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 a