering is what non-diplomats refer to as a "truce," which Hamas would use to arm itself and prepare its fighters for an all out war with Israel under more favorable conditions. So why this new phrase then?

Surely no one would deny that Hamas recognizes Israel's existence--they aren't shooting rockets into the ether. What they do not recognize is Israel's right to exist. Thus the beauty of indirect recognition, which allows us to pretend that Hamas isn't plotting to exterminate the Jews on the other side of the fence while simultaneously demonstrating the awesome power of diplomacy.

Peace in our time!

HT: BuzzFeed

Sunday night, in advance of the theatrical release of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the Sci Fi Channel aired its special, Mystery of the Crystal Skulls, hosted by NBC’s Lester Holt. Not knowing much about this occult subject (unlike, say, Big Foot or the Amityville Horror), I thought I would check it out.

But I was tuning out after the first 15 minutes. Not only did the interview subjects seem way out there (you can always tell by the hairstyles), but one particular segment had me flipping over to a rerun of After Hours with Daniel Boulud: Some of the show’s “experts” claim the Mayan calendar ends on December 21, 2012. As Sci Fi’s website explains, “if we wish to comprehend their deepest mysteries, we must hurry. According to the prophecy, only by reuniting all or nearly all of the 13 crystal skulls can humankind unlock secrets that will allow us to avoid the apocalypse predicted by the ancient Mayan calendar.... The countdown for the salvation of the human race has begun.”

So why an apocalypse? Is a meteor on its way to Earth? Not quite. While our doomsday is being explained in a voiceover, what we see onscreen is a montage of man-made pollution including smokestacks and, ever so briefly, the image of American troops (I assume, by their desert fatigues, in Iraq). Yes, if we refuse to drive hybrids and don’t use CFLs, and if we remain in Iraq, the world will come to an end.

In retrospect, Senator McCain should have included in his speech last week finding those crystal skulls before his term expires. He’d win in a landslide.

Joe Klein writes:

On Friday, I promised to check into whether Obama had ever said that he would negotiate--specifically, by name -- with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Indeed, according to the crack Time Magazine research department and the Obama campaign, he never has.

I can't say I'm surprised that Time magazine and the Obama campaign managed to miss this clip which completely undermines their shared narrative. But now we have a new narrative: Obama intends to meet with Ali Khamenei, the man with the real power in Tehran, because even though Obama pledged to meet with Ahmadinejad, and said it was a "disgrace" that Bush had not, he never had any intention of meeting with Ahmadinejad, and McCain is a liar for saying different.

The Dems and their boosters in the press are tying themselves in knots trying to explain Obama's position. So what the heck is his policy? We have a right to know. Does Obama still intend to meet with Ahmadinjead? Does he intend to meet with Khamenei? And if he doesn't intend to meet with A'Jad, why the sudden shift?

There is a lot of lying and obfuscation going on here, but none of it is emanating from the McCain camp.

The issue of fighting as a coalition in Afghanistan has been problematic since NATO first assumed a greater role in securing the country. Goldfarb and I have discussed these issues here and here, and I’ve mentioned “caveats”--the restrictions NATO countries place on their troops to limit when, where, and how the units can fight. Today, Germany's Spiegel tells the story of how a German caveat that prevents their special forces from killing Taliban commanders is destabilizing the peaceful Northern provinces, where German troops maintain security.

German troops had a Taliban commander, known as the “Baghlan bomber” for his role in the largest suicide bombing in Afghanistan to date, in their sights but refused to kill him. “The German government considers its allies' approach as ‘not being in conformity with international law,’" Speigel reported. “A fugitive like the Baghlan bomber is not an aggressor and should not be shot unless necessary,” a German Defense Ministry official told the magazine.

