LATE EVENING POST:  MAY 25,  2008

Posted at 10:59 p.m. ET

POLLS

I'd assumed there'd be no tracking polls published today because of the holiday, but I'd assumed incorrectly.  They were published, although late. 

Rasmussen and Gallup both have McCain up two points over Obama.

But wait, look at this:  Rasmussen has Clinton up three points over McCain, and Gallup has her up five. 

Gallup charts published here show Clinton's lead to be consistent, and part of a trend.  She is simply the stronger candidate against McCain.

However, it matters not.  Gallup also reports that Obama continues to lead in the preference for the Democratic nomination, about 50 to 45, and no poll shows Obama far enough behind McCain to challenge Democratic Party opinion.

We can look forward to a closely fought election.  The choice of a vice presidential candidate, if it affects the outcome by two or three points, could in fact be decisive. 

May 25, 2008.      Permalink            

EVENING POST:  MAY 25,  2008

Posted at 8:33 p.m. ET

HIS BETTER HALF?

The Boston Globe, which is owned by The New York Times, has one show conservative   on its op-ed staff.  Today Jeff Jacoby recalls that Barack Obama took offense at criticism of his wife, Michelle.  Jacoby explains to the senator the rules of the game.  He notes a Tennessee GOP ad featuring local people expressing pride in America:

The video makes its point by alternating these upbeat comments with clips of Michelle Obama telling two different audiences in February: "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country." In an understated press release announcing the video, the state GOP welcomed Mrs. Obama to Nashville and remarked: "The Tennessee Republican Party has always been proud of America."

One would have to have skin of microscopic thinness to take offense at so gentle and indirect a critique. No surprise, then, that Barack Obama took offense, reacting as if his bride had been slimed by slurs akin to those that enraged Andrew Jackson when he ran for president. (During the campaign of 1828, supporters of John Quincy Adams maligned Jackson's mother as a "common prostitute" and mocked his adored wife, Rachel, as a "convicted adulteress" and a "strumpet.") In an interview on ABC, Obama growled that Republicans "should lay off my wife," and described the inoffensive Tennessee video as "detestable," "low class," and reflecting "a lack of decency."

If Republicans "think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign," he added ominously, "they should be careful."

Ooh, very fierce. But unless Obama is prepared to emulate Jackson - Old Hickory defended his wife's honor by fighting duels, in one of which he killed a man - he stands no chance of putting his wife's remarks off-limits to criticism. As long as he keeps sending her around the country to campaign on his behalf, everything she says is - and should be - fair game.

Jacoby gives us some Michelle quotes about how bad America is, and adds "her creepily authoritarian vision" of life under President Obama:

"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone . . . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual - uninvolved, uninformed."

Require us?  Demand of us?  Never allow us?  Not exactly phrases you find in the Bill of Rights.  Finally...

...she is Barack Obama's closest confidante and adviser; if he is elected, her influence will be considerable. That is why her words matter. And why, whether her husband likes it or not, Michelle Obama is a legitimate issue in this campaign.

And that's why Jacoby is spot on.

May 25, 2008.      Permalink          

AFTERNOON POST:  MAY 25,  2008

Posted at 3:59 p.m. ET      

OBAMA AT WESLEYAN

Barack Obama gave the commencement address at Wesleyan University in Connecticut today, filling in for Ted Kennedy.

It was pathetic.

Oh, sure, there was the usual inspirational stuff:  Go out and serve.  Do something for humanity.  The standard Obama boilerplate, complete with a number of references to his own glittering life.

But this is Memorial Day weekend, and, unless there was some last-minute change not picked up in the advance texts, Obama didn't say a word about the armed forces.  He didn't have the dignity or common sense to mention to the graduates that men and women their own age were not having a joyous graduation day, but were on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Their sacrifice didn't make the cut.

That's the problem with Obama.  It's cultural.  Give him a chance, without his handlers around to fix everything, and he reverts back to the standard left-wing line.  Didn't anyone read this speech before he delivered it?  Or was it just Michelle?

McCain should come down on him for this lapse.  It's unforgivable.

May 25, 2008.       Permalink               

SUNDAY:  MAY 25,  2008

Posted at 8:29 a.m. ET

CLINTON EXPLAINS

Hillary Clinton is going all-out to control the damage she did to herself by her now-famous remark about Robert Kennedy's assassination.  To remind readers, she was explaining why she would fight on through June, and said that things happened in campaigns to change them, then noted that Robert Kennedy was assassinated in June of 1968.  Okay, it didn't go down well.  Here, she writes a column in The New York Daily News, explaining things: 

This past Friday, during a meeting with a newspaper editorial board, I was asked about whether I was going to continue in the presidential race.

I made clear that I was - and that I thought the urgency to end the 2008 primary process was unprecedented. I pointed out, as I have before, that both my husband's primary campaign, and Sen. Robert Kennedy's, had continued into June.

Almost immediately, some took my comments entirely out of context and interpreted them to mean something completely different - and completely unthinkable.

