EVENING UPDATE:  MAY 29,  2008

Posted at 7:32 p.m. ET

OBAMA CONCERNS

Two columnists today express concerns about the course of the Obama campaigns.  Dick Polman, of The Philadelphia Inquirer, worries about Obama's difficulties with facts, and finds them serious:

Barack Obama might be well advised to curb his occasional impulse for telling tall tales, lest the Republicans seize the opportunity to paint him as Pinocchio.

They've proved themselves quite adept at undermining their opponents' credibility. Al Gore, of course, was Exhibit A. He had sought to pad his resume on a number of occasions - by boasting that he was a top speechwriter for Hubert Humphrey in 1968 (he wasn't), by claiming that he came under enemy fire in Vietnam (he didn't), by insisting that he fought the tobacco companies after his sister died of lung cancer (he didn't) - and the GOP wove those incidents (and a few others, plus some that the GOP concocted) into a broad narrative about how Gore was a serial fabulist who could not be trusted with the presidency.

And...

Earlier this week, for instance, he (Obama) remarked about how he "had an uncle who was one of the, um, who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camp" - when, in fact, Auschwitz, in southern Poland, was liberated by the Soviets in January 1945, at a time when the American troops were 1000 miles away. Obama was apparently referring to a great-uncle on his mother's side who helped liberate Ohrdruf, a camp within the complex known as Buchenwald, in the German region known as Lower Saxony, three months later. So: a misidentified relative, wrong time frame, and wrong geography.

And speaking of the wrong time frame, here's what Obama said in Selma, Alabama back in March, when he was trying to voice his solidarity with the famous Selma march for civil rights: "If it hadn't been for Selma, I wouldn't be here." He was referring to his parents, who marched in that event. He further explained: "So they got together, and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I have a claim on Selma, Alabama." But, actually, he has no such claim. He was born in 1961. The Selma march was staged in 1965.

Finally...

Politicians behave this way for a variety of reasons - to better bond with the audience of the moment, to correct for their own perceived insecurities - and Obama is probably no different in this regard. Indeed, there have been other incidents, including his claim that as a child he became fluent in the Indonesian language within six months (a boast that has been contradicted by his first-grade teacher.) If Obama persists in this fashion, he runs the real risk of being Gored during an autumn election season that might leave him little margin for error.

Little margin for error is correct.  The GOP, now alerted to Obama's penchant for artistic expansion, will be concentrating on finding every little mistake or false boast.  Obama's history here is clear, and he's likely to mess things up again.  You can be sure we'll be seeing a Republican ad with all these gaffes running one after the other.  It could be devastating, especially as McCain is seen as a man of great personal honor.

May 29, 2008.

NORTH CAROLINA

The second piece expressing concern about Obama's course is by Steve Mitchell, at Real Clear Politics.  He's a market-research expert who feels North Carolina gives an indicator of trouble ahead for the Obama campaign:

As political observers are examining national polls, even key state polls, North Carolina may be the precursor to victory or defeat for Barack Obama in November.

On May 6, North Carolina was "Obama country." He won the Democratic primary by almost 15%, beating Hillary Clinton by close to 230,000 votes. Some of the media touted the win as a further example of his crossover appeal in what was a red state in the last two presidential elections.

Two weeks later, a different picture emerged. In a poll conducted by Survey USA just fourteen days after Obama's big win in the Tar Heel state, he trailed GOP candidate John McCain by 8 points. Meanwhile, in the same poll, Clinton led McCain by 6 points. That is a huge 14 point difference between Obama and Clinton's support.

The reason?

Why is Obama trailing McCain while Clinton is beating him? Could it be that the Jeremiah Wright ads run by the North Carolina Republican Party and criticized by a number of people, including John McCain, have had a deep impact on voters? Has the almost daily barrage by talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Fox News helped create a very difficult issue for Obama and the Democrats?

A look at the internal poll data would seem to indicate just that.

And...

The major difference in support is among white voters, a demographic group that is far more likely to split its tickets in November than African-Americans. McCain leads Clinton by 11 points with white voters, but against Obama he leads by a huge 32 points.

What should be even more distressing to Obama supporters is that almost half (49%) of the voters identified themselves as Democrats while only a third (33%) said they were Republicans. Despite this lopsided party affiliation in favor of the Democrats, McCain's vote is above the important 50% mark (51%).

Finally...

The huge racial divide this polling seems to demonstrate in North Carolina may not bode well for Obama in major battleground states when the Wright issue is used against him in November. And, although any sponsors of ads will be severely criticized for using Wright, it is almost certain he will be the focal point of hard hitting ads late in the campaign.

These trial ballot tests would seem to provide the evidence that the Limbaugh/Hannity focus on Wright has had an impact. Will the impact last? Is North Carolina a precursor to victory or defeat? That's what the next six months will determine.

