SNIPPETS, our daily collection of short items and comments, is here.

--------------------------------------------- 

Our next subscription drive will be in October.  However, readers are invited to subscribe at any time.  Subscriptions are voluntary, but are critical to keeping us going.  Subscribe in the right-hand column.

--------------------------------------------

Answers to last week's "Current Question" are here.  The new "Current Question" is here, in the right-hand column.

--------------------------------------------

THURSDAY,  SEPTEMBER 11,  2008

AIRBRUSHED OUT?

Posted at 8:30 p.m. ET

There's an intriguing bit of speculation making the rounds in e-mails and political gossip, centering on this question:  Will Joe Biden make it through the entire campaign, or will he drop out and be replaced by Hillary Clinton in order to save Obama's campaign?

There is a precedent, but not an encouraging one:  In 1972, George McGovern named Senator Thomas Eagleton of Missouri as his running mate.  It later developed that Eagleton had undergone electroshock therapy for some mental condition.  He had to drop out of the race, replaced by R. Sargent Shriver, a member of the Kennedy family.  (He was married to Eunice, Jack Kennedy's sister.)  Shriver had been the first head of the Peace Corps.

McGovern/Shriver went on to lose in a landslide to the incumbent, Richard M. Nixon.

Could the replacement act be played out again?  Well, consider possible scenarios.  Biden could decide the issue for himself, call Obama and say, "Barack, I'm not doing you any good.  I'll walk the plank.  You need Hillary or you'll lose."

Or, Biden could be pressured into it.

Or, Biden could become conveniently ill.  "The pain, the pain." 

Each party has a quick-action mechanism for replacing a candidate.

So, how would it play?  Well, first, Hillary would have to agree, and she might not.  She might see it in her interest to let Obama go down the drain.  And Obama would have to agree, and he might not.  He hasn't shown himself to be a particularly big man.

But let's say, as this is sheer fun, that Hillary agrees to come in and "save" the world from Sarah Palin.  And Obama, to save himself, agrees.  Would the public accept it?  Would it actually save Obama?

I think the answer to both questions is "no."  First, unless Biden should suddenly pass on, and they'd have to prove it, it would be seen as beyond cynical.  The McCain people would have a field day picturing Obama as a man who blew his first major decision as Democratic nominee.  Obama would become just another scheming politician, which is an accurate description in any event.

Second, let's remember that Hillary has more barnacles than the Queen Mary.  She may have a base among the Democratic faithful, but she's not universally loved or admired.  Her presence, combined with the skepticism it would arouse, could drag the ticket down even further.

You can be sure that, if Obama starts sinking and someone suggests replacing Biden, extensive polling would be done first. 

I don't think it will happen.

But it would make terrific theater, almost as good as "24."

September 11, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 7:24 P.M. ET:   I've just had a chance to review the first released transcript from Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin, available here.  Gibson asks tough questions, and Palin comes off reasonably well.  Not brilliantly, but reasonably well.  She clearly has been briefed, as is appropriate and customary, but she doesn't stumble.  By contrast, Gibson is somewhat surprising.  Both in the transcript and in the brief video snippet that's been released, he comes off as a bit pompous and condescending - eyeglasses down over his nose - which doesn't do him much good.  He has a kind of "I'm smarter than you" pose.  This is unusual for Gibson.  Maybe he felt he had to act this way to satisfy the liberal and feminist crowds in journalism, but a more conversational tone would have served him better.  Judge for yourself.

OBNOXIOUS

Posted at 4:57 p.m. ET

The Associated Press, in another example of contemptible bias, is running a story on Sarah Palin's first major interview.  Note the tone:

FORT WAINWRIGHT, Alaska (AP) -- Sarah Palin is taking cautious steps out of the bubble she's been in since becoming John McCain's running mate. But not many steps yet.

They are portraying her as a child. 

The Alaska governor was sitting down Thursday for her first extended interview after days of preparation by the McCain campaign...

All candidates have preparation.  It's standard procedure.

