EARLY EVENING POST:  MAY 24,  2008

Posted at 6:53 p.m. ET

BARONE ON OBAMA

Michael Barone believes we haven't heard the last of the Rev. Wright controversy, and that it will continue to hurt Barack Obama: 

As Barack Obama makes his slow but steady way toward the Democratic nomination, the assumption in the admiring precincts of the press corps is that voters have dismissed as irrelevant his longtime association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But that may prove as mistaken as the assumption, back in 1988, that voters would not be impressed by Michael Dukakis's 11-year support of a law granting weekend furloughs to convicts sentenced to life without parole, an issue brought up in the primaries by Al Gore but largely ignored in press coverage at the time.

Evidence for this comes in the exit polls from the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries on May 13 and 20. In both, about half the voters -- and these are voters in the Democratic primary -- said that they believe Obama shares Wright's views either somewhat or a lot. And slightly under 50 percent of these voters said that Obama is honest and trustworthy.

And...

... the negative verdict these voters render on Obama's honesty and his relationship with Wright is likely to be typical of some significant quantum of potential Democratic voters this year. And not just in states like West Virginia and Kentucky, which he will certainly lose, but in marginal states which he must carry in order to be elected.

I find confirmation from this in a recent focus group conducted for the Annenberg Public Policy Center by pollster Peter Hart (for whom I worked for seven years) of non-primary voters in Charlottesville, Va. As Hart and Alex Horowitz note in their analysis of reactions to Obama, "When asked to recount any two memories of the total presidential campaign so far, seven of the 12 participants cite Rev. Wright by name. So far, clips of Rev. Wright clearly are the one 'key defining moment' of this campaign."

And get this:

Most reporters are liberals, whose circles of friends and acquaintances have included people with views not dissimilar to those of Wright or William Ayers, the unrepentant Weather Underground bomber with whom Obama served on a nonprofit board and at whose house his state Senate candidacy was launched. Such reporters don't find these views utterly repugnant or particularly noteworthy. But most American voters do. And they wonder whether a candidate who associates with such people agrees with them -- or disbelieve him when he says he doesn't.

Though most in the press won't admit it, that's a problem -- for the Obama candidacy and for the whole Democratic Party once it nominates him.

Hmm.  Note that line about the press:  "Such reporters don't find these views utterly repugnant or particularly noteworthy.  But most American voters do."  Then think back to the Vietnam War, and how the Tet offensive, one of the greatest military victories in American history, was reported as a defeat.

We may have had the Reagan Revolution, but the press is still there.

May 24, 2008.       Permalink          

LATE AFTERNOON POST:  MAY 24,  2008

Posted at 6:05 p.m. ET

WHAT THEY'RE TAUGHT

Oscar Hammerstein II said it best in "South Pacific" - you've got to be taught to hate.

To understand the Middle East we have to understand what is taught in Arab and Muslim schools, preached in mosques and parroted by the press.  The United States has paid heavily in lives and treasure to liberate Iraq.  And yet...well, read this from The Times of London:

The parents of Iraqi babies with congenital heart problems are facing a dilemma: should they allow their children to be treated in Israeli hospitals when they have been brought up to believe that Israel is their mortal enemy?

Hostility towards the Jewish state in Iraq is so strong that many parents refuse to travel to Tel Aviv for free life-saving hole-in-the-heart surgery.

Some accept the offer but never reveal where their children were treated, even though the operation has not been available in Iraq since its leading cardiac clinic burnt down after the American-led invasion in 2003.

Other parents are seeking treatment elsewhere in the Arab world, despite prices of up to £15,000 for heart surgery in private clinics. They fear the stigma of being treated in Israel.

Nice, huh?  I haven't seen any pressure applied by the United States to Iraq to change the poison being taught in the schools.  Maybe that pressure is needed.  One Iraqi mother, whose child was treated in an Arab country, said...

“Now I can sleep with a clear conscience. I’m able to hold my head up high and not be ashamed by having my son treated in Algeria,” she said.

Not all Iraqis think that way, showing that there is hope.  A father:

“I can honestly tell you that I didn’t worry for a moment about where or who will operate on my daughter,” he said. “Nor did I worry about the reaction of my family and relatives. Anyone who blames me should put themselves in my place and live for nearly two years watching his daughter die in front of his eyes, and then tell me what he’d have done.”

The story is important because we have vastly underestimated the power of teaching and propaganda.  Arabs and Muslims are often taught to hate America as well, no matter what we do, no matter who we help. 

May 24, 2008.      Permalink          

AFTERNOON POST:  MAY 24,  2008

Posted at 1:48 p.m. ET

POLLS

Some new polls out today offer encouragement to Senator McCain.  They also offer encouragement to Senator Clinton, but her latest gaffe about Bobby Kennedy, a mini-scandal that is growing, may dash her hopes.  These numbers must be seen in that context.

In the general, a new Newsweek poll has McCain and Obama tied.  Gallup also shows a tie, and Rasmussen has McCain two up on Obama.

Newsweek has Clinton four points ahead of McCain.  Gallup has her five up over McCain, and Rasmussen has her two up.

Without question, the polls are showing Clinton as the stronger Democratic candidate, although not by overwhelming amounts.  As noted, her latest blunder may change things, but it's clear that Senator Obama has not made the sale.  I suspect one reason is his constant need to explain himself, a need that flashes "amateur" or "inexperienced" to the voter. 