The Taliban are aware of the German’s lack of vigor, and in response they are growing bolder in the North:

Maulawi Bashir Haqqani, 40, the Taliban's military commander in Kunduz, told SPIEGEL: "The Germans are the most important enemy in the north. If they leave their base, they will find booby traps and bombs waiting for them on every road. They will have to carry many more bodies in coffins on their shoulders if they don't come to the realistic conclusion that their forces must withdraw from our country."

From the New York Post: Success in Iraq: A Media Blackout, by Ralph Peters.

From the Wall Street Journal: Obama and the Jews, by Bret Stephens.

From the New Nixon: McCain’s Vulnerability: Bush’s Pessimism, by John H. Taylor.

From Pajamas Media: Obama’s Iraq Minefield, by Michael Weiss.

From Human Events: Most Liberal Fella, by Jennifer Rubin.

Obama sure has been saying some goofy things lately.

First, Obama shocked many of us when he said, "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times...and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK." We can't? Isn't this America?

Power Line's Scott Hinderaker explains, "In his imagined future Obama assigns the American people the role of the poorhouse orphan beseeching Mr. Bumble: 'Please, sir, I want some more.' In his imagined future Obama aligns himself with Mr. Bumble." And Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau has another take on Obama's philosophy: "In Barack Obama's America, other countries are going to help dictate what we drive, how we cool our homes, and how much we eat!?" At The Corner, Yuval Levin asks, "at what temperature would other countries like me to keep my home, then, and how much should I eat?"

Then, Barack got mad when the Tennessee GOP released this video highlighting Michelle's statement that she was proud of America "for the first time in [her] adult life." On Good Morning America, he told the GOP, "Lay off my wife."

Bloggers feel little sympathy for Mrs. Obama. At Contentions, Linda Chavez explains that "the Obamas can’t have it both ways. Michelle Obama doesn’t just show up at fundraisers or make the occasional, canned surrogate speech. She is...involved in shaping campaign strategy, and her speeches have sometimes generated as much attention as his. Why shouldn’t she be fair game for speculation, dissection, and criticism?"

At the Jawa Report, BlutoComments notes, "Obama also trotted out the 'snippet' defense to explain away his wife's belief, spoken aloud at at least two different campaign stops, that, '...for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country [because her hubby is running for president].'" And at the Corner, Charlotte Hays adds, "And, come to think of it, this isn't the first time Obama has said that anti-American 'snippets' by a close associate were taken out of context. We get to decide if we think this is relevant, not the candidate."

Hot Air's Ed Morrissey says simply, "If Obama doesn’t want his wife to receive criticism, then he shouldn’t use her as a surrogate on the campaign trail." Or, as Michelle Malkin put it, "If the Missus cannot take the heat, keep her away from the microphone."

W.C. Fields had a joke about the closing of bars on Election Day: "That’s taking democracy too far!" Sen. Joe Lieberman rightfully feels the same way about al Qaeda and its newest recruiting tool, now available as close as your child’s bedroom:

Searches on YouTube return dozens of videos branded with an icon or logo identifying the videos as the work of one of these Islamist terrorist organizations. A great majority of these videos document horrific attacks on American soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan. Others provide weapons training, speeches by al-Qaeda leadership, and general material intended to radicalize potential recruits. […]

[YouTube] guidelines state that “[g]raphic or gratuitous violence is not allowed. If your video shows someone getting hurt, attacked, or humiliated, don’t post it.” Many of the videos produced by one of the production arms of al-Qaeda show attacks on U.S. forces in which American soldiers are injured and, in some cases, killed. Nevertheless, those videos remain available for viewing on YouTube. At the same time, the guidelines do not prohibit the posting of content that can be readily identified as produced by al-Qaeda or another [Foreign Terrorist Cell].

YouTube had no problem censoring problematic material when it was launched in China. Nor does it hesitate to remove copyrighted music, movie or TV clips when requested to do so. But al Qaeda’s footage of American soldiers getting killed falls under the heading of, what--job recruitment tools? Home movies?