A figure of intense national interest, the 44-year-old Palin has been limited to stages and stump speeches, with little spontaneous interaction with voters -- a star on camera who has been sheltered from questioning to the point of appearing cosseted. Her interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson is the only one scheduled for her to date.

The story conveniently neglects to say that she'll spend two days with Gibson, with no questions off limits.  Has Obama done that? 

The governor's son is being deployed to Iraq today.  There is even sneering about that.

Pentagon officials prohibit politicians from campaigning on military bases and met Wednesday to decide how the governor's appearance should be handled, given her position on McCain's ticket. They decided she could speak as Alaska's governor but her remarks could not be political or related to the campaign.

The event was opened to news coverage. The McCain campaign said earlier it would be closed but had no authority to make the call.

The tone is appalling.  The McCain campaign "had no authority to make the call," as if they'd sinned.  They probably thought the event would be off-limits to the press because of Pentagon rules, and were wrong.  No issue there.  As far as Pentagon officials meeting "to decide how the governor's appearance should be handled," come on!  Officeholders make speeches at military bases all the time, even during campaigns.  They know the rules.  There is nothing unusual here. 

And get this one:

Palin talks often in her speeches about her son's deployment, using it as an opportunity to promote McCain as a strong commander in chief. Joe Biden, Democrat Barack Obama's running mate, also has a son going to Iraq but rarely brings that up. McCain's son Jimmy, a Marine, returned earlier this year from the war.

In fact, young Biden's deployment was brought up in a speech at the Dem convention.

In military parlance, Track Palin is a ''dismount.'' He operates armored vehicles called Strykers, eight-wheeled trucks that weigh 19 tons.

Really?  Trucks?  The Stryker is an armored combat vehicle, not a truck.  This is the Stryker.  Does it look like a pickup to you?

Apparently we have another reporter here who doesn't do "the research thing."

Finally...

Sarah Palin arrived in Alaska on Wednesday to a warm homecoming from a crowd of more than 2,000. It was her first stop without McCain.

She's expected to rejoin him next week and spend much of the fall campaign at his side, even as Biden campaigns independently of Obama. Palin has proved a powerful draw at McCain's rallies, and keeping them together limits media access to her.

Despicable.  They're being kept together because it works.  It's electric.  It has nothing to do with media access. 

Ronald Reagan also would not genuflect before reporters.  He spoke over their heads, directly to the American people.  The people seemed to like it.

This is awful reporting.  And the media honchos wonder why their industry is held in such low esteem.

September 11, 2008.      Permalink          

NOTE AT 3:54 P.M. ET:  Reader John Catherwood recalls that Howard Dean was, for many months, the Dem hot property in 2004 - endorsed by a multitude of top names for the presidency, considered by the media fully qualified, almost a shoo-in until his campaign got derailed in the Iowa primary.  He was governor of Vermont.  Sarah Palin's qualifications are constantly belittled because Alaska has a small population.  But, it turns out, Alaska has more people than Vermont.  Why the double standard?

COMMENT:  Howard Dean went to medical school, which in some rarefied circles makes him qualified for anything.  Maybe that's the reason.  If only Sarah learned to say, "Stick out your tongue and say 'ah'."

TRACKERS

Posted at 1:32 p.m. ET

Both our standard trackers are out for the day.  And we're going to add a third, the Hotline tracker. 

As noted below, Rasmussen has the race tied.  Obama was up one yesterday.

Gallup has McCain up four.  McCain was up five yesterday.

Hotline has McCain up two.  It was a tie yesterday.

These are not statistically important changes.  However, all three confirm that the McCain convention bounce remains.  We'll know more about that next week.

Writing about its results, Gallup says:

These results, based on Sept. 8-10 polling, show McCain continuing to ride his post-convention bounce. He has held a statistically significant lead over Obama in each of the last four three-day rolling averages.

In addition, since Sept. 5 -- the first night after the Republican National Convention -- he has outpolled Obama in each of the last six individual night's polling. That consistent pattern in the night-to-night data suggests that McCain has a stable lead for now.

