EVENING UPDATE,  FEBRUARY 6,  2008

•   Oh, goody.  The Democrats are really having at it.  Now Obama asserts that the GOP has some bad stuff on Hillary.  Hey, Barack, she was first lady for eight years.  She's been in the Senate for seven.  Of course they've got bad stuff, but they've probably used it by now.  Obama, Mr. National Unity, has suddenly discovered how to play hard ball:

CHICAGO (AP) - Sen. Barack Obama predicted Wednesday that Republicans will have a dump truck full of dirt to unload on Hillary Rodham Clinton if the former first lady wins the Democratic presidential nomination, and said he offers the party its best hope of winning the White House this fall.

At a news conference on the morning after Super Tuesday, Obama offered some pointed advice to members of Congress and other party leaders who will attend the national convention this summer as delegates not chosen in primaries or caucuses.

He said that if he winds up winning more delegates in voting than the former first lady, they "would have to think long and hard about how they approach the nomination when the people they claim to represent have said, 'Obama's our guy,'" he said.

I love unifying themes, don't you?

•   Emphasizing that same point, Roger Simon at The Politico writes of a possible nightmare convention for the party:

Because of party reforms in the past and a close race for delegates this year, a nightmare scenario is building for the Democratic National Convention in August: It is easy to imagine that Barack Obama could get to Denver with more pledged delegates than Hillary Clinton, but that she could get the nomination based on the votes of the superdelegates.

“And that,” a senior Obama aide told me Tuesday night, “would create havoc.”

Havoc?  Did I hear the man say havoc?  More like war.  "White woman grabs nomination from black man who had more votes."  You want to see a party come apart?  (Yeah, yeah!)  You want to see five people voting in Harlem on election day? 

Well, after the writers strike, it'll be good for the ratings.

•   As they say, why can't they all lose?  Joan Vennochi, of the veddy uscale liberal Boston Globe, writes of Hillary's vindication in Massachusetts:

Hillary Clinton didn't just beat Barack Obama in Massachusetts. 

She beat Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Bay State's liberal icon; Senator John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic Party nominee; and Governor Deval Patrick, the Bay State's purveyor of hope and optimism.

Politics doesn't get any more personal than the Clinton-Obama showdown in Massachusetts.

Vennochi then gives us a bit of history:

Back in 1994, Kennedy was suddenly and shockingly vulnerable to a challenge from a rich, smart Republican named Mitt Romney. On the defense in his first real political fight in decades, Kennedy wrapped himself "in President Clinton's mantle," the Globe reported in June 1994. "I am honored to stand with him, day after day, week after week, month after month, in our fight for jobs, economic justice, and progress on the great issues like health reform," Kennedy told delegates to that year's Democratic state convention.

Both Clintons rushed to Kennedy's aid.

Ah, what a story of loyalty.  If Hillary gets to be president, I can just see Ted Kennedy's seating assignment at the inauguration:  behind the snow plow, at the left,  in the snow.

•  Let's not forget there's other news, reminding us of what this election is about.  The future of U.S. troop strength in Iraq will be a major election-year issue.  Some are responsible about it, some are not.  It was debated in Capitol Hill testimony yesterday.  There's no doubt our forces are strained:

"The well is deep, but it is not infinite," Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "We must get Army deployments down to 12 months as soon as possible. People are tired."

Honest testimony.  But, of course, the usual suspects pounced, trying as hard as they could to work up nostalgia for their Vietnam-era surrender:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Mullen's testimony "confirms our warning that the war in Iraq has seriously undermined our nation's military strength and readiness, and therefore our national security." 

Question:  What has she ever done to improve our nation's military strength, readiness and security?  Don't wait for an answer.

Will the Democrats force a loss in Iraq, as they did in Vietnam? 

•   And the boys in the Afghan mountains aren't taking the season off, we're told.  Michael McConnell, director of national intelligence, paints a very grim picture of what's planned for us, as we quibble among ourselves:

Senior al Qaeda leaders have diverted operatives from Iraq across the globe and are increasing preparations to strike the United States, senior intelligence officials told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence yesterday. They said the terrorists had plans to attack the White House as recently as 2006.

"Al Qaeda is improving the last key aspect of its ability to attack the U.S. — the identification, training and positioning of operatives for an attack in the homeland," said Michael McConnell, director of national intelligence, which oversees all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.

By the way, how much of that have you heard from the mainstream media?  That is an absolutely stark report, and it just went right by.  Yeah, as Obama says, it's change we can believe in - the change from a city that's there to a city that's not.

And what is Mr. Obama's answer to our problems?  As reported here, he's proposed an international conference at which Muslim leaders from around the world can tell us their grievances.  Is that what they call thinking outside the box?

Some of us are ridiculed for suggesting that we're in a period similar to that of the late 1930s.  But we're in a period similar to that of the late 1930s.  No amount of ridicule can change the facts.

•   And here's something equally stunning from the same Mike McConnell.  Remember the infamous National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, which suggested to the world that Iran may have given up its nuclear-weapons program?  Remember how it undercut President Bush and years of American attempts to rein in the Iranian nuclear program?  Remember the embarrassment it caused us as a nation?

Well, Mr. McConnell is apparently having some second thoughts.  Or, maybe he's just thinking for the first time:

WASHINGTON — The director of national intelligence is backing away from his agency's assessment late last year that Iran had halted its nuclear program, saying he wishes he had written the unclassified version of the document in a different manner.

At a hearing yesterday of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the intelligence director, Michael McConnell, said, "If I had 'til now to think about it, I probably would change a few things." He later added, "I would change the way we describe the Iranian nuclear program. I would have included that there are the component parts, that the portion of it, maybe the least significant, had halted."

Of course, you've seen this, too, in the media, haven't you?  I mean, it's been everywhere, hasn't it?  Time ran a big cover story on the original report, sticking it to Bush.  What chance do you think they'll do a cover story, or any story, on McConnell's admission?

•   Finally, an update on something we've been following - the critical remarks issued by Britain's Prince Andrew about the American role in Iraq.  He issued them just before starting on a trip to the United States.  Well, apparently mum isn't pleased:

The Duke of York has angered the Queen and senior politicians with his extraordinary attack on the White House on the eve of his trade mission to the United States.

Downing Street and the Foreign Office were also dismayed by the timing of his comments so close to the Super Tuesday primaries.

The duke's criticism, in a newspaper interview, of President Bush's post-war strategy for Iraq demolished the protocol that members of the Royal Family refrain from public comment on sensitive international and political issues.

Do you think they'll behead him?  If not, what should be the proper punishment?  I think this is very serious.  Please think about it and e-mail the queen your suggestions.  You can do it at Her Majesty's website here.

Or, I can call her for you.

Posted on February 6, 2008.