EVENING UPDATE:  APRIL 25,  2008

Posted at 7:31 p.m. ET

DISGRACEFUL

We all know that the race card will be played by the Obama side.  They're very good at it.  I didn't think, though, that it would be played against Senator McCain this soon.  But read for yourself the quote by Obama's campaign manager, as reported by Ben Smith in The Politico:

David Plouffe tells Linda Douglass that real racists are probably voting Republican in any case:

"[T]he vast, vast majority of voters who would not vote for Barack Obama in November based on race are probably firmly in John McCain's camp already," he says.

That is utterly disgusting, especially at a time when McCain is trying to get a strong anti-Obama ad pulled from North Carolina TV - which in my view is a mistake.  There's nothing wrong with that ad.

Will the race card work against McCain?  It will, if McCain responds by pandering to the racialists.  He must fight back, discredit the charge, and make those playing the race card look like the petty little frauds that they are.

April 25, 2008.      Permalink          

A BRITISH VIEW

It's fun to read how other "cultures" see our election campaign.  Gerard Baker of The Times of London is one of the most astute foreign observers of American politics.  Here, in what I hope is an accurate view, he says that the Democrats have blown it: 

How do they do it? How do the Democrats manage to squander repeatedly and with such ease the chance of a lifetime? What inverse alchemy have they created that turns the gold bullion of electoral opportunity into the base metal of political oblivion?

Oh, I love it.  It goes on:

There's a popular view among Democrats and the media establishment that the reason for the party's current disarray is that it just happens to have two most extraordinary candidates: talented, attractive, and in their gender and race, excitingly new. But there's an alternative explanation, which I suspect the voters have grasped rather better than their necromancers in the media. Both are losers.

The longer the Democratic race goes on, the more obvious it appears that each is deeply, perhaps ineradicably flawed.

Preach it, Gerard.  Preach it!

Until about a month ago Barack Obama had done a brilliant job of presenting himself as a transcendent figure, the mixed-race candidate with bipartisan appeal who promised to heal the historic and modern rifts in American life.

But the mask has slipped. Under pressure in a Democratic primary, Mr Obama has sounded just like any other tax-raising, government-loving Democratic politician. Worse, he has revealed himself to be a member of that special subset of the party's liberal elite - a well-educated man with a serious superiority complex.

Truth!  Truth!

American presidential elections turn as much on the characters of the candidates as they do on the saliency of policies. Democrats, of course, think this is all rather crass. They think voters should confine themselves to the “issues”. But Americans understand their government a little better. They know the limits of presidential office and they understand the president's role as head of state is as much about leadership of the nation as it is about implementation of policy.

What they want is a man - or a woman - of character and record to inspire and lead them. That may be why the Democrats are in trouble.

This is the journalistic promised land.  Read the whole thing.

April 25, 2008.      Permalink          

NERVE

Some people just don't know when to stay silent.

Mohamed el Baradei, the head of the, ho-hum, Nobel-Peace-Prize-winning UN nuclear monitoring agency, is lecturing the United States and Israel for not showing him proper respect, or something like that:

The head of the UN nuclear monitoring agency on Friday criticized the US for not giving his organization intelligence information sooner on what Washington says was a nuclear reactor in Syria being built secretly by North Korea.

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei also chastised Israel for bombing the site seven months ago, in a statement whose strong language reflected his anger at being kept out of the picture for so long.

The White House broke its silence about the issue on Thursday, just hours after top US legislators - members of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee - were briefed on the alleged reactor. US intelligence officials said evidence included dozens of photographs taken from ground level as well as footage of the interior of the building taken by spy satellites after the Israeli strike.

Mohamed, let me clue you in on something:  Nations aren't going to give up their existence to the UN.  We don't owe you.  The Israelis don't owe you.  Now go back to Iran and try to come up with some answers, and maybe later we can talk.

Be back tomorrow, but I may have a note later tonight.

April 25, 2008.      Permalink          

AFTERNOON POSTINGS:  APRIL 25,  2008

Posted at 512 p.m. ET

TRACKERS

A late tracking poll from Indiana confirms an Obama lead.  This poll has him up three over Clinton.  A previous one, reported this morning, had him up one.  All recent polls show Obama leading, but the lead is small.  However, it's not good news for Senator Clinton, who has little more than a week to make up the deficit.  True, she generally does better in the actual vote than in polls, but she has work to do.

National trackers:  Rasmussen has a tie between McCain and Obama, whereas Gallup has McCain up one.  Rasmussen has McCain up two over Clinton, but Gallup has Clinton up two over McCain.  The national figures indicate that either Clinton or Obama would be competitive.  However, the bloom is obviously off Obama's rose.  He is not running away with it, not in any manner.  The longer he is exposed to criticism and examination, the weaker he becomes.

For the Democratic nomination, there is one stunning result:  The Gallup tracker has Obama up only one over Clinton.  However, Ras has him up seven.  This preference poll should be watched very closely in coming days for signs of any weakness in Obama's lead, stemming from the Pennsylvania primary and new disclosures about his choice of pals and advisers.

Some great politics coming up.

Be back later.

April 25, 2008.      Permalink          

FRIDAY:  APRIL 25,  2008

Posted at 5:23 a.m. ET

INDIANA

A new, but relatively small poll out in Indiana shows, essentially, a dead heat between Clinton and Obama.  (It actually shows Obama up one, and was taken after the Pennsylvania results were known.)  This can't be good news for Hillary Clinton, as a win in Indiana on May 6th is important to maintaining the momentum and fundraising that came out of Tuesday's Pennsylvania victory.  Indiana is right next door to Obama's home state of Illinois.  He's known in Indiana, and the Chicago media market includes Indiana's northwest section.  Also, Indiana contains some large academic communities, where support for Obama is feverish.  Anthropologists are stuffing envelopes, political scientists are handing out brochures at the various Noam Chomsky devotion centers. 