Progress has been made.  But this will be a tough fight.

September 11, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 12:40 P.M. ET:  A new Democracy Corps poll of 1,000 likely voters, just published, has McCain up two over Obama.  We're awaiting the Gallup tracker.

BULLETIN AT 9:57 A.M. ET:  From the Palm Beach Post:  Since naming Sarah Palin as his running mate, Republican John McCain has gained among Hillary Clinton’s former supporters in Florida and has taken a 50-to-43 percent lead over Democrat Barack Obama in the state, a new Quinnipiac University poll says.

COMMENT:  Critical state.  If this lead holds, it's a major plus for McCain.  However, the same pollster has Obama leading in Ohio and Pennsylvania.  Pennsylvania is no surprise, but the Quinnipiac poll in Ohio seems to differ from other recent polls, and should be considered tentative.

UPDATE AT 9:35 A.M. ET:  The first tracker of the day is out.  Rasmussen reports a dead heat, at 48-48.  He had Obama up one yesterday.  This represents no statistical change of importance, but does demonstrate that, so far at least, McCain's convention bounce shows no sign of fading. 

----------------------------------------------------------

THE DATE

Posted at 7:41 a.m. ET

Today is September 11th, the seventh anniversary of the terrorist outrages in New York and Washington, and the terrorist destruction of United flight 93 in Pennsylvania .  In the seven years since, we have not had a single attack on our soil.  This, of course, will be attributed by the usual suspects to luck or some other myth, just as Ronald Reagan's successful ending of the Cold War, in victory, was attributed to 1) more luck, 2) coincidence, 3) Soviet economic problems, or 4) the enlightened wonderfulness of Mikhail Gorbachev.  It was Gorbachev who got the Nobel Peace Prize, not Reagan, who actually organized the peace.  Reagan, however, began his successful policy by building up American defense, something the Nobel Prize committee apparently frowned upon.

When we think of September 11th, 2008, we should think of 1948.  December 7th, 1948, was exactly seven years after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor - the equivalent of today's distance, in time, from the terrorist attacks.  By 1948 World War II was over, the Pearl Harbor attackers and Nazi Germany had been defeated, and Americans were building the post-war world.  Pearl Harbor, while memorialized every year, had become a memory.

It is different today.  The war is not over, the enemy has not been defeated, and many of this country's elite institutions, which so fervently assisted during World War II, are at best indifferent to and at worst actually hostile to our efforts. 

Our media today is run by a generation of editors and news managers who believe that their greatest triumph was the destruction of our effort in Vietnam.  Our universities are populated by the intellectual leftovers of that era.  ROTC programs are still banned by our most "prestigious" schools.  Imagine what the national reaction would have been if Harvard or Yale had banned officer-training programs in World War II?

Many myths have grown since the 9-11 attacks.  One of the most pernicious is that America was loved on that day, but allowed that love to turn to hate because of the policies of the Bush administration.  In fact, the attacks brought only a momentary respite in the traditional anti-Americanism that permeates Europe, and no respite in the hatred of America that permeates the Arab world.  Yes, there were some gestures of sympathy with our country, some signing of condolence books, some playing of our national anthems in the courtyards of foreign governments.

But within two days of the attacks, the BBC was on the air with a vile, anti-American program.  The famous French editorial entitled, "We Are All Americans Now," was actually anti-American in its tone.  Many nations made it clear very quickly that their sympathy was pro forma, that they actually wanted us to do very little to combat terror or interfere with their financial dealings in the Middle East.

Let us not forget that the vile Jimmy Carter, a severe critic of the Bush administration, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, a year after the attacks.  A member of the selection committee openly stated that the award was "a kick in the shins" to President Bush.  This was months before Iraq, so that could not have been the excuse.

Now we're told by the Democratic candidate that we must "rebuild" our "broken" alliances.  What are we rebuilding from?  Many of our "alliances" have proven hollow, especially our alliances within NATO.  Yes, NATO has "helped" in Afghanistan, but its help is anemic, and some NATO nations won't even allow their troops to engage in combat.  NATO is the United States, maybe Britain.  The rest is window dressing.