I guess the logo in the corner of the screen--which means, "I’m Osama bin Laden and I approved this message"--cleans up any potential copyright problem.

Who's out of touch?

Fried shrimp on a bed of jasmine rice and a side of mango salad, all served on a styrofoam plate. Bottled water to wash it all down.

These trendy catering treats are unlikely to appear on the menu at parties sponsored by the Denver 2008 Host Committee during the Democratic National Convention this summer.

Fried foods are forbidden at the committee's 22 or so events, as is liquid served in individual plastic containers. Plates must be reusable, like china, recyclable or compostable. The food should be local, organic or both.

Over the weekend Obama talked about how "we can't...eat as much as we want," and now the DNC is showing us what our new diet is going to look like. I don't like it. I want my food processed, deep fried, and served in a non-biodegradable bucket.

Men's Fitness now has him ranked as one of the 25 "fittest guys" in America. Along with, you know, Tiger Woods, Wladimir Klitschko, Brady Quinn, and assorted other professional athletes and dudes with 5 percent body fat.

Is there anything he can't do?

David Freddoso takes a look at the tight primary race between Rep. Don Young and Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell for Alaska's lone House seat:

Famous for championing such pork projects as the "Bridge to Nowhere," Young last year berated a fellow House Republican on the floor for attempting to remove one of his earmarks from a bill, calling it "My money! My money!" He made headlines most recently on April 17, when the Senate voted to refer him to the Justice Department for investigation into a highly irregular and possibly extra-constitutional legislative action. Young altered the language of a $10-million earmark in the 2005 Transportation Bill after it had passed both the House and Senate and before it was signed into law. Young has since argued that he did nothing wrong in making this post-passage change, which benefited one of his major campaign donors....

Parnell enjoys the wholehearted support of the popular Governor Palin, who will be on hand this week when he officially opens his campaign office. An independent poll from earlier this month shows him in serious contention--he takes 42 percent to Young's 45 percent (a third candidate in the race, state Rep. Gabrielle LeDoux (R.), registered at just 2 percent) among Republicans. Parnell expects to do even better among the unaffiliated voters who will also vote in the August primary.

If Republicans don't fire Don Young, then the voters will in November--if the Feds don't indict him first.

Yesterday I posted the news that Geraldine Ferraro may not vote for Barack Obama because of his “terribly sexist” ways. I mocked Ferraro’s shrill claim of sexism, but I now realize that perceiving sexist activity is not a strength of mine.

Fortunately, a presumed Hillary supporter and definite Obama detractor emailed me with a list of all the hideously sexist things that the longtime community organizer has done on the campaign trail. I think you’ll agree this bill of particulars is quite horrifying:

Obama is VERY sexist. The (New York Times) article (on aggrieved Hillary supporters of the fairer sex who won’t vote for Obama) did a poor job of explaining it and the incidents haven't been widely reported by the Obama loving media.

My list of evidence:

1) Obama saying Hillary is "likable enough" during the NH debate and looking down his nose at her constantly.

2) Obama tells female factory worker in Allentown- “You look like you might be a dancer… You’re gorgeous.”

3) "Sen. Barack Obama approached first overflow in the parking lot outside of the Scranton town hall, and immediately went to Denise Mercuri, a pharmacist from Dunmore who was wearing a Hillary Clinton button. She held an Obama button in her hand, and he asked what he needed to do to get her to wear his instead of his rival’s. “What do I need to do? Do you want me on my knees?” he asked. He then conceded, keeping with his flirty trend of the day (see earlier report), “I’ll give you a kiss."

4) Jake Tapper's list of Obama's sexist references to Clinton such as "You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out." and Language such as "when she's feeling down" "periodically" she "launches attacks."

5) Called a female report "sweetie" while ducking her question.

This is just my unofficial list. There's surely more if you look for it.

