LATE NIGHT TREAT:  APRIL 13,  2008

Posted at 10:46 p.m. ET

HANSON

Leave it to Victor Davis Hanson to provide a late-night treat. Under the headline, "Why Orwell Matters" (the title of a Christopher Hitchens book), Hanson dissects Barack Obama's now infamous San Francisco remarks, and his explanation for those remarks.  There is no way to summarize this.  But it's short, and I recommend it.  It show us what "spin" is all about, when practiced by one of the slickest, and most ambitious politicians of the age.

Be back in the morning, as combat resumes in Pennsylvania.

April 13, 2008.      Permalink          

EVENING POSTINGS:  APRIL 13, 2008

Posted at 7:37 p.m. ET

LATER TRACKERS

Gallup has now released tracking poll results through yesterday.  While Rasmussen reported a jump for McCain - see our story, "Trackers," below - Gallup still has Obama with a three point lead over McCain.  Gallup has Clinton with a one point lead over McCain.

The Rasmussen and Gallup results differ dramatically.  You can decide which one you want to believe.  The two polls haven't been this far apart in some time.  They seem to be diverging more and more.

We'll await this week's polls in Pennsylvania.

April 13, 2008.      Permalink          

JIMMAH THE PEACEMAKER

Jimmah Carter is defending his Mideast trip, during which he will meet with Hamas:

Former President Jimmy Carter on Sunday defended a controversial decision to meet with Hamas leaders, arguing that it’s necessary to engage the group in any future Middle East peace process.

“I think that it’s very important that at least someone meet with the Hamas leaders to express their views, to ascertain what flexibility they have, to try to induce them to stop all attacks against innocent civilians in Israel and to cooperate with the Fatah as a group that unites the Palestinians,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Along with exiled Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal, Carter said he planned to meet Syrian, Egyptian, Jordanian, and Saudi Arabian leaders as part of a “study mission” for The Carter Center.

Carter’s meeting sparked outrage at home, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, State Department officials, and congressional Democrats harshly criticized his meeting as legitimizing terrorist tactics.

Of course, without Jimmah we would never know what Hamas really stands for. 

The outrage here is that this man considers himself above his own country, if he still thinks of the United States as his country.  By tradition, former presidents have stayed out of foreign policy.  Carter has consistently interfered, conducting private, unauthorized negotiations.   He is hostile to Israel, and has received millions in Arab sources for the Carter Center.  Some defenders of Carter claim he is just trying to advance peace.  When has he ever actually done so?

Meanwhile, Israeli President Shimon Peres, who, like Carter, also holds the Nobel Peace Prize, is also criticizing Carter:

President Shimon Peres criticized former US president Jimmy Carter for his latest book in which he called Israel an apartheid state.

Beit Hanassi officials said that in a meeting between the two on Sunday, Peres said that despite Carter's achievements at Camp David, his activities over the last few years had caused great damage to Israel and the peace process.

Carter has also been criticized by Israel and the US for planning to meet Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal in Damascus.

Peres said that such a meeting would be a "severe mistake," calling Mashaal a "murderer and terrorist."

Someone should ask Carter whether he agrees with the words "murderer and terrorist."  The answer would be interesting.     

April 13, 2008.      Permalink          

AFTERNOON POSTINGS:  APRIL 13, 2008

Posted at 3:28 p.m. ET

TRACKERS

This is very preliminary.  Only Rasmussen has a national tracking poll out that includes yesterday, the first full day after Obama's inept remarks in San Francisco were revealed.  The Ras poll shows an immediate jump for McCain, who is up eight over Obama.  Gallup, whose polls have leaned more toward Obama in recent days, has not released new numbers.

Rasmussen also has McCain up eight over Clinton.  I stress, as always, that these results are mere snapshots.  But note that they tie Obama and Clinton in the race against McCain.

Rasmussen polled from Wednesday through Saturday.  Tomorrow's trackers will pick up today, meaning we'll get two full days of the Obama flap.

There are no late polls from Pennsylvania, where all this really counts.  The state votes a week from Tuesday. 

April 13, 2008.      Permalink          

THE H-BOMB

Hillary continues her attacks on Obama, and I suspect these will intensify with ads in the next week. She's keeping the pot boiling:

Hoping to stoke the controversy over Senator Barack Obama’s remarks about small-town voters, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton made a hasty campaign stop in Scranton on Sunday and called his comments “elitist and divisive.”

“Senator Obama has not owned up to what he said,” Mrs. Clinton said, speaking at a news conference. “What people are looking for is an explanation. You know, what does he really believe? How does he see the people here in this neighborhood, throughout Pennsylvania, Indiana, other places in our country? I think that’s what people are looking for, some explanation, and he simply has not provided one.”

Clinton was in Scranton, whose newspaper today endorsed Obama on its front page.  It was probably the most poorly timed endorsement we've seen recently, and demonstrates once again how out of touch with their communities many newspapers have become. 