There is danger that we will lose our will, and lose our sense of our own independence and nationhood.  Today we should affirm our right to defend ourselves and our civilization, without the permission of the leftist intellectual elites who often dominate our discussion. 

In two months America will have a choice between two visions of America - one the traditional, confident vision of the indispensable nation that has done more to protect human freedom than any other nation in history, the other the clouded vision of a "defective" nation that must be restrained, and become a supplicant to that myth called "world opinion."  On that choice may rest the future of this country, and much more.

September 11, 2008.       Permalink          

WEDNESDAY,  SEPTEMBER 10,  2008

YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP, AT 9:09 P.M. ET:  From ABC News: "ABC News' Matthew Jaffe Reports: Barack Obama's vice-presidential nominee Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., Wednesday said that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, might have been a better pick for the position than him."

The McCain team instantly responded:  "Barack Obama’s most important decision of this election and Biden - the candidate he selects - suggests himself that he wasn’t the right man for the job and that Hillary Clinton would have been a better choice. Biden certainly has a credible viewpoint on this."

Utterly juicy.

SPEED

Posted at 8:49 p.m. ET

It is remarkable to see how the McCain campaign has come alive.  Look at the sheer speed with which it responds to every incident.  A year ago John McCain was written off.  But he's now surrounded himself with the best operatives, and with Sarah Palin.

As Adlai Stevenson said after losing in 1952, and as we hope Barack Obama will say in two months, "A funny thing happened to me on the way to the White House..."

The "new" McCain campaign is described by Blake Dvorak at RCP:

As the Politico's Jonathan Martin reported, South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler said that John McCain had chosen a running mate "whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn't had an abortion."

Almost immediately, the McCain campaign's "Palin Truth Squad" held a conference call with reporters to highlight and respond to Fowler's comments.

On the call was Sen. Lindsey Graham, who said he was "shocked and surprised [Fowler would] say such a thing."

"Our Democratic colleagues and opponents are in a meltdown mode over Gov. Palin," said Graham. "If this were done the other way, it would be a firestorm of national proportions."

And...

Also on the call was Rep. Marsha Blackburn who said that Fowler's comments are part of "a pattern that has come into play" from the Obama campaign and surrogates to "diminished [Palin's] accomplishments and demean the work she has done."

American women "are offended that the [Democratic] party ... is showing such a disrespect for all women," said Blackburn.

Obviously, the attack is being well coordinated:

The SC Republican Party sends over Chairman Katon Dawson's statement on Fowler's comments:

"Carol Fowler's statement is offensive, outrageous and - most importantly - dead wrong. Governor Sarah Palin is a strong pro-life, pro-family reform-minded conservative with meaningful experience whose message has resonated in South Carolina. Fowler's statement is born out of desperation from a campaign that is sputtering across the South.

'Carol Fowler should immediately apologize. Her remarks are unbecoming of a party leader and demonstrate poor judgment. Carol Fowler and Barack Obama are eager to smear - not ready to lead."

On the ball, on the ball, on the ball.

And now an update.  Carol Fowler has caved, and issued this statement:

"I personally admire and respect the difficult choices that women make everyday, and I apologize to anyone who finds my comment offensive. I clumsily was making a point about people in South Carolina who may vote based on a single issue. Whether it's the environment, the economy, the war or a woman's right to choose, there are people who will cast their vote based on a single issue. That was the only point I was attempting to make."

Not much of an answer.  Simply calls attention to the original offense.  Advantage:  McCain.

September 10, 2008.      Permalink          

 

THE COLLEGE

Posted at 7:28 p.m. ET

It's the hardest college to get into.  Grades don't count.  SATs aren't taken.  Endorsements may help.  Its alma mater is "I Won, I Won, I Won."  Great beat.

