AFTERNOON POSTINGS,  APRIL 6,  2008

Posted at 5: 44 pm. ET

TRACKERS

Rasmussen has McCain up five over Obama, but Gallup has the two tied. Obama has improved over McCain in the last week, probably a reflection of his having survived the Rev. Wright flap.  I stress again that these are snapshots.  We have no way of knowing exactly how accurate they are, as the election is seven months away.

Rasmussen has McCain up four against Clinton, Gallup has him up two.  Again, we have to be impressed by Hillary Clinton's resilience in these national matchups.  She's now slightly ahead of Obama despite the fact that she hasn't had a stellar three weeks. 

There is no up-to-the-minute polling in the key primary states of Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina. which vote within the next month.  The most recent polling shows Clinton with a single-digit lead in Pennsylvania and Indiana, and Obama with a blowout lead in North Carolina.    The Democratic cultural divide gets wider and wider, which does not bode well for the future of the party.  If the Dems go crazy left this year, I would not be shocked to see a third party.

April 6, 2008.      Permalink          

RACE TALK

One of the sicker spectacles in recent days was the appearance, at Barack Obama's church, of leftist "clergymen" who came to voice support for the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. and his hate-America rants.  Among the more absurd ideas to come out of these visits was that we hold a "sacred" national conversation on race.

Now, I must admit, I have no idea what the difference is between a "sacred" conversation on race and a secular one.  Do we speak in solemn tones for the first?  Do we clasp our hands?  Do we have a choir singing "amen" every time someone makes a point? 

At any rate, the courageous columnist John Kass of the Chicago Tribune has a great take on the call for the sacred gabfest: 

The wounds inflicted on Barack Obama by the hateful speech of his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, are serious and profound.

Why else would ministers gather at Obama's church in Chicago—Trinity United Church of Christ—to hold a news conference demanding a "sacred" national dialogue on race?

"The intersection of politics, religion and race has heightened our awareness of how easy it is for our conversations about race to become anything but sacred," Rev. John Thomas, president of the United Church of Christ, said last week. "That's why we are calling for sacred conversations, and for the respect of sacred places to begin right here and now."

In other words, listen up you reporters: Back off.

Clearly, it's difficult enough to pray and reflect upon the story of the Good Samaritan without pesky reporters asking you to defend Wright's indefensible, hateful words.

It's got to be tough when reporters ask about that 10,000-square-foot suburban mansion the church bought for Wright, the one along the golf course, the one with the $1.6 million mortgage held by the church.

Oh, that's good stuff.  And there's more:

Is this a great country or what? Yet while he relaxes, the rest of us are asked to have another national dialogue on race? I don't know about you, but my ears hurt.

Actually, we don't talk about race. Instead, we talk about talking about race, which is easy. TV does it best. Slap an angry Wright up on the screen and a reasonable Obama, and then go find some tape of an angry white guy and you're home for supper.

But if we really talked about race, we'd really talk about unfair racial preferences in college and graduate school admissions, in hiring and on tax-subsidized public contracts. We'd talk about the horrendous drop-out rate in big city high school systems run by political bosses who, year after year after year, use minority school children as cash cows to cement their power.

It's been so corrosive for so long, black resentment over white bigotry and white resentment over racial preferences (which is, in effect, institutionalized racism); and the abandonment of minority schools, generation after generation dropping out, left behind.

We can't talk about it. It gets too loud and too angry too fast.

That's right.  Read the whole thing.

Be back tomorrow, or later tonight if events warrant.

April 6, 2008.      Permalink          

SUNDAY,  APRIL 6,  2008

Posted at 7:56 a.m. ET

OBAMA BLOWS A MOMENT

Maybe it's his character, or his lack of experience, or something else, but Barack Obama won't win any awards for handling moments of crisis.  It took him too much time to respond to the ravings of his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr.  When he did, it took him weeks to say that he would have left the church had Wright remained.

Now, another moment.  An out-of-control talk-show host, speaking at an Obama event, accused Senator John McCain of being a warmonger:

MISSOULA, Mont. — The campaigns of Senators John McCain and Barack Obama sparred Saturday after Ed Schultz, a nationally syndicated radio talk show host who is known for his blunt criticisms of the Bush administration and the Republican Party, called Mr. McCain a “warmonger” at a fund-raiser.

Mr. Schultz, a conservative Republican turned liberal Democrat, made the remarks on Friday while revving up a group of Obama supporters at a $100-a-head fund-raiser at the North Dakota Democratic Party’s convention in Grand Forks. As soon as the Republican National Committee got word of the attack, it issued a statement criticizing Mr. Schultz and calling on Mr. Obama to repudiate the comments.