Notice, by the way, that in her statement Clinton mentioned Indiana, which votes May 6th, but not North Carolina, voting the same day.  North Carolina, home to a large African-American and academic population, appears lost to Obama.  But Indiana gives her a real shot. 

The Obama-flap story will continue during this last week of campaigning for the Pennsylvania primary.  Clinton has been handed a gift.  She must make it bear fruit in Pennsylvania to prove her electability.

April 13, 2008.      Permalink          

SUNDAY:  APRIL 13,  2008

Posted at 7:55 a.m. ET

NO COMMENT

I've checked.  Neither the Philadelphia Inquirer, nor the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the two most important papers in Pennsylvania, has any editorial comment today on the Obama flap.  Now, both papers are reliably liberal, and that may play into it.  But I find it odd that neither would comment on a presidential candidate's demeaning views of their fellow Pennsylvanians.  Of course, Obama was talking about small towns in Pennsylvania, and you know city folk.

The Post-Gazette, though, runs a well-reported news story on the flap by its politics editor, James O'Toole, from a Pennsylvania perspective.  We're nine days away from the primary vote in that state:

The Clinton campaign did its best to stoke the critical reaction with a conference call in which former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack called the remarks, "a glaring misreading of people in small towns."

"He suggests that in some way the faith of those who live in small towns is superficial,'' Mr. Vilsack claimed.

In a rebuttal conference call, a group of Pennsylvania mayors backing Mr. Obama insisted that he had nothing to apologize for.

"I don't think I would use the same words that he used, I don't think I would say that people are bitter," said Lancaster Mayor Rick Gray. "I would say that people are angry, and I think it's a very thick surface you would scratch to find this anger -- there's a level of anger that is just seething out there."

In an appearance in Muncie, Ind., yesterday, Mr. Obama, dismissed the controversy as "a little, typical sort of political flare," but conceded, "I didn't say it as well as I should have."

And...

The weekend's exchanges also overlapped issues that arose with the controversy over Mr. Obama's longtime minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. That case provided a wedge for Obama critics to question the extent to which he shared the values of ordinary Americans.

Polls suggest that the Illinois senator went a long way toward answering such criticism with his widely praised Philadelphia speech on race. Now, in different form, those questions are recurring with the repeated attacks of his opponents.

In an interview published yesterday, Geoffrey Garin, a senior Clinton adviser, told Greg Sargent of the Web site Talking Points Memo that the statements would be "fair game'' for political ads and for arguments to the uncommitted superdelegates courted by both campaigns.

"These are the kinds of attitudes that have created a gulf between Democrats and lots of small-town and heartland voters that we've been working very, very hard to bridge," Mr. Garin said.

That, of course, is the signal that we'll see a week in which the Clinton forces relentlessly attack Obama over his comments, and that the attack will continue in the attempt to win over superdelegates.  The key question is how much impact the Obama flap will have on primary voters.  In the general election, Obama's comments would resonate among Republicans, independents and moderate Democrats.  In a primary it's only the Dems.  Some are moderate, but some - the kind who still have their McGovern buttons - think Obama's views are just glorious. 

April 13, 2008.      Permalink          

ANOTHER OBAMA HEADACHE?

It's awkward for Hillary Clinton to paint Barack Obama as a hypocrite, given Ms. Hillary's own history of policy development and exploration.  But opportunities are there nonetheless.  The Philadelphia Inquirer has a curious story on Obama's relationship with a gambling kingpin, not the kind of thing he needs right now:

As an Illinois legislator in 2003, Barack Obama voiced strong reservations about the expansion of legalized gambling as a means for states to cover budget gaps.
"I think the moral and social cost of gambling, particularly in low-income communities, could be devastating," he told the Chicago Defender newspaper.

Now, as he runs for president, Obama has accepted substantial financial help from the principal owner of the SugarHouse casino proposed for a site on the Delaware River in Philadelphia.

The Obama campaign said yesterday it saw nothing inconsistent in the senator's accepting support from Neil G. Bluhm, a Chicago-based real estate developer. According to the Washington Post, Bluhm has bundled together $78,000 in contributions from himself and his family.

That is a sizable commitment.  I'm sure it's for good government.

The problem is, Ms. Hillary might have a hard time using the information:

The issue of where the Democratic presidential candidates stand on legalized gambling was raised at the time of the Nevada primary.

Clinton, who strongly favors gambling as a tool for community development, sought to paint Obama as a gambling foe.

So, if she's in favor of gambling, what does she say about the 78 grand?  I guess she could say that Obama shouldn't have taken it if he has doubts about gambling. 

This is something, though, that, again, could come back to hurt Obama in the general-election campaign, should he be nominated.  It's more tarnish.  Gambling guys who give big bucks are unattractive, especially when a candidate is trying to prove that he walks on water.