We sometimes forget, when reviewing the daily trackers, that the popular vote has no legal impact.  As you know, we vote by states in America.  A presidential election is actually 50 separate state elections.  Each state is assigned a specific number of "electors," who cast their votes in the electoral college.  That's the vote that counts, as Al Gore found it, with great pain, in 2000. 

Rasmussen maintains a running tally of likely electoral college results.  His report today shows gains for Senator McCain:

Three new state polls out today move John McCain a bit closer to Barack Obama in the Electoral College. New Mexico moves from “Leans Democratic” to “Toss-Up,” North Dakota moves from “Leans Republican” to “Likely Republican” and Alaska moves from “Likely Republican” to “Safely Republican.” With these changes, the Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator show Obama leading in states with 193 Electoral College votes and McCain ahead in states with 189 Electoral College votes. When “leaners” are included, it’s Obama 259, McCain 247.

We're making progress.  Still behind, but moving.  According to Rasmussen, and we stress that he's only one source, Senator McCain is behind by only 12 electoral votes.

But we have two months to go, many lifetimes in politics.  I hope McCain runs like a man 100 electoral votes behind.  And I hope Sarah Palin can continue to resist the smears, which keep coming.  The more smears, the more popular she gets.

The most exciting race since Ronald Reagan won in 1980.

September 10, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 5:30 P.M. ET:  From the Politico:  South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler sharply attacked Sarah Palin today, saying John McCain had chosen a running mate "whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”

COMMENT:  Sharp.  Real sharp.  I hate to use clichés, but one clearly applies:  With friends like this, Obama doesn't need enemies.

UPDATE AT 5:13 P.M. ET:  A new Hotline tracker just published shows a tie.  It showed McCain up one yesterday, and a tie two days ago.  Very steady.

BULLETIN AT 2:01 P.M. ET:  A Fox News poll just out shows McCain with a three point lead over Barack Obama, 45-42.

The internals are stunning.  Last month Obama had a one-point lead among independents.  Now McCain enjoys a 15-point lead in the same group.

Last month McCain had a one-point lead among men.  That is now 11 points. 

TRACKERS

Posted at 1:10 p.m. ET

Both trackers for the day are now out.  As noted below, Rasmussen has Obama up one, a change from yesterday's tie.

But Gallup has McCain up by five, no change from the last two days.

I suspect that we won't know until the middle of next week whether McCain's new strength will last.  While there are no new formal events planned for the campaign until the September 26th presidential debate, other possibly significant happenings are on the way, and both involve Sarah Palin:  She will see her son off to Iraq, and she will appear with Charlie Gibson on Good Morning America. 

Obama's lame attempt this morning to explain away his "lipstick on a pig" remark was not effective politics.   First, he appeared weak and defensive.  Second, when you explain away a remark you call attention to it, and almost require the TV and radio outlets to replay it.  Just watching the crowd behind Obama laugh knowingly deflates his explanation.  Not a good day for him.

September 10, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 12:14 P.M. ET:  Just returned from doing the Mike Scully Show.  Three of the call-ins were from Urgent Agenda readers, which I appreciated. 

The first tracker for the day is out.  Rasmussen has Obama up one.  Yesterday he had the race tied, and the day before had McCain up one.  Rasmussen's polls tend to swing very narrowly, so it's hard to say whether this signals the end of the McCain bounce, or whether we're seeing normal variations.

We await the Gallup tracker this afternoon.

UPDATE AT 8:29 A.M. ET:  Great new "lipstick" ad from McCain/Palin.  See it here.

THE STRATEGIST 

Posted at 6:49 a.m. ET

Profound in its conception, overwhelming in its scope, based on vast experience and cunning, Joe Biden leaves us breathless as he outlines - reported by Ben Smith at the Politico - his strategy for debating Sarah Palin.  He spoke at fundraising events:

"I'm not into the small bore stuff. I don't care whether or not she built a bridge to nowhere. I don't care if she sold a plane," Biden said at the first event. "What I care about is what in God's name is she going to do - along with John McCain - about the thousands of people who don't have health care," those struggling with other economic problems, and the foreign policy challenges facing the country, Biden said.

