LATER EVENING UPDATE,  APRIL 2,  2008

Posted at 10:44 p.m. ET

THE NOT-SO-ODD COUPLE

They did look right for each other.  Teresa Heinz "57 Varieties" Kerry campaigned in Pennsylvania today with Michelle "I've never been proud of my country" Obama.  It was so moving.  No, not really.

Ketchup's comments were within bounds, but Michelle went off again.  You know, I think they gave her the wrong prescription at the local collective:

With Obama now leading in the national polls, Michelle Obama said she has seen how the bar for her husband has been consistently raised this year, and how he has met each of the challenges.

“The irony is that’s what’s going on for regular folks in this country,” she said. “The truth of the American experience today for many regular folks is that folks are trying to reach a bar that just keeps moving.”

But, Obama said she still believes her husband is the underdog in the race.

“We are gonna need Pennsylvania,” she said. “Because in this ever-shifting, moving bar, Barack Obama will always be the underdog. No matter how much money he raises, no matter how many wins he pulls together, no matter how many delegates he accumulates; he is still the underdog. It’s the way it works.”

The way what works?  The oppressive system that allows a minor U.S. senator from a minority group to be within a hair of winning his party's nomination for the most powerful job in the world?

And what's this bar she's talking about?  Yes, Michelle, we do ask questions of people running for president.  Yes, Michelle, we do dig into their backgrounds.  Is this a surprise, Michelle?    Do you occasionally read something besides Rev. Wright's church bulletins?

Michelle, have you ever considered the word "reality"?   Do so.

April 2, 2008.      Permalink               

AT LEAST HE'S GOOD IN BUSINESS

Haven't you wondered how some men ever make a living?

Ted Turner, who apparently enjoys a nice income, has once again spoken out on the profound events of the time.  I know all of you will want to take notes.  Without Ted's guidance you might perish, or at least risk having your children turn on you:

Interviewed Tuesday for Charlie Rose's PBS show, CNN founder Ted Turner argued that inaction on global warming “will be catastrophic” and those who don't die “will be cannibals.” He also applied moral equivalence in describing Iraqi insurgents as “patriots” who simply “don't like us because we've invaded their country” and so “if the Iraqis were in Washington, D.C., we'd be doing the same thing.” On not taking drastic action to correct global warming:

Not doing it will be catastrophic. We'll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not ten but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals.

Turner ridiculed the need for a big U.S. military, insisting “China just wants to sell us shoes. They're not building landing craft to attack the United States,” and “even with our $500 billion military budget, we can't win in Iraq. We're being beaten by insurgents who don't even have any tanks.” After Rose pointed out the Iraqi insurgents “have a lot of roadside bombs that kill a lot of Americans” and wondered, “Where do you think they come from?” Turner answered:

I think that they're patriots and that they don't like us because we've invaded their country and occupied it. I think if the Iraqis were in Washington, D.C., we'd be doing the same thing: we'd be bombing them too. Nobody wants to be invaded.

Look, be grateful Turner wasn't around in 1945.  He would have put in a kind word for those Nazi divisions defending Berlin.  And the Marines on Iwo Jima?  "How would you like it if six white guys with guns raised a flag on your mountain"?

Nuts!

And I'll be back tomorrow.

April 2, 2008.      Permalink          

EARLY EVENING UPDATE,  APRIL 2,  2008

Posted at 4:17 p.m. ET

Note to readers: I'm doing an early evening update because I've got to be away from the computer for a time.  However, I'll be back later with more.  Do check in.

YES, BARACK, IT'S TOUGH

It's been pointed out that Barack Obama has never suffered defeat on a grand scale, and has had a smooth political career.  It's also been pointed out that he can become stressed and touchy when feeling any heat.  It's beginning to show more and more, as ABC reports:

The Trail Wears Thin

April 02, 2008 2:02 PM

ABC News' Sunlen Miller Reports: He's been running for president for 13 months and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., may be showing some of the wear and tear of the campaign trail.

One particularly aggressive person -- who, according to the campaign, may be a professional autograph seeker/seller who needed 'proof' that he actually been with the candidate in order to sell the Senator's autograph(s) online -- seemed to fray Obama's nerves as the Senator made an unadvertised stop an Italian market in Philly on Wednesday.

In three separate acts -- perhaps entitled "The Irritation of Obama" -- the normally calm and collected candidate grew increasingly agitated:

Run in #1:
Outside the first shop, on the way in
Man: "Senator, can I have a quick picture with you?"
(Obama has his arm on the guys arm in a very nice way, like he does when he shakes a hand but refuses to take a picture and walks away)
Man: "It will take you two seconds. Don't cram me, I'm not doing anything to anybody. Jesus."