Later, Mr. McCain, speaking to reporters in Prescott, Ariz., said, “Mr. Schultz is entitled to his views.” But he added, “I would hope that in keeping with his commitment, that Senator Obama would condemn such language, since it was part of his campaign.”

We should be so lucky.  The Obama campaign, not Mr. Obama himself, issued a statement:

"John McCain is not a warmonger and should not be described as such,” Ms. Psaki said. “He’s a supporter of a war that Senator Obama believes should have never been authorized and never been waged.”

That is sleazy.  First, Mr. Obama should have denounced the smear himself.  Second, you don't reject an ugly slur, then combine it with campaign rhetoric.

No class.

When another talk-show host used inappropriate language at a McCain rally, Senator McCain denounced the language in unequivocal terms, and did it himself.  Indeed, even after the "warmonger" slur, Mr. McCain said this:

“We deserve more than tolerance from one another, we deserve each other’s respect, whether we think each other right or wrong in our views,” Mr. McCain said. He added: “Let us remember, we are not enemies. We are compatriots defending ourselves from a real enemy. We have nothing to fear from each other.”

That is class, but I fear that the culture of much of America has become so crude that too few people will recognize it.  I also fear that we are seeing a real double standard - one for Mr. McCain, a much lower one for Mr. Obama.  The press will enforce that standard. 

My greatest fear is that Mr. McCain's best moment will be the style and graciousness of his concession speech the night of the election, when America realizes what it gave up in favor of a Chicago machine politician who lets his front men hit below the belt while he walks on water. 

Douglas MacArthur once said that all military disasters begin with two words:  "Too late."  Add to that all political disasters.  Buyer's remorse is fine if you're buying a washing machine.  Sears will take it back.  You can't take back a presidential election.

Senator McCain, you may have to put some bite in that class act.  Losing graciously is still losing. 

April 6, 2008.      Permalink          

HILLARY VOWS - AGAIN - TO FIGHT

She needed a perfect alignment of campaign messages, momentum, and luck.  She hasn't gotten it.  Hillary Clinton's campaign has, in recent weeks, been buffeted by her lie about being under fire in Bosnia, and now by ridicule over the Clinton millions earned since her husband left office.  She hasn't been able to land a punch on Senator Obama, despite Obama's inept handling of the Rev. Wright affair.  But, still ahead in polls in the upcoming primary states of Pennsylvania and Indiana, she vows to fight on:

A young man who said he was an Obama supporter expressed concern that hostile comments about Senator Barack Obama from Mrs. Clinton and her aides would weaken the party when it finally settles on a nominee.

Mrs. Clinton replied with animation and a steadily rising voice. She said that, by and large, this had been an extremely civil campaign. But passions rise in politics, she explained.

“For those of you who are new to politics,” she said, “it can be a little eye-opening especially when you choose sides and you’re for one or the other of us you can take personally anything one of us or the other says. Believe it or not, there have even been some things said about me. I don’t take it personally. I don’t take most of it seriously.”

Then, suggesting that perhaps Mr. Obama, or at least his supporters, were a bit thin-skinned, she added, “If you can’t take the heat, don’t run for president, because it’s a really hot kitchen in the White House.”

“You’re supposed to present your case and critique the other case,” she added. “It is not a coronation. This nomination is worth fighting for and I’m going to fight for it.”

The crowd rewarded her with a standing ovation.

She will probably lose because, in their hearts, most Democrats want to nominate Obama to feel good about themselves.  But Hillary Clinton, despite her vast faults and personal flaws, will go down fighting, and she deserves that ovation.  She will never get my vote, but I will applaud her resolution in the face of defeat.

April 6, 2008.      Permalink          

SUPERDELEGATES IN NO HURRY

Despite the Obama fast hustle, many superdelegates say they'll take their sweet time deciding who to back for the Democratic nomination.  They are correct.  The whole purpose of superdelegates is to provide a second look, a stabilizing force to prevent the party from going over the cliff, which the Democratic Party has done repeatedly:

Former Montana senator John Melcher said he hadn't felt any urgency to take sides in the race between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama until late last month, when Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean called on superdelegates to make up their minds by July 1.

"So after two days of that, I agreed with him that maybe I should, so I did," said Melcher, who announced Wednesday that he will support Obama, based on the candidate's early opposition to the Iraq war.

Though Melcher and a handful of high-profile Democrats have recently chosen sides in the presidential nominating contest, few others of the party's uncommitted superdelegates appear likely to budge before Pennsylvania's primary on April 22 -- and many have indicated that they will wait until the primaries end in June before picking a candidate.

Many of the 320 or so party leaders and elected officials who have yet to commit cite a number of reasons: They can't choose between two good candidates, they don't want to interfere with the will of voters, and they think the extended contest will strengthen the party.

