PENNSYLVANIA RESULTS

12:42 a.m. ET:  CNN is reporting that there's a major debate underway in the Obama camp on whether to go negative against Hillary Clinton in an attempt to destroy her.  The decision here will be critical.  A negative drive might work, but it can also create a backlash, a sympathy vote for Hillary Clinton, who normally is not too sympathetic.  It also risks destroying the fresh, pure image of the Obama campaign.  But Obama's troops understand that if Hillary takes Indiana on May 6th, then goes on to win states like West Virginia and Kentucky, where she is favored, Obama could face some very serious questions from within his party. 

12:22 a.m. ET:  Apparently, the Clinton campaign is going to make a major effort in North Carolina, although polls show Obama well ahead.  It may be that Clinton has internal polls showing some hope.  Or, the strategy could be to try to limit Obama's victory in the state and win Indiana the same day. 

11:44 p.m. ET:  With 93 percent of the vote in, the spread is still ten percent.  We'd expected that the votes coming in now would be heavily Hillary, but, as I noted below, we could also be seeing some Obama votes from big cities that were held back, a common practice to make the later vote count look like less of a landslide for the opposing candidate.  Eyes will immediately shift to the upcoming primaries, especially North Carolina and Indiana, which vote in two weeks.  So, two weeks from tonight, we'll be back at this again.  Two weeks are two lifetimes in politics.  The Clinton people will be looking for another Obama blunder, like his San Francisco treat.  The Obama people will be looking to maintain the religious zeal that has powered Obama's campaign.  The McCain people will be looking to appear presidential, and shocked at all this fighting. 

11:18 p.m. ET:  Senator Obama has finished his speech.  He is, of course, a very accomplished speaker, eloquent and elegant.  However, I thought there was something oddly out of synch with his speech tonight.  I just felt I'd heard it all before, and that nothing had changed, there'd been no development, no growth.  It became a church sermon, and lines about changing the world seemed collegiate, not presidential.  He doesn't connect with people, he connects with certain people, and Pennsylvania showed they may not be the majority.  I had the sense I was looking at a well-composed picture that was slightly out of focus. 

10:53 p.m. ET:  Both CNN and Fox News now are showing a ten-point spread, with 79 percent of the Pennsylvania vote in.  It may seem silly to obsess over that number, but politics often becomes a battle of symbols, and a double-digit win is symbolic.  Senator Obama is speaking now. 

10:40 p.m. ET:  Clinton just finished her victory speech.  Frank Luntz, at Fox News, gave it a rave.  My reaction is more restrained.  I think she started well, but then drifted down into the standard liberal grab-bag.  She'd just won a victory by appealing to moderates, yet seemed to forget them in her speech.  I'd give it a B-minus.  Also, 75 percent of the vote has now been counted, yet the spread between Clinton and Obama remains eight percent.  Frankly, I'd expected it to grow by now.  I'm assuming the votes still out are from Hillary areas, and they could add to the victory.  She does need that ten-point spread for psychological effect. 

10:15 p.m. ET:  CNN is now showing the magical ten-point spread between Clinton and Obama, with 56 percent of the vote in.  As in any election return, the key question is where these votes are coming from.  The analysts I've heard are saying that the heavy Hillary areas have yet to report.  If true, we could be seeing, as I wrote at 9:48, a major Clinton night.  But let's see.  Clinton is giving her victory speech right now. (Note:  I see that the spread is now back to eight, with 61 percent in.  But if those Clinton areas are still out, the final result can still be very dramatic.)

9:48 p.m. ET:  I've observed, in the last ten minutes or so, that Hillary Clinton's margin of victory in the actual count is drifting upward, from about six percent to about eight.  If it reaches ten, and rural and small-town votes are still out, it could be a very big night for Clinton.  But counts have to be approached cautiously.  We assume that big cities and their suburbs are the first to report.  However, it is not uncommon for "leaders" in these area to withhold votes to give their candidate a boost in the count later in the evening.  So, we have some waiting to do. 

9:33 p.m. ET:  Karl Rove, who knows a bit about politics, is pointing out at Fox News that Senator Obama is losing very badly among culturally conservative Democrats, the kind who defected in the 1980s to vote for Ronald Reagan.  Rove also notes that Obama is winning Philadelphia, which was inevitable, but not by the expected margin.  Now, we must caution that numbers are still coming in, but these trends clearly show that Obama is vulnerable to a Republican presidential candidate who can attract moderates and conservative Democrats.  John McCain fits that description.  He will continue to fit it if he can successfully prevent the Democrats from defining him.