"What I'm going to try to do, what I'm going to try to do very hard is to focus on the issues," Biden said.

"Folks look, I know what she's going to try to do. She's going to try to make it as personal as she can. She's going to take a lot of straight lefts and jabs at me, she's going to try to get me to respond, she's going to try to get me to respond in a personal way. That's not my style. I'm not going to do it."

He added that Gov. Granholm of Michigan has agreed to spend four days with him to help prepare for the Oct. 8 VP debate.

Uh, yeah.

Senator Biden, on this issue of health care, what have you been doing about it in your six terms in the Senate?

Uh, Senator Biden, how do you defend your foreign-policy record, considering the fact that you opposed virtually everything the United States has done successfully since you entered the Senate, including opposing Ronald Reagan's ending of the Cold War and the recent surge in Iraq?

Oh, and Senator Biden, with all that experience, why do you need Governor Granholm to help you - for four days?  Are you afraid of debating a female candidate?

And Senator Biden, what kind of a leader gives away his whole strategy because he can't keep his mouth shut?

September 10, 2008.      Permalink          

CLARITY

Posted at  6:41 a.m. ET

The excellent Fouad Ajami, writing in The Wall Street Journal, gives a clear, convincing view of the difference in foreign policy between the Democratic and Republican candidates for president.  The difference is disturbing, and makes a McCain victory that much more urgent:

The candidacy of Barack Obama seems to have lost some of its luster of late, and I suspect this has something to do with large questions many Americans still harbor about his view of the dangerous world around us. Those questions were not stilled by the choice of Joe Biden as his running mate.

Apparently true.

...the Obama candidacy must be judged on its own merits, and it can be reckoned as the sharpest break yet with the national consensus over American foreign policy after World War II. This is not only a matter of Sen. Obama's own sensibility; the break with the consensus over American exceptionalism and America's claims and burdens abroad is the choice of the activists and elites of the Democratic Party who propelled Mr. Obama's rise.

Though the staging in Denver was the obligatory attempt to present the Obama Democrats as men and women of the political center, the Illinois senator and his devotees are disaffected with American power. In their view, we can make our way in the world without the encumbrance of "hard" power. We would offer other nations apologies for the way we carried ourselves in the aftermath of 9/11, and the foreign world would be glad for a reprieve from the time of American certitude.

Ajami recalls the great election campaign of 1960, pitting Kennedy against Nixon:

The national consensus on America's role abroad, and on the great threats facing it, was firmly implanted. No great cultural gaps had opened in it, arugula was not on the menu, and the elites partook of the dominant culture of the land; the universities were then at one with the dominant national ethos. The "disuniting of America" was years away. American liberalism was still unabashedly tethered to American nationalism.

And...

We are at a great remove from that time and place. Globalization worked its way through the land, postmodernism took hold of the country's intellectual life. The belief in America's "differentness" began to give way, and American liberalism set itself free from the call of nationalism. American identity itself began to mutate...

...The "aloofness" of Mr. Obama that has become part of the commentary about him is born of this cultural matrix. Mr. Obama did not misspeak when he described union households and poorer Americans as people clinging to their guns and religion; he was overheard sharing these thoughts with a like-minded audience in San Francisco.

Nor was it an accident that, in a speech at Wesleyan University, he spoke of public service but excluded service in the military. The military does not figure prominently in his world and that of his peers.

And this man may take the oath next January 20th.

The warrior's garb sits uneasily on Barack Obama's shoulders: Mr. Obama seeks to reassure Americans that he and his supporters are heirs of Roosevelt and Kennedy; that he, too, could order soldiers to war, stand up to autocracies and rogue regimes. But the widespread skepticism about his ability to do so is warranted.