Run in #2:
After the first shop
Man: "Senator, can I get a picture with you?"
Obama: (slightly annoyed) "You are wearing me out brother."
Man: "I got one with Hillary Clinton, and I got one with McCain. Come on Senator, that's not right."

Run in #3:
In the street
Man: "Senator, can I please, a quick one?"
Obama: (very annoyed) "No, you know what, no."
Man: "Can I just say something to you real fast?"
Obama: "Yea, you can."
Man: "I had one with Hillary Clinton and I had one with Senator McCain."
Obama: "I am sure you do. Because when I was trying to talk to some kids –- and, I know, look...
Man: "No, my wife is a school teacher and she was there. She had to go back and that wasn't right. What, won't you just take a picture with me? I'm not asking you for a autograph; it's for my family.
Obama: "Yeah, well, whatever. Just take it. I won't be smiling. Because you're wearing me out. . . No no, you've been really rude about it. Just take a shot."

Obama and the man did not take a shot. The man was still arguing with the Senator when Secret Service stepped in (non confrontationally) to provide the denouement.

Secret Service: (putting a hand between Obama and the man) "That's it."
Man: "No, I'm good. All I want is a picture. That's it."

This is not good.  If he can't take the heat on the campaign trail, can he take it in the Oval Office, when bin Laden comes at him? 

Are we handing the keys to the nuclear weapons over to this guy?

Obama could barely deal with the Wright controversy, and got caught in multiple contradictions.  There's been much talk this fall about Senator McCain's admittedly volatile temperament.  But McCain has proved that he can take far more than a punch.  Obama hasn't proved much of anything.

April 2, 2008.      Permalink              

CLINTON TOO

The difference is, Bill Clinton has been president and can't do much more damage.  Obama is running, and can.

But Clinton, too, has developed a temper problem.  The full Clinton was on display at a recent meeting of California convention superdelegates:

The Bill Clinton who met privately with California's superdelegates at last weekend's state convention was a far cry from the congenial former president who afterward publicly urged fellow Democrats to "chill out" over the race between his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Barack Obama.

In fact, before his speech Clinton had one of his famous meltdowns Sunday, blasting away at former presidential contender Bill Richardson for having endorsed Obama, the media and the entire nomination process.

"It was one of the worst political meetings I have ever attended," one superdelegate said.

According to those at the meeting, Clinton - who flew in from Chicago with bags under his eyes - was classic old Bill at first, charming and making small talk with the 15 or so delegates who gathered in a room behind the convention stage.

But as the group moved together for the perfunctory photo, Rachel Binah, a former Richardson delegate who now supports Hillary Clinton, told Bill how "sorry" she was to have heard former Clinton campaign manager James Carville call Richardson a "Judas" for backing Obama.

It was as if someone pulled the pin from a grenade.

"Five times to my face (Richardson) said that he would never do that," a red-faced, finger-pointing Clinton erupted.

The former president then went on a tirade that ran from the media's unfair treatment of Hillary to questions about the fairness of the votes in state caucuses that voted for Obama. It ended with him asking delegates to imagine what the reaction would be if Obama was trailing by just 1 percent and people were telling him to drop out.

Oh, dear.  Oh, dear.  Can't we all just get along?

Apparently not.

We'd better start planning for what happens if Hillary loses, especially in a bitter convention battle.  Senator McCain, those anonymous e-mails are from an angry couple with plenty of stuff on Obama.

April 2, 2008.      Permalink                  

OBAMA ON ABORTION - THE TIME BOMB?

Michael Gerson, the president's former chief speech writer, is writing some of the best material found in the Washington Post these days.  Today he points out Barack Obama's rigid, and rather extreme views on abortion, and the impact the issue could have:

But Obama's record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion -- a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called "too close to infanticide." Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be "punished with a baby" because of a crisis pregnancy -- hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life.

For decades, most Democrats and many Republicans have hoped the political debate on abortion would simply go away. But it is the issue that does not die. Recent polls have shown that young people are more likely than their elders to support abortion restrictions. Few Americans oppose abortion under every circumstance, but a majority oppose most of the abortions that actually take place -- generally supporting the procedure only in the case of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother.

And...

Abortion is an unavoidable moral issue. It also has broader political significance. Democrats of a past generation -- the generation of Hubert Humphrey and Martin Luther King Jr. -- spoke about building a beloved community that cared especially for the elderly, the weak, the disadvantaged and the young.

The advance of pro-choice policies imported a different ideology into the Democratic Party -- the absolute triumph of individualism. The rights and choices of adults have become paramount, even at the expense of other, voiceless members of the community.

These trends reached their logical culmination during a congressional debate on partial-birth abortion in 1999. When Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer was pressed to affirm that she opposed the medical killing of children after birth, she refused to commit, saying that children deserve legal protection only "when you bring your baby home." It was unclear whether this included the car trip.