A factor to consider here is that there may be more Rev. Wright issues out there.  Obama has been very casual about his associations.  If you have one bad actor in your background, people might forgive, as long as you can explain it away.  But if there are three or four, a pattern emerges, and that's what turns off voters permanently.  The election is a bit more than six months away.  That's plenty of time for new issues to emerge.  The same Republican research machine that I referred to in the story above will be looking at Mr. Obama's friends and professional relationships.  The talk-show hosts and their staffs will also be looking.  There's a law of averages here, and it doesn't favor Obama.

May 29, 2008.

ISRAELI CRISIS

An Israeli political crisis affects the Mideast, and that affects us here.  The sound you heard today was the sound of a knife plunged into the back of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who is under intense investigation for accepting possibly illegal donations from American contributors.  President Bush is depending on Olmert to help deliver a settlement to the Arab-Israeli crisis, but bleeding men normally don't negotiate very effectively.

The knife was held by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, a canny political operator who has a knack for timing, and is popular with the public.  She wants Olmert's job.  She may get it:

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni ratcheted up the pressure on Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to leave office on Thursday, calling for a "swift clean process" within Kadima, and saying that the party "had to prepare for all scenarios, including elections."

"As of yesterday, there is a new reality," Livni said, speaking at a homeland security conference in Jerusalem. "I can't ignore the events of the past two days. This is no longer just a criminal or judicial issue. This is about values and norms that impact the State of Israel," she said.

"The most infuriating thing is the suggestion that [Olmert's] norms have to be adopted as part of the political system," Livni said.

"Kadima needs to take a decision on what it wants. It needs to prepare now for all possible scenarios, including elections. These are the things I've been telling party and faction members. I'm working towards a clean, fast process," she added, alluding to primaries to replace Olmert as party leader.

Obviously, this can slow down any negotiations with the Arabs.  It can also leave Israel vulnerable to a miscalculation by Hezbollah.  This occurs in the midst of an American political campaign, when discussion of the Mideast is usually frozen.  There is no guarantee the crisis in Israel will end quickly.  Olmert is resisting, and he can conceivably drag this on for months. 

May 29, 2008.

AFTERNOON POST:  MAY 29,  2008

Posted at 2:17 p.m. ET

TRACKERS

Both major tracking polls for today have now been posted.  One, as we reported earlier on our Snippets page, has good news for Clinton, the other is more neutral.

Rasmussen has McCain up five in the general, but Gallup now has Obama up one.

Rasmussen has Clinton tied with McCain, but Gallup has Clinton up two. 

So, Rasmussen shows a clear advantage for Clinton over Obama in the election, but Gallup shows them about even.  In neither poll does Obama best Clinton. 

Senator Clinton has been saying that national polls show her as the stronger candidate.  However, given the delegate count in the Democratic race, her poll numbers would have to be at least as strong as Rasmussen reports to get professional pols to listen.  The Gallup numbers diminish her argument.

We stress again that tracking numbers are useful primarily to show trends.  And, yes, the trends do show that Obama has more or less flatlined.  Indicative of the future?  We have no way of knowing.

May 29, 2008.

THURSDAY:  MAY 29,  2008

Posted at 6:58 p.m. ET

THE DEM SPLIT

The most important line of the political day, from a story in The New York Times about the fight over whether the Dems will seat Michigan and Florida at their convention:

Whatever the committee decides, Mrs. Clinton could appeal its decision by undertaking a credentials fight at the convention.

This is a major political week.  The last Democratic primaries occur Sunday and Tuesday.  Just as important, the party's rules committee meets this weekend to decide what to do about Florida and Michigan, whose primaries violated party rules.  Both states are pro-Clinton and have thus far been barred from this summer's convention in Denver.  Lawyers have given the committee some guidance:

An analysis by lawyers for the Democratic Party says party rules call for Florida and Michigan to lose at least half their delegate strength at the party’s convention in August, an outcome that could close off Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s last opportunity to cut significantly into Senator Barack Obama’s lead in delegates. 

Yeah, right.  We're sure Clinton will accept that lying down.  Look for sparks to fly, especially if Clinton can claim, with any particle of reason, that she's won the majority of the primary votes once the primaries end. 

I suspect the Clinton people are debating right now what to do if they don't receive what they consider "justice" from the rules committee.  If the committee does recommend the one-half solution, it does at least have the effect of raising the number of delegate votes needed to nominate, which is a small moral victory for Clinton.  That puts the nomination a bit further out of reach for Obama at the moment, and Clinton could make the claim that superdelegates should consider carefully their vote.

It may be to Clinton's advantage to - citing that first quote above - take her fight to the convention.  The thinking would be that Obama is not making headway in the polls and that Clinton often runs ahead of him.  The thinking could also be that Obama's novelty has worn off, and that constant gaffes are undermining the Obama cause.  Finally, some new revelation about Obama, who has a dicey past, could come out.

Wonderful fun. 

May 29, 2008.      Permalink            

McCAIN POUNCES

A sign of upcoming combat.  Senator McCain has cut into Obama, once again, on foreign policy.  Here is the exchange, reported by The Politico:  

McCain's camp sends over video from that same Reno town meeting, picking back up the same line of attack from Memorial Day: that Obama has not been to Iraq since 2006.