9:18 p.m. ET:  CNN has now called Pennsylvania for Clinton.  An observation:  Switching between networks, you sense the heavy dominance of one word:  victory.  We can work the details, examine the margins, and try to sniff out the trends, but the American people will see a victory for Hillary Clinton, and the psychological advantage of the night is hers.  In addition, a number of analysts have used remarkably similar language in describing Obama's problem - an inability to close the deal.  Don't be surprised if you hear, in coming weeks, the question, "What's wrong with Obama?"  The Clinton campaign will push that question to push the doubts.  Indiana and North Carolina vote on May 6th.  North Carolina is Obama's, but Indiana will be the next critical battleground.

9:00 p.m. ET:  Michael Barone, the best in the business, just remarked that the Pennsylvania results are starting to look like the Ohio outcome, where Clinton won by ten points.  A ten-point win should give Clinton the momentum to carry on.  In addition, one commentator, in a very sharp observation, pointed out that upcoming primaries are in states where media costs are much lower than in Pennsylvania, so Clinton's money problems could be manageable.

8:47 p.m. ET:  Fox News has just called Pennsylvania for Clinton.  But, as Brit Hume said immediately after the call, that's not a big deal.  The issue is by how much.  Votes are just trickling in.  We have hours to go before we know the margin. 

8:30 p.m. ET:  Please note that no actual votes have yet been counted in Pennsylvania.  All the stuff on the air is theoretical.  Fox News has changed its headline, and now says it's simply too early to call anything, which is more accurate than saying the race is competitive.

8:17 p.m. ET:  I have to concede that Fox is now also putting up a headline saying the race is competitive, based on exit polls.  The explanations by Brit Hume and others tell a more subtle story.  Fox earlier expressed, verbally, great caution about exit polls.  Let's wait for the real vote, guys.  It's being counted.

8:14 p.m. ET:  CNN keeps flashing a headline saying its exit polls show a competitive race in Pennsylvania.  Fox News has been far more subtle, as pointed out in the paragraph below, and more explanatory.  Gee, you don't think CNN is...?  Nah, they're all objective.

8:06 p.m. ET:  The polls have closed in Pennsylvania.  Early exit polls show a narrow Clinton victory, but analysts are pointing out that, during this election year, exit polls have consistently overestimated Obama's vote.  If that trend continues, Clinton's victory could be larger than the exit polls are now showing.

 April 22, 2008.       Permalink               

EARLY EVENING POSTING:  APRIL 22,  2008

Posted at 7:32 p.m. ET

EXIT POLLS

The first exit polls are out from Pennsylvania and...they're absolutely insignificant.  Just ignore them.  The real polls, where real voters vote, close in 35 minutes, and the whole thing should be over by 11 p.m. ET.

The only interesting thing I saw in the exit polls was that a quarter of all Democratic voters had postgraduate degrees.  That is an extremely high figure, and discouraging to those of us who've drifted toward starboard.  There is a real leftward tilt among the population with postgraduate degrees.  Part of it is self-selection.  I mean, who do you think gets a doctorate in anthropology?  Part of it is spending too much time with others who've gotten doctorates in anthropology.

Oh, speaking of polls:  A new Gallup poll has President Bush registering the highest disapproval of any president in the 70-year history of the poll, 69 percent. 

The story goes on to say that "the previous record of 67% was reached by Harry Truman in January 1952, when the United States was enmeshed in the Korean War."

Harry Truman?  Isn't he the guy now regarded as one of America's best presidents?

That's why these surveys mean so little.  History will decide.  The nation may yet, within seven or eight years, yearn for George Bush.  Much will depend on the record of the next president.

Be back later, and throughout the night.

April 22, 2008.       Permalink            

MID-AFTERNOON POSTING:  APRIL 22,  2008

Posted at 4:31 p.m. ET

POLITICAL NEWS FROM...WHERE?

There is still no news from Pennsylvania at this hour.  I've just monitored all the usual suspects, and they're informing us that voting-machine breakdowns are no greater than normal, that turnout is good, and that the weather is nice.  They also inform us that big cities and suburbs will probably report results first.  Polls close at 8 p.m. ET.

The political news at this hour is from New York.  A new Siena Research Institute poll of the state shows that, if the general election were held today, neither Clinton nor Obama would get 50 percent of the vote.  That is devastating news in a heavily Democratic state.  Here's the story:

LOUDONVILLE, N.Y. -- Siena Research Institute's latest poll shows if the presidential election were held today, neither Democrat would get the support of 50 percent of New York voters against Senator John McCain.

Hillary Clinton has a four-point lead and Obama has a five-point lead according to the new poll of registered voters.

Siena Research Institute's latest poll shows if the presidential election were held today, neither Democrat would get the support of 50 percent of New York voters against Senator John McCain.