The crowds in Berlin and Paris that took to him knew their man. He had once presented his willingness to negotiate with Iran as the mark of his diplomacy, the break with the Bush years and the Bush style. But he stepped back from that pledge, and in a blatant echo of President Bush's mantra on Iran, he was to say that "no options would be off the table" when dealing with Iran. The change came on a visit to Israel, the conversion transparent and not particularly convincing.

Finally...

For Mr. Obama, the race is about the claims of modernism. There is "cool," and the confidence of the meritocracy in him. The Obama way is glib: It glides over the world without really taking it in. It has to it that fluency with political and economic matters that can be acquired in a hurry, an impatience with great moral and political complications. The lightning overseas trip, the quick briefing, and above all a breezy knowingness. Mr. Obama's way is the way of his peers among the liberal, professional elite.

Once every four years, ordinary Americans go out and choose the standard-bearer of their nationalism. Liberalism has run away with elite culture. Nationalism may be out of fashion in Silicon Valley. But the state -- and its citadel, the presidency -- is an altogether different calling.

Ajami has nailed Obama superbly.  Does anyone seriously believe that he has suddenly become a centrist?  Was his wife's comment about America being a mean country a slip of the tongue?  Were his long relationships with radicals merely accidents of time? 

I've long believed that Obama may turn out to be the most dishonest major-party candidate for president that we've ever seen.  Even Nixon, a man with profound character flaws, had a reasonably consistent philosophy. 

We believe in American exceptionalism because it's real, the concept has been tested in bitter times, and because we are the only nation that has the power and the will to lead.  And the sooner we realize that, and stop worrying about the opinions of European pseudo-intellectuals and leftist journalists, the better off we'll be.

September 10, 2008.       Permalink          

"What you see is news.  What you know is background.  What you feel is opinion."
    - Lester Markel, late Sunday editor
      of The New York Times.

SUBSCRIPTIONS:

Subscriptions to URGENT AGENDA are voluntary.  Why subscribe to something you're getting free?  To help guarantee that you'll continue to get it at all.  Subscriptions sustain us.  Payments are through PayPal and are secure, but you do not have to sign up for a PayPal account.  Credit cards are fine.

FOR A ONE-YEAR ($48) SUBSCRIPTION, CLICK:

FOR A SIX-MONTH ($26) SUBSCRIPTION, CLICK:

IF YOU DON'T WISH A SET SUBSCRIPTION, BUT PREFER TO DONATE ANY OTHER AMOUNT TO SUSTAIN URGENT AGENDA, CLICK:

SEARCH URGENT AGENDA:

POWER LINE:

It's a privilege for me to post periodic pieces at Power Line. To go to Power Line, click here.

To link to my Power Line pieces, go here.

THE CURRENT QUESTION

This space will regularly raise questions that relate to the news, but transcend daily headlines.  The idea is to stimulate talk about basic issues. Our last question asked: 

Last week we asked,

What are the three most absurd positions put forward by Barack Obama?

You can view the answers here.

NEW CURRENT QUESTION

This question was was suggested by reader Francis Drouillard:

What will Obama supporters do if he loses?

If you'd like to send us your thoughts, click:
response@urgentagenda.com
(Please stay within two or three paragraphs.  We try to print every reply, if space allows.  Place your name at the end of the message if you wish your name published.  This question will stay up through Sunday.)

CONTACT:

YOU CAN E-MAIL US, AS FOLLOWS:

If you have wonderful things to say about this site, if it makes you a better person, please click:
applause@urgentagenda.com

If you have a general comment on anything you see here, or on anything else that's topical, please click:
comments@urgentagenda.com

If you must say something obnoxious, something that will embarrass you and disgrace your loving family, click:
despicable@urgentagenda.com

If you required subscription service, please click:
service@urgentagenda.com

FAVORITE SITES (List will grow)

Power Line
Faster Please (Michael Ledeen)
OpinionJournal.com
Hudson Institute
Bookworm Room
Bill Bennett
Red State
Pajamas Media
Michelle Malkin
Diana West
The Weekly Standard
The New York Sun
Real Clear Politics
The Corner
City Journal
Gateway Pundit
American Thinker