EVENING UPDATE,  FEBRUARY 17,  2008

•   On the Obama watch.  Jim Hoagland has a great piece in The Washington Post on the way we conduct our political campaigns.  Some of this is disturbing, and plays to whether the press is doing its job.  Note:

Funds raised on the Internet flow into the other part of the air war that could determine this election: the organizing and broadcasting of images containing subliminal or unstated messages for a national television audience. But neither the mechanics of Internet fundraising nor the selling of the candidates, 2008, have received the media scrutiny they deserve.

This began to register with me when I tuned in to Obama's soaring, magnificent victory speech in South Carolina on Jan. 26. His mastery was impressive. And so was that of his image managers, I gradually concluded.

I marveled at the sea of white faces nodding approvingly or cheering wildly behind Obama. Then I realized that only a sprinkling of the black voters and volunteers who helped power the candidate's victory in my home state had made it onto the platform seats behind Obama, in range of the national eye.

Was it possible these voters had not come to celebrate their victory? Hardly. Reporters in the hall saw Obama campaign workers usher photogenic white families toward the platform as they entered. The scene they composed was an effective, calculated rebuttal of the Clintons' effort to portray Obama as a black candidate whose victory depended on race -- a way of killing "this possible racial narrative before it could be born," as Gal Beckerman wrote in a perceptive dispatch on the Columbia Journalism Review's Campaign Desk blog ( http://www.cjr.org).

Such manipulation has become so commonplace that few other journalists bothered to mention the Carolina campaign tableau in their coverage, even though Beckerman estimated that 85 percent of the crowd was African American.

Hoagland observes, of course, that other candidates manipulate images as well, but Obama's team has reached new highs, or lows.

•    Continuing on the same theme, some journalists just don't get it.  The Seattle Post-Intelligencer assures us, absolutely assures us, that all those faintings at Obama rallies are entirely legitimate.  No manipulation.  No pre-planning.  No deviousness.  Take that, you right-wing conspiracy nuts and your Zionist girlfriends!  The proof:

P-I photographer Josh Trujillo was at the rally and captured a moment when the senator, part way through his speech, tossed a water bottle at a woman who was fainting near the platform (see the photo gallery). Trujillo also photographed Sen. Hillary Clinton's Seattle visit the previous day, where he saw two women faint and leave on stretchers. At long, crowded events like this year's political rallies, he said, it's bound to happen.

"There are always people that faint. Guaranteed," Trujillo said. "When somebody has to stand at one spot, at a view up front of their candidate, and they wait hours upon hours with no water, no food, it's expected and understandable."

Uh, yeah.  But y'see, Josh, the problem is that the faintings at the Obama rally aren't being presented to us as "expected and understandable."  They're being portrayed by the breathless media as a response to the godlike candidate.  Women faint!  There is weeping!  There is redemption!  That sort of thing.  And that's what's got to stop.

•   Some of the most interesting coverage of our campaign is coming from abroad.  Sarah Baxter, the astute reporter for the Times of London, examines the emerging Republican strategy for dealing with Obama, should he be the nominee.  She also highlights how the Democrats will take on McCain.  The quote:

LEADING Republicans believe they can trounce Barack Obama in the presidential election by tarring him as a shady Chicago socialist. They are increasingly confident that his campaign could collapse by the time their attack machine has finished with him.

Grover Norquist, an influential conservative tax reform lobbyist, said: “Barack Obama has been able to create his own image and introduce himself to voters, but the swing voters in a general election are not paying attention yet. He is open to being defined as a leftwing, corrupt Chicago politician.”

And...

Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House and Republican guru, recently described Obama as the “most leftwing candidate to run since George McGovern” – a reference to the anti-Vietnam-war Democrat who lost 49 states out of 50 to Richard Nixon in the 1972 election. Norquist believes Obama’s questionable Chicago connections will stir things further.

But Baxter also cautions that going after Obama won't be easy.