April 13, 2008.      Permalink           

HOW TO DIVIDE A COUNTRY

Obama may talk about national unity - not the divisive Hillary's favorite subject - but he represents a party that's earned a collective Ph.D. in how to slice a nation into groups.  The Wall Street Journal has published a sound history of just how artfully, and enthusiastically, this was done, with special emphasis on the impact on Pennsylvania:

As a Pennsylvania voter, I'm disheartened by the identity politics now playing out as both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama battle for votes among Democratic Party factions.

One in five supporters of Mrs. Clinton here say they won't vote for Mr. Obama should their candidate lose (and vice versa, according to pollster Terry Madonna of Franklin & Marshall College). Only 12% of nonwhite Pennsylvania voters support Mrs. Clinton. Only 29% of white ones support Mr. Obama. Gender and age cohorts break along similarly sharp lines, with women and older voters going for Mrs. Clinton, men and young voters trending toward Mr. Obama.

As a student of political history, I see these poll results as something deeper than a passing nomination squabble. For at least 40 years, Democrats have been playing identity politics and empowering factional blocs within their party.

Completely true.  And...

Though others might pick a different starting point, I'd trace the start of that process to 1968 Chicago, where antiwar protestors rioted outside of the party's national convention and party leaders inside responded by creating the McGovern-Fraser commission. That commission went on to write presidential nomination rules establishing delegate quotas based on age, race and gender. State parties followed suit by structuring caucuses to favor organized activist groups such as unions.

And so now Pennsylvania Democrats, like their brethren around the country, are splitting along race, age, gender and geographical lines as they are forced to choose between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. But then, why shouldn't they? Democratic voters are just doing what they've been trained to do – thinking of themselves in group terms.

The worst offenders are in the educational establishment, which flies the flag of "diversity," which usually means that students are valued only as parts of groups.  College students, in particular, have identity politics pounded into their heads, along with other divine theories of the left.  Consider:

Mr. Obama is hoping to overcome Mrs. Clinton by energizing college students. And anecdotal evidence suggests that a surge of support among college-age voters may be helping him. Recent statewide polls show the race tightening. My mother, who is volunteering to help the Northampton County Department of Elections process new voter registrants, is watching the Obama surge first hand. Among the new registrants she sees, the vast majority are Democratic college students, most of whom, we can presume, will vote for Mr. Obama.

It's a pretty sorry picture of a once-great political party.  Principles, national defense, even idealism, all fall victim to the need to bow before each and every "group" in the party's base.  It reminds me of something that the educator Robert Hutchins once said, paraphrasing W.S. Gilbert in "The Gondoliers":  "If everybody is somebody, then nobody is anybody." 

They are all equal in the Democratic Party, except some are more equal than others.

April 13, 2008.      Permalink          

HONORING THE DELETE KEY

Finally this morning, we may be seeing the start of some serious discussion of global warming. By serious, I don't mean hauling busloads of kids, each equipped with a wholesome snack, to see an Al Gore movie.  I do mean that some scientists are starting to re-examine assumptions, and are actually acting like scientists, not actors.  One MIT guy, a hurricane expert, has already announced that he's reconsidering his stand: 

One of the most influential scientists behind the theory that global warming has intensified recent hurricane activity says he will reconsider his stand.

The hurricane expert, Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, unveiled a novel technique for predicting future hurricane activity this week. The new work suggests that, even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries.

The research, appearing in the March issue of Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, is all the more remarkable coming from Emanuel, a highly visible leader in his field and long an ardent proponent of a link between global warming and much stronger hurricanes.

His changing views could influence other scientists.

"The results surprised me," Emanuel said of his work, adding that global warming may still play a role in raising the intensity of hurricanes. What that role is, however, remains far from certain.

Did he call Al Gore?   Will Al take his calls?  The story concludes:

The issue probably will not be resolved until better computer models are developed, said Judith Curry, of the Georgia Institute of Technology, a leading hurricane and climate scholar.

By publishing his new paper, and by the virtue of his high profile, Emanuel could be a catalyst for further agreement in the field of hurricanes and global warming, Curry said.

The generally emerging view, she said, seems to be that global warming may cause some increase in intensity, that this increase will develop slowly over time, and that it likely will lead to a few more Category 4 and Category 5 storms. How many? When? No one yet knows.

In the early fifties, people like this would have been hauled before Congressional committees and called subversives.  Even today, the former vice president has suggested that any dissent from his orthodox view of global warming is tantamount to being a flat-Earther.  Some have even equated the skeptics with Holocaust deniers.

It's good to see scientists applying real science, not political science.  I suspect we'll learn a lot more about global warming in the next five years, and that some of today's certainties will become yesterday's theories.

I'll be back later.  Following closely the political impact of the Obama flap.

April 13, 2008.      Permalink