On second thought, this list is rather weak tea. I, too, look down my nose constantly at Hillary, but I assure you, it has nothing to do with sexism. I happen to look down my nose much more at her husband. My wife also looks down her nose at Hillary, and I’m pretty sure she by definition can’t be a sexist (although she could be a self-loathing Gyno-American, I guess).

As for Obama’s alleged flirtations, these strike me as either benign or boorish depending on the circumstances and your point of view. The only way they could be seen as sexist is if we’re going to label all flirting a manifestation of sexism, and I don’t think any of us want to go there. Think how dull office life would become!

The most damning charge against Obama is “Sweetie-gate,” mentioned in item number 5. It is my understanding that feminists don’t like being called “Sweetie.” (“Kitten” and “Pussycat” should also be avoided.) In fact, the vast majority of women don’t care for such terms of endearment.

Last night, 24 year-old Red Sox lefty Jon Lester pitched a no-hitter at Fenway Park. Lester is a remarkable story - 20 months ago, he was diagnosed with cancer. Seven months ago, he won the clinching Game 4 of the World Series. And last night, Jon Lester pitched the game of his life, giving Red Sox fans and perhaps himself a tantalizing glimpse at his potential.

I take some delight in the irony that before Lester began chasing his no-hitter, last night’s game may have been the least attractive date on this year’s Red Sox’ home schedule. It was a Monday night. The Sox were playing the lowly Royals. It was in mid-May when the weather usually stinks, and last night the weather held true to form.

If you’re a Red Sox season ticket holder, you probably earmarked last night’s tickets for your brother-in-law back in February. If you’re in one of those groups where ten people share a season ticket package, chances are last night’s game was the last one chosen at you annual “draft.”

And that’s what makes sports so compelling. You just never know when something amazing is going to happen.

Obama advisor Susan Rice serves up the nuance to Wolf Blitzer:

BLITZER: "How does Senator Obama defend that decision to meet without preconditions with a leader like Ahmadinejad?"

RICE: "Well, first of all, he said he'd meet with the appropriate Iranian leaders. He hasn't named who that leader will be. It may, in fact be that by the middle of next of year, Ahmadinejad is long gone."

BLITZER: "Let’s be precise because when they criticize Barack Obama, not only John McCain but others, for suggesting that he would meet without preconditions with Ahmadinejad, who only last week on Israel's 60th anniversary called Israel a ‘stinking corpse.’ The question that they ask is what is Barack Obama going to talk with him about?"

RICE: "Well, first of all as I said, it would be the appropriate Iranian leadership at the appropriate time – not necessarily Ahmadinejad."

Translation: Ahmadinejad may not be the leader of Iran when Obama is president, in which case Obama isn't going to travel all the way to Tehran just to make a social call on a Holocaust denier. But, if there is some more reasonable tyrant with whom Obama can meet, then the "tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions" is on for sure.

Essentially, it depends on what your definition of the word "leader" is, because if you read his original pledge carefully, nowhere did Obama promise to meet with the current leader of Iran. Rather, as Rice now explains for us, Obama hasn't yet "named who that leader will be."

And for the record, Ahmadinejad's current term runs through August 2009. He is expected to seek "reelection," unless Obama appoints someone more acceptable in his stead.

It was a busy two days on the campaign trail. Yesterday, Barack Obama minimized the threat Iran poses, spontaneously burbling, “Iran may spend 1/100th of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance.” The right wing blogosphere, including your humble servants here at the Weekly Standard blog, made a fuss of the comment this morning.

Soon, the McCain camp was giving speeches and sending out emails. McCain’s comments were relatively hard hitting:

Before I begin my prepared remarks, I want to respond briefly to a comment Senator Obama made yesterday about the threat posed to the United States by the Government of Iran. Senator Obama claimed that the threat Iran poses to our security is “tiny” compared to the threat once posed by the former Soviet Union. Obviously, Iran isn’t a superpower and doesn’t possess the military power the Soviet Union had. But that does not mean that the threat posed by Iran is insignificant. On the contrary, right now Iran provides some of the deadliest explosive devices used in Iraq to kill our soldiers…

Senator Obama has declared, and repeatedly reaffirmed his intention to meet the President of Iran without any preconditions, likening it to meetings between former American Presidents and the leaders of the Soviet Union. Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama’s inexperience and reckless judgment. Those are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess.