Steven Greenberg of the Siena Research Institute said, "In a state where 47 percent of the registered voters are Democrats, neither Obama nor Clinton has 50 percent of the vote. Right now, Senator Clinton has a lead of 46 to 42 over McCain and Obama has a lead of 45 to 40 over McCain. Both very small leads, both under 50 percent. It has to be troubling news for the Democrats."

Troubling news indeed.  By this time, most Americans are at least somewhat familiar with both Clinton and Obama, and of course Clinton is a New York senator.  For the Dems to have such a narrow lead over McCain puts New York effectively in play, at least for now.  New York has a large African-American and academic population, but it also has a large national-security constituency, and upstate New York resembles the Midwest. 

Tough campaign ahead.  McCain can pull this off.

April 22, 2008.      Permalink          

EARLY AFTERNOON POSTING:  APRIL 22,  2008

Posted at 1:14 p.m. ET

PENNSYLVANIA

There is no substantive news yet from Pennsylvania.  The weather seems normal.  Global warming hasn't created an election-day heat wave, although Al Gore has been spotted watching thermometers in Pittsburgh, and lighting matches near them.

The biggest news, ironically, was made by Bill Clinton, who managed to get himself into the papers with an election-eve outburst, reported as follows:

(CNN) — On the eve of Tuesday’s critical Pennsylvania primary, former President Bill Clinton accused Barack Obama’s campaign of playing the race card against him.

After the phone interview with Delaware radio station WHYY Monday night, a stray comment of his on the issue was also recorded before he hung up: “I don’t think I should take any s*** from anybody on that, do you?”

The former president had been asked whether his remarks comparing Obama’s strong showing in South Carolina to that of Jesse Jackson in 1988 had been a mistake given their impact on his wife Hillary Clinton’s campaign. “No, I think that they played the race card on me,” said Clinton, “and we now know from memos from the campaign and everything that they planned to do it all along.”

“We were talking about South Carolina political history and this was used out of context and twisted for political purposes by the Obama campaign to try to breed resentment elsewhere. And you know, do I regret saying it? No. Do I regret that it was used that way? I certainly do. But you really got to go some to try to portray me as a racist.”

Why do I think Hillary Clinton won't be Barack Obama's first-choice-pick for vice president?

April 22, 2008.      Permalink          

FIGHT AMONG YOURSELVES, BOYS

We can derive a kind of vicious satisfaction in this.  Apparently, the jihadists have gone Hollywood, and are fighting among themselves over who gets executive producer credit.  It's getting vicious:

CAIRO, Egypt — Usama bin Laden's chief deputy in an audiotape Tuesday accused Shiite Iran of trying to discredit the Sunni Al Qaeda terror network by spreading the conspiracy theory that Israel was behind the Sept. 11 attacks.

The comments reflected the increasing criticism by Al Qaeda's No. 2 leader Ayman al-Zawahiri against Iran, which al-Zawahiri has accused in recent messages of seeking to extend its power in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq and through its Hezbollah allies in Lebanon.

Al-Zawahiri spoke in a two-hour audiotape posted on an Islamic militant Web site, in which he replied to hundreds of questions submitted on the Internet by Al Qaeda sympathizers. One of the questioners asked about the theory that has circulated in the Middle East and elsewhere that Israel was behind the 2001 suicide airplane hijacking against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Al-Zawahiri accused Hezbollah's Al-Manar television of starting the rumor. "The purpose of this lie is clear — (to suggest) that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no else did in history. Iranian media snapped up this lie and repeated it," he said.

"Iran's aim here is also clear — to cover up its involvement with America in invading the homes of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq," he added. Iran cooperated with the United States in the 2001 U.S. assault on Afghanistan that toppled Al Qaeda's allies, the Taliban.

Well, it's nice to see Al Qaeda stick up for Israel.  How heartwarming.

And, you know, these Iranians - they always want the spotlight. 

Can't they all just get along?

Be back later with news of the Pennsylvania infidels.

April 22, 2008.      Permalink          

TUESDAY:  APRIL 22,  2008

Posted at 6:42 a.m. ET

THE PRIMARY

The Pennsylvania primary is today.  A good place to begin is the well-reported piece in The Politico giving a road map of what to look for through the day and into the counting.  What's remarkable about this analysis, and others like it, is the repeated reference to "affluent" or "upscale" Democrats.  When I was growing up, those words were applied almost exclusively to Republicans.  In fact, the presumed (or alleged) wealth of Republicans was a main Democratic talking point. We were the common people, they were the rich.  I recall once hearing Len Hall, the rotund Republican national chairman during the Eisenhower era, trying to counter the party's image by declaring that there were no common Americans.  Not successful.