Thoughtful, and probing, no matter what side you're on.  This issue, in some states, could haunt Obama in the fall.

Be back later tonight.

April 2, 2008.      Permalink          

AFTERNOON POSTINGS,  APRIL 2,  2008

Posted at 2:53 pm ET

POLLS

BULLETIN:  Lee Hamilton, former vice chairman of the September 11th Commission, has endorsed Barack Obama.   Notice the excitement?

Today's trackers from Pennsylvania produce an odd result:  Three of the four polls posted at Real Clear Politics show Clinton leading Obama by anywhere from five to twelve points.  But the Public Policy Polling poll has, incredibly, Obama up by two.  I'd discount that result until we learn more about PPP and its methodology.  I know nothing about them.

Bottom line, it does appear that the race could be tightening in Pennsylvania.  However, recall that the same phenomenon occurred in Ohio, which Clinton then won handily.

National trackers for the general show little change.  McCain up six over Obama in Rasmussen, two in Gallup.

Rasmussen has McCain up four over Clinton, Gallup two.

What's remarkable is that there's little difference between Clinton and Obama in the general election.  It's within the Democratic Party that the battle is joined.  Rasmussen has Clinton up one over Obama within the party, Gallup has Obama up three.  This is no blowout. 

April 2, 2008.      Permalink          

ALICE IN BLUNDERLAND

Urgent Agenda quoted the nutbag writer Alice Walker yesterday, praising Obama, slamming Israel, loving Cuba.  Now Ed Lasky of American Thinker refers me to an excellent reply written by the feminist writer, Phyllis Chesler:

Do you really think our imperfect America is as bad as most other imperfect countries? And Cuba? It is a totalitarian prison camp which has persecuted its own, including artists, politicals, homosexuals. Are you so charmed by Castro’s dancing that you have forgotten all this?

And...

But Alice, in your piece, why do you single out Israel as a wrong-doer and not Saudi Arabia? Israel? But not the ethnic Arab Muslims of Sudan who are perpetrating genocide against black African Muslims and black Christians and who are mass raping black African girls and women?

Israel and not Rwanda? Israel and not Iran, Libya, Algeria, Afghanistan, China, or North Korea, for their grievous crimes against humanity?

Why, Alice?

Read the whole thing.  It's great when rational people snap back against the crackpot left, and do it so well.

More later.

April 2, 2008.      Permalink          

WEDNESDAY,  APRIL 2,  2008

Posted at 6:59 a.m. ET

AS AMERICA SLEEPS

I want to call your attention to a remarkable series running at the website of the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), the group founded by Steve Emerson.

It is a multi-part effort detailing the work and philosophy of CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations.  To see all parts of the series thus far, go here.

The IPT states:

The Washington, D.C.-based organization purports to be a "leading advocate for justice and mutual understanding" and claims to speak for the majority of American Muslims. However, after a careful review of the history, activities, statements, and causes of and by CAIR, it seems that its primary goals are to silence and de-legitimize its critics and redefine what it means to be a moderate Muslim. And when it comes to U.S. efforts to crack down on terrorists and their financiers, CAIR takes an almost visceral stand in opposition. This has the effect of undermining the legitimate security-related concerns and campaigns of the United States and its allies.

We are asleep, and, if Mr. Obama is elected, the sleep will get very deep indeed.  The IPT series is a great resource. 

April 2, 2008.      Permalink          

ON THE L-WORD

Speaking of Senator Obama, the Wall Street Journal runs a well-reported piece by Peter Wehner, a former aide to President Bush, detailing Obama's rigid adherence to liberal doctrine.  Obama is running as a man who transcends ideology, but Wehner demonstrates, by citing the detailed record, that it's a false claim:

National Journal rated him as the most liberal person in the Senate in 2007, and for good reason. On economic policy, Mr. Obama favors higher income, Social Security and corporate taxes. He supports massive increases in domestic spending and greater government regulation of the economy. He favors a significantly larger role for the federal government in health care. He opposes the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. Obama has criticized the Supreme Court's decision to uphold a partial birth abortion ban, and he wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. He voted against John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. In Illinois, Mr. Obama supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns. And he supports granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

On national security matters, Mr. Obama voted to deny legal immunity to telecom companies that have cooperated with the government in warrantless wiretapping of suspected terrorists. He wants to grant habeas corpus rights to detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. He supports a full-scale withdrawal from Iraq. And he says, in his first year in office, he would meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea without preconditions.

It's no wonder that Mr. Obama has been endorsed by Moveon.org – one of the most radical groups within the liberal universe.