May 24, 2008.       Permalink          

SATURDAY:  MAY 24,  2008

Posted at 7:53 a.m. ET

WHOOPS

You're all aware by now of the shocking comment Hillary Clinton made yesterday about staying in the race through June because, after all, you don't know what can happen, and Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June and...

She apologized, of course.  It turns out, though, she said the same thing in March:

Though she has now apologized for that very strange and tasteless comment to the Argus-Leader, this was not the first time she's said it. This from her interview with TIME Managing Editor Richard Stengel, published March 6:

TIME: Can you envision a point at which--if the race stays this close--Democratic Party elders would step in and say, "This is now hurting the party and whoever will be the nominee in the fall"?

CLINTON: No, I really can't. I think people have short memories. Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual.

Her excuse now is that the Kennedys have been "much on my mind these days" with the illness of Senator Edward Kennedy, but that doesn't explain what brought it to mind more than two months ago.

This comes at a terrible time for Clinton.  She is holding well in the polls, she wants to make a convincing argument that superdelegates should wait for a while before deciding, and she has been running an effective campaign.  Now this.  It conjures up, once again, the image of someone who will do and say anything to get elected.   The political hearse is parked outside her house, and the driver is ready for the delivery.

May 24, 2008.      Permalink          

JINDAL?

The Washington Times makes a cogent argument for McCain to choose Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana as his running mate. When you look at the list of possibilities, Jindal stands out as the most exciting.  Not necessarily the most qualified, but the most exciting.  Make your own judgment.  The argument:

There are many things John McCain needs in a vice presidential candidate. The most obvious is a running mate who must be prepared to lead should the president be unable to. Other characteristics? Conservative. Youthful. Diverse. There is one name among those Mr. McCain is interviewing this weekend that fits the bill: Bobby Jindal.

The newly elected Louisiana governor is an exciting breath of fresh air to the national ranks of the Republican Party. At age 36, Mr. Jindal is our youngest governor and the first person of color to serve as Louisiana governor since Reconstruction. A first-generation American (his parents are Indian immigrants), Mr. Jindal successfully won over Louisiana on a platform of change and ethics reform in the midst of Louisiana's notorious reputation of corruption.

Among his first acts as governor, Mr. Jindal issued an executive order on Transparency and Ethical Standards, and in less than three months he was able to pass a sweeping comprehensive ethics reform package in a special session. Mr. Jindal calls it "the first bold step toward a new Louisiana." Impressive. And among the many reasons that make this young conservative an attractive (and necessary) addition to the McCain ticket.

And...

Critics suggest Mr. Jindal is too young. We query, too young for what? Mr. Jindal meets the Constitution's age requirement in addition to boasting an impressive, experienced and accomplished record as a public servant at the state and federal levels (since 1995.) In fact, Mr. Jindal has more executive and legislative experience than both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama combined. The question is whether he has the ability to step in as commander-in-chief at a moment's notice. We have no doubt that he could.

Read the whole thing.  My gut instinct, and only that, tells me The Washington Times is right.  Jindal is the only candidate who shakes things up, and shines the spotlight back on the McCain campaign.  That alone makes him worth it.

May 24, 2008.      Permalink          

HANSON ON GENERALSHIP

Victor Davis Hanson is one of our favorite writers.  The man knows history, he reads, he studies, he thinks.  What is he doing in the academic world?

Here Hanson examines the question,  "Any More Grants or Shermans?"  It's about the leadership of our modern Army:

Who becomes a general — and why — tells us a lot about whether our military is on the right or wrong track.

The annual spring list of Army colonels promoted to brigadier generals will be shortly released. Already, rumors suggest this year, unlike in the recent past, a number of maverick officers who have distinguished themselves fighting — and usually defeating — insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq will be chosen.

And...

Before the (Civil) war broke out in 1861, the obscure U.S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman had failed at almost everything they had tried. But after the Union Army was nearly wrecked by establishment generals like Ambrose Burnside, Henry Halleck, Joseph Hooker, George McClellan, John Pope and William Rosecrans (all wedded to the set style of Napoleonic warfare), President Lincoln turned to his two generals who best understood modern warfare.

On the eve of World War II, Gen. George Marshall, Army chief of staff, promoted a series of junior officers — Omar Bradley, J. Lawton Collins, Dwight Eisenhower, George Patton, Matthew Ridgway and Maxwell Taylor — while retiring senior generals he felt had little idea of the new warfare of armored vehicles, rapid mobility and close air support.

And...

A newly ascendant Gen. Sherman captured Atlanta in time to save Lincoln the election of 1864, and with it the Union cause itself. The successful invasion of Normandy and subsequent race to the Rhine would have been unimaginable without Gens. Bradley, Eisenhower and Patton — all unknown colonels as late as 1940. So far, a few largely unheralded colonels in Iraq have salvaged the American cause.

Finally...

A common complaint is that a worn-out military has lost the peace in Iraq and should withdraw in defeat. In fact, recruitments in June exceeded the military's goals, violence in Iraq is down, Shi'ite and Sunni terrorists are losing ground to the new military of a constitutional Iraq — and the junior American outsiders who engineered all that may soon be seniors on the inside.

We should all certainly hope so.

Be back later.

May 24, 2008.      Permalink