But McCain added a new, tougher twist:

Now, why is it that Senator Obama wants to sit down with the President of Iran, but hasn't yet sat down with General Petraeus — the leader of our troops in Iraq?

Obama's camp responds with a shot invoking the news of the day. Said Bill Burton:

"On the day after the former White House press secretary conceded that the Bush administration used deception and propaganda to take us to war, it seems odd that Sen. McCain, who bought the flawed rationale for war so readily, would be lecturing others on their depth of understanding about Iraq. Sen. Obama challenged the President's rationale for the war from the start, warning that it would divert resources from Afghanistan and the pursuit of Al Qaeda and mire us in an endless civil war. Sen. McCain stubbornly insists on pursuing the failed Bush policy that continues to cost so much, while Sen. Obama believes it's time to begin a deliberate, careful strategy to remove our troops and compel the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future."

Sorry, Barack, but this round goes decidedly to McCain.  His charge is brief, blunt and factual:  Obama hasn't been to Iraq, and hasn't conferred with our top general.  The Obama reply is long-winded and opens Obama to charges that he's contradicted himself on Iraq, which he has.  The American people don't like the war, but clearly don't want to lose or withdraw recklessly.  And, by the way, how does Obama explain his two-year absence from Iraq?  McCain should press that point, again and again.

Also, if I were Obama, I'd stay away from McClellan's book.  Americans don't like a whiney turncoat, which is the way McClellan comes off.  I suspect he'll be discredited by the Bush forces rather quickly.

May 29, 2008.      Permalink          

OBAMA'S THINKING?

Is Obama considering a woman for the second spot, to ease some of the reported female anger caused by his apparent victory over Hillary Clinton?  Maybe.  One analysis holds that he might do well with "non-confrontational" female candidates:

Like Hillary Rodham Clinton, the three other women most frequently mentioned as possible running mates for Barack Obama are widely recognized as shrewd, trailblazing politicians who would provide critical ballast to an Obama-led presidential ticket.

But according to interviews with Republicans in their home states, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill differ from Clinton by two important measures: They’ve managed to win elections without developing polarizing personas, and they’ve shied away from emphasizing gender in their campaigns.

The distinctions are important for Obama, the front-runner in the Democratic nominating contest, as his campaign begins the process of thinking about possible running mates. Selecting a woman might serve to mend the gender-based rifts that have surfaced as a result of Clinton’s historic candidacy — and Sebelius, Napolitano and McCaskill all possess red-state political portfolios that would make them attractive vice presidential candidates.

I'd add one caveat to that analysis:  Sebelius, whose persona is possibly the most politically effective of the three, is already under attack by Republicans as an abortion extremist, something that, if the attack works, could hurt her with the moderates Obama must attract. 

If Obama does select a woman, the ticket would have one African-American and one woman.  Some might say that's pushing too far.  I'm not sure I buy that.  Geraldine Ferraro was the Dems' choice for v.p. in 1984, some 24 years ago.  I don't think a woman in high-level politics is shocking any longer.  Obama's problems are with Obama, and the increasing sense that he's making it up as he goes along, and that his idea machine is running on fumes.  That's the problem he's got to solve.  Otherwise he won't be the change America has been waiting for. 

May 29, 2008.      Permalink           

COUNTERATTACK

As noted above, the trashing of Scott McClellan has begun, and it's pretty devastating.  McClellan has one huge, overriding problem:  If he saw the things he claims he saw, why did he stay?  Any honorable man would have resigned.  Investor's Business Daily runs the attack: 

McClellan, recall, was let go in 2006 after working seven years for Bush. He was fired because, to be blunt, he was one of the least effective press aides in recent White House history. In McClellan's defense, it didn't help that he succeeded Ari Fleischer and preceded Tony Snow, two of the best to have ever plied that trade.

One doesn't need to be a fan of President Bush to understand this book is little more than a settling of scores by McClellan, who quite obviously felt abused by the White House.

Nor do you need to support the war on terror to reject this book's central claim — that President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove and a host of others — intentionally misled the nation into fighting an "unnecessary" war. It just ain't so.

McClellan writes: "History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided — that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder."

In fact, "history" is poised to do no such thing. Al-Qaida is on the run, and the U.S. is on the cusp of victory in Iraq (for another view of our success in the War on Terror, see "Verbatim," page A11). Years from now we think Americans will see this as a turning point in history, a time when an American leader stood up to protect Western Civilization following the barbarous attacks of 9/11.

We don't have space here to refute everything. But one charge in McClellan's 341-page tome stands out, so we'll focus on that: The Bush White House conducted a dishonest "political propaganda campaign" to sell the war to the American people.
Start with the obvious: Wasn't it McClellan's job to resign in protest if he thought the American people were being misled? If so, this was his own failing, not Bush's.

Expect more of this.  And remember that the Dems have a built-in problem with McClellan.  They and their camp followers in the press spent so much time trashing him when he was in the White House that it will be virtually impossible to resurrect and purify him now.  This isn't the Kremlin.  Not yet, at least.

More later.

May 29, 2008.      Permalink