EVENING UPDATE, JANUARY 22, 2008

•   There will be endless analyses, and probably some books written, about Fred Thompson's journey to the White House, inconveniently interrupted today by a withdrawal statement.  It isn't unusual for a candidate to enjoy his greatest popularity before he announces his candidacy.  This was true of Thompson, whose numbers started to dive as soon as he got into the race.  But the change from star to incredible shrinking man was odd in Thompson's case because nothing bad came out about him. Skeletons did not come pouring out of a closet.  No one produced a stained dress, or even a wrinkled one.  There were no deposited checks from strange contributors.

The conventional wisdom is that Thompson didn't perform, that he came off as bored and hesitant, that he didn't want it enough.  The conventional wisdom in this case is correct, but I'd add something else.  Thompson, like Reagan, was an actor.  But Reagan understood that it was a lifetime job.  He once said that he failed to understand how someone who wasn't an actor could be president.  A president, or a presidential candidate, must have a clearly defined persona, and it has to be projected, the way an actor projects.  One of my writing mentors, the great Carl Foreman, who wrote "High Noon," once stressed to me, "You've got to show it."  Yes, you've got to show it.  And Thompson, a professional actor, ignored that truth.  He never showed it.  He never became anyone.  He never played a character, not even Fred Thompson.  We still don't know who he is.  The fault is his, and it's sad, for he has great gifts, if only he'd have let us see them.

•   Last night's Democratic debate was, if the ratings are accurate, the most watched debate in cable news history.  It doesn't surprise me, and we must not assume that there's a sudden surge of interest in the wit and wisdom of Hillary Clinton.  The Democratic contest has descended into a personal, bitter, racially tinged brawl, and that gets you an audience.  Also, there's a good chance this brawl will go on, become even more bitter, and divide the Democratic Party as it hasn't been divided in decades.

We don't only elect a president, we elect a culture.  Consider a new poll of California Democrats.  Where does Obama's strength lie?  It lies among blacks, the educated, the affluent. Clinton's strength?  Among women, Latinos, and lower-income voters.  Roughly stated, it's a split between the historic, traditional Democratic coalition (Clinton) and the sixties coalition (Obama).  I'd point out that the traditional coalition won elections.  The sixties coalition won Brownie points in the Nation magazine. 

Clinton has become the Democrats' Nixon, depending on "the great silent majority."  There is a cultural divide in the Democratic Party, and cultural divides, which often have racial aspects, are the hardest to heal. 

Who will win?  The odds favor Clinton, but if the vote is close after the major primaries, we could see a surprise, and it harks back to something Charles DeGaulle once said.  He remarked that the graveyards of the world are filled with indispensable men.  He was saying, of course, that there are no indispensable men, or women.  The raw fact is that the Democrats don't need the Clintons to survive.  The party survived after losing Roosevelt, and later Kennedy.  But they do need the black vote to survive.  Without it, there's no Democratic Party capable of fighting a national election  Black stay-at-homes can doom the party. 

There are party leaders, and superdelegates to the Democratic convention, who know the numbers.  There are also Obama supporters, some powerful, who will not hesitate to engage in some blunt intimidation.  The ugliness of that intimidation has already begun to show, with suggestions that one must not criticize Obama, that he walks on political water.  If the contest is close, intimidation may win out.  There is also an element within the Democratic Party that wants to nominate Obama to feel good about themselves, to cleanse themselves of the nation's past.  They lose elections, but they love martyrdom.

I still think Clinton will pull it out.  But there are scars, and they may be permanent.

•   In this space I've described Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post as a world-class pessimist who's usually right.  In her current piece, which I urge you to read, she examines our campaign, and has some disturbing observations, especially about Senator Obama.  You'll be surprised to learn that he's delved into the politics of Kenya, the land of his father.  You'll be disturbed to learn who he's supporting there.  Obama has not been vetted.  Our press seems as intimidated as some Democratic politicians.  There are journalistic obligations here that must be met before the country makes what could be a tragic choice.

•   And there's a real world beyond our campaign.  Iran happily announces a new delivery of nuclear fuel from Russia.  As all liberal intellectuals know, Iran needs this fuel to build nuclear power plants to charge iPods and run hair dryers. 

On a related note, the great John Bolton, who may turn out to be a true prophet in his time, warns that American policy toward Iran has essentially collapsed.  Remember his quote:

The United States used to have a policy on Iran and recently there was a new push to create a new policy but sadly, due to the direction American policy is going, it seems that for the next few years the United States will be a bystander to the process.

Nice, huh?  The secretary of state has some explaining to do.  And we have a right to wonder who's running American foreign policy, Bush 41 or Bush 43.  The answer may determine our fate.

Posted on January 22, 2008