"There are a lot of things going on underneath this boiling cauldron between the candidates that will be good for us long term," said Sen. Sherrod Brown (Ohio), an uncommitted superdelegate, noting the 26,000 new Democrats who registered in Cuyahoga County before the Ohio primary. "I'm not in a hurry to do this."

He shouldn't be.  He should be thinking, to the extent that thinking is an approved activity in today's Democratic Party.  I suspect that all this won't matter.  Barring a miracle, or a major Obama blunder, Obama will be nominated.  Miracles can occur when the press does its job and asks probing questions, but do you see that in Obama's case?

April 6, 2008.       Permalink           

IN THE REAL WORLD

One of the dangers of focusing intensely on a political campaign is that we ignore the outside world.  Much is happening, and much of it isn't good.  John McCain alludes to it regularly.  Mr. Obama either doesn't notice, or doesn't care.  Hey, we must respect other cultures.

Caroline Glick, the resident pessimist of the Jerusalem Post, notices, and writes.  She may be the resident pessimist, but I've found that she's usually correct.  Here she takes on the latest outrage by the U.N.  It's important because this kind of thinking is also present on American college campuses, and will influence our future freedoms:

The West stands by idly as its foundations are rent asunder.Last Friday the UN's Human Rights Council took a direct swipe at freedom of expression. In a 32-0 vote, the council instructed its "expert on freedom of expression" to report to the council on all instances in which individuals "abuse" their freedom of speech by giving expression to racial or religious bias.

The measure was proposed by paragons of freedom Egypt and Pakistan. It was supported by all Arab, Muslim and African countries - founts of liberty one and all. European states abstained.

The US, which is not a member of the Human Rights Council, tried to oppose the measure. In a speech before the council, US Ambassador to the UN in Geneva Warren Tichenor warned that the resolution's purpose is to undermine freedom of expression because it imposes "restrictions on individuals rather than emphasiz[ing] the duty and responsibility of governments to guarantee, uphold, promote and protect human rights."

By seeking to criminalize free speech, the resolution stands in breach of the UN's Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 of that document states explicitly: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

The Europeans' decision to abstain rather than oppose the measure seems, at first glance, rather surprising. Given that the EU member states are among the UN's most emphatic champions, it would have seemed normal for them to have opposed a resolution that undermines one of the UN's foundational documents, and indeed, one of the most basic tenets of Western civilization.

But then again, given the EU's stands in recent years against freedom of expression, there really is nothing to be surprised about. The EU's current bow to intellectual thuggery is of course found in its response to the Internet release of Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders' film Fitna.

Good for Caroline.  What the U.N. is doing is trying to impose "speech codes" on the world.  Of course, the codes are designed to protect only certain people and certain religions.  Why don't I think anti-Christian or anti-Semitic views would be of concern? 

American colleges have done the same thing, but only to protect those groups popular on the political left.  A few year ago a prominent civil-liberties lawyer told me how worried he was about the restrictions on speech on American campuses, imposed in the name, of course, of "tolerance" or "civility."  What happens on college campuses today may be national policy in 20 years.  The same will be true of U.N. actions, especially if we have a leftist administration in power in the United States, and we might very well, come January.

Read the whole thing.  It's worth it.

April 6, 2008.       Permalink          

NOT SMART

Some companies go out of their way to show how poorly run they really are.  On our list today is Absolut Vodka.  Yes, it's the guys who put out the Russian stuff, even though the company is Swedish.  Seems they made a little mistake in packaging:

MEXICO CITY -- The Absolut vodka company apologized Saturday for an ad campaign depicting the southwestern U.S. as part of Mexico amid angry calls for a boycott by U.S. consumers.

The campaign, which promotes ideal scenarios under the slogan ''In an Absolut World,'' showed a 1830s-era map when Mexico included California, Texas and other southwestern states. Mexico still resents losing that territory in the 1848 Mexican-American War and the fight for Texas independence.

But the ads, which ran only in Mexico and have since ended, were less than ideal for Americans undergoing a border buildup and embroiled in an emotional debate over illegal immigration from their southern neighbor.

More than a dozen calls to boycott Absolut were posted on michellemalkin.com, a Web site operated by conservative columnist Michelle Malkin. The ads sparked heated comment on a half-dozen other Internet sites and blogs.

''In no way was it meant to offend or disparage, nor does it advocate an altering of borders, nor does it lend support to any anti-American sentiment, nor does it reflect immigration issues,'' Absolut said in a statement left on its consumer inquiry phone line.

Then why did you do it?  They did explain:

Absolut said the ad was designed for a Mexican audience and intended to recall ``a time which the population of Mexico might feel was more ideal.''

Can you believe they actually said that?  Maybe another line of work would be appropriate.

Be back later.

April 6, 2008.     Permalink