I want to set the record straight: I was making the simple point that given our history, the length of this year's primary contest is nothing unusual. Both the executive editor of the newspaper where I made the remarks, and Sen. Kennedy's son, Bobby Kennedy Jr., put out statements confirming that this was the clear meaning of my remarks. Bobby stated, "I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense."

I realize that any reference to that traumatic moment for our nation can be deeply painful - particularly for members of the Kennedy family, who have been in my heart and prayers over this past week. And I expressed regret right away for any pain I caused.

But I was deeply dismayed and disturbed that my comment would be construed in a way that flies in the face of everything I stand for - and everything I am fighting for in this election.

Of course, as we pointed out here yesterday, she said the same thing in March.  And Hillary is not known for sincerity.  But, for now, let's take her at her word, and watch her as the campaign goes on through June 3rd, a week from Tuesday, when the last Dem primaries are held in Montana and South Dakota.  The Puerto Rico primary, a week from today, is the one Hispanic-only primary.  Should Hillary win big there, the Democrats must be careful not to ignore that vote and antagonize that constituency. 

What will happen when the primaries are over?  Well, either Clinton will concede or she will fight on.  My guess is that she'll fight over the seating of the Michigan and Florida delegations.  If she can show, and it's a big "if," that she has a majority of the popular vote if those two states are factored in, she might have a shot at continuing.  Then she can hope Obama blunders, or something comes out about him that zaps his candidacy.

May 25, 2008.      Permalink          

THE VEEPSTAKES

David Broder, who's been around since the founding of the Republic, presents a knowledgeable view of the vice presidential nominations, the speculation about who will be picked, and why the choices could be especially important this year:

In part, it's because everything else at this stage of the race seems so scripted. And it's also that in an era of remarkably close presidential contests, there is always a chance that an inspired -- or disastrous -- choice by the nominee will tip the balance.

Good point.  And...

...when the McCain campaign announced last week that he would be entertaining former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, my imagination cranked into overdrive.

These are three attractive politicians, young enough to balance McCain in age and geographically distant from his home state of Arizona. Romney earned his credentials by giving McCain his toughest challenge for the presidential nomination. Crist delivered a vital and timely endorsement. And Jindal, the youthful son of Indian immigrants, could be the Republican answer to Barack Obama.

But there are others. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former Ohio congressman and Bush administration budget director Rob Portman have their backers. Still, given the low state of the Republican Party, McCain might want to take a bolder leap, bidding for independent votes with someone such as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg or another business executive who could reinforce his reformer credentials.

For the Dems:

The guessing on Obama's No. 2 is really all over the lot, with the threshold question being whether the job must be offered to Hillary Clinton in order to keep peace at the convention. That looks like an unlikely partnership, but it would make sense for him to consider one of her prominent supporters, such as Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland or Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell.

Beyond that, many Democrats hope Obama will shore up his fragile national security credentials by picking someone who has worked prominently in that arena -- a defense maven and veteran such as Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, or even a general.

Finally...

The real reason to focus on the vice presidential choices is what they tell us about the men at the top of the ticket. The clues are important, even if the winner is not.

Of course, the winner could suddenly become president.  It could come in the middle of a war or an international crisis.  That is the most important consideration of all.

May 25, 2008.      Permalink          

JUNK JOURNALISM

Every now and then there appears in a major journal a piece so bad, so empty-headed, so pompous, so overdrawn, so pseudo-intellectual, so incompetent, that it must be read to be appreciated.  Thus we come to today's New York Times column by Frank Rich, former drama critic of The Times, now a columnist about everything, about which he knows nothing. 

For background, there is a new production of "South Pacific" in New York.  It is a hit.  Most of you probably know the musical, maybe performed in it in high school.  It has beautiful music, one of the best scores ever written.  It's about Americans in the South Pacific in World War II.  Ah, but to Rich it is about much more.  He notes that audiences weep when they hear the overture.  He does not consider that they weep because the music is so gorgeous, or because the show reminds them of their better youth, or because the production reflects an American musical tradition almost destroyed in the sixties.  No, Frank Rich has found another reason for the weeping:  It's BUSH!  It's IRAQ! 

How does he know?  He knows.  And he finds in "South Pacific" subtle anti-war messages.  Never mind that composer Richard Rodgers wrote the music for "Victory at Sea."  Never mind that lyricist Oscar Hammerstein II wrote the lyrics for "The Last Time I Saw Paris," which lamented the Nazi takeover of France.  There are messages here, secret messages about the darkness of war.  And about BUSH!  Oh, read the thing.  It's a bit long, but you'll enjoy it, because you'll come away with the greatest feeling of intellectual superiority you ever had.

And please...would someone tell me what this piece is actually about?  Just let me know your thoughts.  I promise, you'll get a kind note in return.  That's not worth much in trade, but it's better than junk mail.  And better than this not-so-Rich column, which is best forgotten.

Be back later.  I'm going to put on my old vinyl record of "South Pacific," and listen for the secret messages.

May 25, 2008.        Permalink