Christopher Ruddy, chief executive of the conservative journal NewsMax and an arch tormentor of the Clintons over the Whitewater property scandal in the 1990s, believes Obama is “an old-style Chicago politician” who will nonetheless be difficult for Republicans to undermine.

“People are already gearing up to take on Obama, but there is a lot of apathy among the Republican ideological base. You don’t see a level of energy there,” Ruddy said. “If they go too far in their attacks, it will backfire.”

Strategists, man your Macbooks.

•   There is other stuff going on.  The assassination of master terrorist Imad Mughniyeh last week led to this piece, also in The Times of London, speculating that the Israeli Mossad was behind it.  I can't guarantee the accuracy of the report, but it sure is fascinating.  We're reminded of the man's screen credits:

Western terrorism experts say he was the dynamo behind some of Hezbollah’s most lethal operations. These included the bombing of the American embassy in Beirut that killed 63 people and the attacks on the US marine and French paratrooper barracks that left more than 200 dead. It was Mughniyeh’s decision to kidnap Terry Waite, the Church of England envoy, as he tried to broker the release of other captives.

Another notorious act attributed to him was the hijacking of a TWA flight when an American passenger, a US navy diver, was shot and his body thrown onto the runway.

The report is also sobering:

In Lebanon, a close friend of Mughniyeh was certain that he would be avenged by Hezbollah in an attack that, ironically, he had prepared himself before his death. “Most likely the retaliation when it comes will be one that had been planned and masterminded by Imad himself,” said Anis Al-Nackash, a Lebanese expert on Hezbollah.

He said Mughniyeh had prepared a variety of “spectacular” attacks to be executed by Hezbollah if one of its top leaders was assassinated. These were now being dusted off and updated.

But, you know, who are we to question how other cultures react to grief?  Is ours the only way?  We must stop being so judgmental, and save our judgments for BUSH.

•   Pakistan (remember those guys) votes tomorrow in a crucial election.  Much of our effort in Afghanistan depends on the stability of its neighbor, Pakistan. The advance word should not fill us with joy:

The election is broadly seen as a referendum on his (Musharraf's) eight years of rule _ including his alliance with the United States that many Pakistanis oppose. An overwhelming victory by the opposition would leave Musharraf politically vulnerable, even at risk of impeachment.

Public opinion surveys have suggested that if the election is fair, the Pakistan People's Party of assassinated former prime minister Benazir Bhutto will finish first, followed by another opposition party led by ex-premier Nawaz Sharif.

The pro-Musharraf party _ the Pakistani Muslim League-Q _ is trailing a distant third, according to the surveys.

Now here's place where Obama could do some good.  How do you say "Yes we can!" in the native tongue?

And Obama may have this headache thrown right into his lap if he's elected.  Fun time at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  No fainting allowed. 

•   Finally, timing is everything.  Leona Helmsley, known as the queen of mean, had one of the worst reputations of any celebrity in the United States.  The wife of real-estate magnate Harry Helmsley, she was known as a veritable monster, as well as the person who said that only "the little people pay taxes."  But it seems Leona had a soft side, which didn't come out until after her death.  She was last year's charitable-giving champ, but we didn't know it until she was gone.  Not good timing.  Not something Harry would do.  The facts: 

If you believe in stereotypes, last week was not a good one. Slate magazine produced its annual list of the largest US charitable contributors, and guess who gave the most?

Bill Gates? Warren Buffet? George Soros? Not even close.

Step forward, metaphorically speaking, the late Leona Helmsley, aka the Queen of Mean – a woman who last year went to her final rest in a steam-cleaned mausoleum with her reputation for aggravated rich-bitchiness as rigidly intact as her double-Botoxed, triple-lifted features.

She left four billion bucks to charity.

Leona, we hardly knew ye.  But, of course, we really didn't want to.

And I'll be back tomorrow.  How do you apply for a Helmsley grant?

Posted on February 17, 2008.