I should point out that Illinois is actually Hillary Clinton's original home state as well.  But she's had so many.

If Clinton loses Indiana, however, she won't pull out.  That's a foregone conclusion.  The reason is that two solid Clinton states, West Virginia and Kentucky, vote, respectively, on the 13th and 20th.  Any momentum Clinton loses in Indiana she'd hope to make up with those two, then proceed to an expected victory in the "Hispanic" primary, Puerto Rico, on June 1st.

Look, barring a major jolt, the nomination will go to Obama, for the African-American vote is the key to any Democratic victory in November, and that community will not be denied.  But there have been major jolts in this campaign, and Hillary must go to bed every night praying for another weird Obama "friend" to come out of the woodwork between now and San Juan.

April 25, 2008.      Permalink          

THE DRAG ON OBAMA

Charles Krauthammer, in top form, gets to the core of what's wrong with Barack Obama, why he can't seem to close the deal, why the halo has been connected to an effective dimmer:

...Obama understands that the real threat to his candidacy is less Hillary Clinton and John McCain than his own character and cultural attitudes. He came out of nowhere with his autobiography already written, then saw it embellished daily by the hagiographic coverage and kid-gloves questioning of a supine press. (Which is why those "Saturday Night Live" parodies were so devastatingly effective.)

Then came the three amigos: Tony Rezko, the indicted fixer; Jeremiah Wright, the racist reverend; William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. And then Obama's own anthropological observation that "bitter" working-class whites cling to guns and religion because they misapprehend their real class interests.

And...

What is Obama to do? Dismiss all such questions about his associations and attitudes as "distractions." And then count on his acolytes in the media to wage jihad against those who have the temerity to raise these questions. As if the character and beliefs of a man who would be president are less important than the "issues." As if some political indecency was committed when Obama was prevented from going through his 21st -- and likely last -- primary debate without being asked about Wright or Ayers or the tribal habits of gun-toting God-loving Pennsylvanians.

Ouch.  And it gets even tougher:

As people begin to learn about this just-arrived pretender, the magic dissipates. He spent six weeks in Pennsylvania. Outspent Hillary more than two to one. Ran close to 10,000 television ads -- spending more than anyone in any race in the history of the state -- and lost by 10 points.

And not because he insufficiently demagogued NAFTA or the other "issues." It was because of those "distractions" -- i.e., the things that most reveal character and core beliefs.

Obama is apparently ducking further debates, and maybe for good reason.  But the character issues will only dog him if they're brought up.  And if they're brought up, Clinton will be accused of damaging the party's chances in November.  She has to resist those charges, and go full throttle. 

And so must Senator McCain.

April 25, 2008.      Permalink          

OBAMA'S MATURITY

Roger L. Simon, at Pajamas Media, admits that he once sympathized with the Weather Underground, and donated to the Black Panthers.  "But I didn’t stay friends with these people," he says.  "I grew up and lived a life. I put away childish things, as it is written.  Now Barack Obama is younger than I am, by more than a decade, but he is running for President and he didn’t, as they say, entirely put away childish things. In fact, he cleaved to some of them."

Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers...

And Simon draws a conclusion: 

I am an agnostic, so it is perhaps presumptuous of me to be quoting the Bible. But it is certainly great literature and there is no better explanation for why I would have difficulty voting for Barack Obama than those magnificent phrases from First Corinithians:

“When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.” (I Cor. 13:11)

No one has said it better.

April 25, 2008.      Permalink          

THE NEW TRENDY THING - FOOD!

Alert Manhattan!

Alert Beverly Hills!

Alert San Francisco!

There's a new trend in town.  Out with global warming.  In with, well, rice and stuff.  The New York Sun reports that dinner-party talk may have to take an abrupt turn:

The campaign against climate change could be set back by the global food crisis, as foreign populations turn against measures to use foodstuffs as substitutes for fossil fuels.

With prices for rice, wheat, and corn soaring, food-related unrest has broken out in places such as Haiti, Indonesia, and Afghanistan. Several countries have blocked the export of grain. There is even talk that governments could fall if they cannot bring food costs down.

One factor being blamed for the price hikes is the use of government subsidies to promote the use of corn for ethanol production. An estimated 30% of America’s corn crop now goes to fuel, not food.

“I don’t think anybody knows precisely how much ethanol contributes to the run-up in food prices, but the contribution is clearly substantial,” a professor of applied economics and law at the University of Minnesota, C. Ford Runge, said. A study by a Washington think tank, the International Food Policy Research Institute, indicated that between a quarter and a third of the recent hike in commodities prices is attributable to biofuels.

Last year, Mr. Runge and a colleague, Benjamin Senauer, wrote an article in Foreign Affairs, “How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor.”

“We were criticized for being alarmist at the time,” Mr. Runge said. “I think our views, looking back a year, were probably too conservative.”

A Honda mechanic told me that the ethanol stuff also lowers gas mileage, defeating the whole purpose.  But would anyone listen to a mechanic when you can listen to Al Gore?

You think maybe the whole ethanol craze has something to do with money for big farmers in Iowa?  You think?

This is going to be very tough on the chattering classes.  Just as they're getting into the global warming bit, they've got to learn about rice production.  I can understand how they might resent those food rioters.  So ungrateful.  So indifferent to environmentalism.  You know, it's true what Obama says, the little people just get bitter. 

I'm going for an eye exam.  Driving.  Twenty miles a gallon, city.  I've clocked it.

Be back later.

April 25, 2008.      Permalink