So, what have we learned from this episode on the trail? A few lessons stand out:

1) Barack Obama has the potential to embarrass himself every time he speaks without a script. He’s beginning to remind me of the Peter O’Toole character (very closely based on an old and drunken Errol Flynn) in “My Favorite Year.” Aghast upon learning that he would have to get his lines right on “the first take” because he would be on live TV, he declared, “I’m not an actor – I’m a movie star!!” At least the O’Toole character knew his limitations. Obama keeps vamping and veering off script to disastrous effect. This compulsion could someday seriously damage his candidacy - if it hasn’t already.

2) I hate to disagree with the Allahpundit since he’s so often right, but this incident perfectly illustrates Obama’s weaknesses as an extemporaneous speaker and why the McCain campaign should take as many debates as it can. Forget that without a script, Obama is far from the remarkable speaker he is with a teleprompter. Put aside all the “ums,” the awkward pauses and the halting delivery.

Obama’s real problem is that he often doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and thus has the chance of revealing his lack of knowledge and inexperience every time he opens his mouth. Someone as young as Obama seeking national office has to come across as a proverbial “Wiz Kid.” Obama often reveals just the opposite, and butchers important facts in the process. I’m still getting over his speech from Friday where he said Kennedy sat down with Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Most casual students of history would know this was a mistake.

What happened last night in Oregon was grist for political junkies. It will knock ‘em dead on Memeorandum for a couple of days and then go away. But it will be a different story if Obama makes a similar blunder on the enormous stage of a general election presidential debate.

3) It’s wonderful news that the McCain campaign hit back and did so in a timely manner. If the McCain campaign is to have a winning narrative, its focus will be Obama’s inexperience and naïveté. Obama’s a tremendously appealing guy and an appealing candidate. But he’s also not ready for primetime in a presidential sense. McCain will have to hammer this aspect of the Obama persona if he wants to win. That may not be the kind of campaign McCain wants to run, but it’s the kind of campaign he has to run.

And, needless to say, Barack Obama’s inexperience and lack of preparation for the presidency should be an issue in this campaign. In fact, it should be the issue.

See Jonathan Chait rant.

So much Lieberman in the news today. First, Joe gave a speech at the annual Commentary Fund dinner at New York’s University Club. I haven't seen a copy of the text yet, but it is getting rave reviews. Jennifer Rubin has a write up of the speech here and there's another from Larry Kudlow at the Corner here. I'll post the transcript when it becomes available.

Also, John Podhoretz has a great post on the left's hack attack against Lieberman :

One of the oddest tropes on the Democratic liberal-left is the reference to Sen. Joseph Lieberman as a “hack,” which has been a fairly steady refrain on The New Republic’s blog for two years now. No politician on earth would have wanted to take the journey Lieberman has taken — from his party’s vice-presidential nominee in 2000 to defeat in a primary battle in his home state six years later. To hold views so discordant with your long-time comrades and colleagues is the sort of thing that can cause even the strongest of men to lose faith in his own views....

And yet there he remained, and remains, unbending. This is the opposite of hackery. It is the antithesis of hackery. It is the quality everyone says he yearns for in Washington — principled consistency, a willingness to work across the aisle in a bipartisan fashion, and a refusal to kowtow to the loudest voices merely because they are so loud.

And finally, playing off today's New York Sun editorial on the logic of Lieberman as McCain's VP, Hot Air runs an unscientific poll to determine the preference of their readers in a hypothetical Huckabee vs. Lieberman head to head for the bottom of the ticket. The result: Lieberman in a landslide.