This is the kind of material that must be presented to the American people by the McCain campaign.  The mainstream media will not help in the effort. 

In the 1960s, Hubert Humphrey was seen as perhaps the leading liberal icon in the U.S. Senate.  Barry Goldwater was seen as the leading conservative in the same body.  Yet, the two were the closest of friends.  I do not know of a single association, past or present, that Senator Obama has had with a conservative, or even a conservative group.  His entire adult life seems to lurch to the left, so much so that the ship is in danger of capsizing.  No transcendent figure he.  He makes Slick Willie look like the chairman of the Straight Talk Society.

One sad aspect of this is the condition of liberalism, and the decline of the faith.  At one time liberalism included a commitment to a strong national defense and foreign policy.  Indeed, in the forties and fifties, many leading liberals were more defense-oriented than were many conservatives.  In 1960, John F. Kennedy ran to the right of the Republican Party on military preparedness. 

No more.  Liberalism today is most likely to favor cuts in defense, is skeptical of the War on Terror, and doesn't have much patience for this "enemy" stuff.  It's a sad downfall, and was avoidable.

April 2, 2008.      Permalink              

THE DEAN

Remember Howard Dean?  Remember that scream in 2004?   This is a man who was heading right for the Democratic nomination for president...until the voters got serious.  Even Democrats on occasion can demonstrate some standards, although the occasions are so rare as to be precious.

Howard Dean is now chairman the Democratic National Committee, and The New York Times reports that he's getting, at best, a sitting ovation:

WASHINGTON — The turmoil in the Democratic presidential race has presented a sharp test of Howard Dean’s low-profile approach to leading the Democratic National Committee, bringing calls from many Democrats for him to take a more aggressive role in defusing the threat of a protracted and divisive nominating fight.

But...

Yet three years after he won election as the party chairman by running largely as an outsider, it is not clear that Mr. Dean has the political skills or the stature with the two campaigns to bring the nominating battle to a relatively quick and unifying conclusion.

Indeed, 24 hours after he made his remarks, Mrs. Clinton said she intended to keep fighting for the nomination through the summer, if necessary. It was an unmistakable rebuke to Mr. Dean, who has never had good relations with the Clintons.

How many people have?  Sometimes I even wonder about Chelsea.  It goes on:

Some Democratic Party leaders, while offering sympathy for Mr. Dean’s plight, said it was urgent that he take a more assertive role to restore peace. Several suggested that Mr. Dean — who has sought to build a legacy by expanding party operations to all 50 states — risked having his tenure as party leader remembered for a traumatizing loss in a year where most Democrats think victory should be easy.

From their mouth to you-know-who's ears.

We almost elected him as president.  Look carefully at the candidates, dearies, especially the ones who claim they're going to transform civilization.

April 2, 2008.   Permalink              

ANOTHER D.C. OUTRAGE

Speaking of the L-word, one of the great myths of liberalism today is that education is improved by throwing more money at it.  The modern left likes to conjure visions of poverty-stricken schools where children are heated by coal-burning stoves, teachers are paid below the poverty line, and where the textbooks end with the Hoover administration.

A careful examination tells another story.  Writing about schools in the District of Columbia, The Washington Times reports:

The District had one of the most expensive school systems in the country in 2006, paying more than $13,000 per student, Census Bureau figures show.

On average, school districts nationwide spent $9,138 per student in fiscal 2006, which is about $437 more than in 2005, according to a report made public yesterday.

The $13,446-per-pupil spending in 2006 ranked the District as the third highest in the country, exceeded only by New York, at $14,884, and New Jersey, at $14,630, the report said.

And the result?  Drum roll please:

D.C. public school scores on math and reading were the lowest in the country last year, according to results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests released in September.

The results showed that slightly more than half of fourth-graders and two-thirds of eighth-graders tested below the "basic" level in math. On the reading section, 61 percent of fourth-graders and 52 percent of eighth-graders scored below the basic level.

Money helps, but when will we learn that it takes much more?  When will we learn that great schools are a combination of factors, and that great schools are often built by the families of their students, who instill in their kids a love for education?

We often visit Charlottesville, Virginia, where one of my daughters resides.  There is a little Vietnamese restaurant there.  When you enter you often see, at a front table, an open textbook and a violin.  One of the teenage children of the family that owns the place waits on tables, then studies, then practices her instrument.  Where do you think she'll be in 10 years?  And why don't I think she needs a huge increase in her local school budget to get there?

April 2, 2008.      Permalink             

MIRACLE OF SCIENCE

Finally, there is this headline on a story running at Bloomberg.com:

Botox May Move From Face to Brain, Study in Rats Says

We now have an all-encompassing explanation for the behavior of Hollywood.

And I'll be back later.

April 2, 2008.      Permalink