But there's been a kind of role reversal in American politics.  Values voters are more likely to be found today in the Republican Party.  Many of the most affluent are now Democrats, in part because their political views were shaped by their years - too many years, in my view - spent under the tutelage of 1960s-molded professors.  They go out of their way to prove that, despite their wealth, they've retained their "humanity."  Today's "common man" is more likely to identify with a genuine hero like John McCain than with a leftist intellectual like Barack Obama.

The recruiting stations are not filled with Democrats.  At one time they were.

Let's see how the party that was once symbolized by the "strong men of steel" votes in steel country, Pennsylvania, today.

April 22, 2008.      Permalink           

THE PEOPLE WANT A FIGHT

At least that's what a new poll, just out, says about the Democratic race:

Every little bit counts: As they vie in the last of the big Democratic presidential primaries, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is besting Sen. Barack Obama, at least in the sympathy arena.

If she loses today's Pennsylvania primary, much of the public hopes the New York senator will gut it out and stay in the race. Support for Mr. Obama, however, was not so apparent. Many deemed his recent remarks about the bitterness of small-town folks as an insult rather than campaign-trail blather, according to a Fox 5/The Washington Times/Rasmussen Reports survey released today.

Overall, almost half of the respondents — 46 percent — said Mrs. Clinton should continue her quest for the White House no matter what happens in the Keystone State. A sex- and age-driven dynamic seems to be at work. The sentiment was most pronounced among women under 40, with 60 percent saying she should stay in the race. Fifty-three percent of those under 30 agreed.

Almost an equal number of Republicans and Democrats — 47 percent and 46 percent, respectively — also said Mrs. Clinton should continue.

Thirty-nine percent overall said she should abandon her campaign if she loses; the number was 53 percent among those ages 31 to 39 and 45 percent among blacks.

Frankly, I'd love to see this go right to the convention.  It's about time the Democratic Party gave us some fun.  It certainly isn't going to give us a respectable candidate.

The poll results are fascinating.  It's pretty apparent that Mr. Obama is no longer the sainted figure he was just two months ago.  Campaigns have their uses.  Over time, the candidates are exposed. 

April 22, 2008.       Permalink          

ANOTHER LITTLE MISTAKE

One of the more vulgar conceits of the chattering classes is their absolute belief in some vague definition of "science."  And one of the trendier causes of the chatterers has been the conversion of food into fuel, the better for us to counter Al Gore's inconvenient truth.

Problem is, the truth now really is inconvenient.  Consider this, from today's Washington Post: 

The willingness to try, fail and try again is the essence of scientific progress. The same sometimes holds true for public policy. It is in this spirit that today, Earth Day, we call upon Congress to revisit recently enacted federal mandates requiring the diversion of foodstuffs for production of biofuels. These "food-to-fuel" mandates were meant to move America toward energy independence and mitigate global climate change. But the evidence irrefutably demonstrates that this policy is not delivering on either goal. In fact, it is causing environmental harm and contributing to a growing global food crisis.

Food-to-fuel mandates were created for the right reasons. The hope of using American-grown crops to fuel our cars seemed like a win-win-win scenario: Our farmers would enjoy the benefit of crop-price stability. Our national security would be enhanced by having a new domestic energy source. Our environment would be protected by a cleaner fuel. But the likelihood of these outcomes was never seriously tested, and new evidence has shown that the justifications for these mandates were inaccurate.

It is now abundantly clear that food-to-fuel mandates are leading to increased environmental damage. First, producing ethanol requires huge amounts of energy -- most of which comes from coal. Second, the production process creates a number of hazardous byproducts, and some production facilities are reportedly dumping these in local water sources.

Gee.  Did anyone say "global warming"?

I wonder how many "scientists" signed on to the biofuel craze?  I wonder how many well-heeled suburbanites argued the "desperate need" for biofuels at their low-cholesterol dinner parties.  I wonder how many college newspapers ran the appropriate, politically correct editorials.

Another mistake.  Billions spent.  People hurt.

Next time someone tells you the world is about to come to an end unless his "scientific" approach is adopted, better check it out.  And don't depend on former vice presidents.

April 22, 2008.      Permalink          

OBAMA'S WAFFLING MOMENT

The following is reported from Pennsylvania:

SCRANTON, Pa. - As Sen. Hillary Clinton was preparing to campaign here today, Sen. Barack Obama was meeting with voters at a diner and apparently pretty hungry.

"Why can't I just eat my waffle?" he said, when asked a foreign policy question by a reporter at the Glider Diner.

Because, sir, you're running for president, and the waffle can wait. 

If you actually become president, you'll find out just how unimportant waffles are.

April 22, 2008.      Permalink