EVENING UPDATE,  MARCH 14,  2008

POLLING

I generally avoid tracking polls until just before an election.  They tend to be less accurate than larger polls, and their greatest value comes when only a few days are left before the vote. 

However, the tracking polls right now are particularly fascinating, as they show McCain very strong against either Clinton or Obama.  Not winning yet, except in the Rasmussen sample, but strong, and that is not good for the Democrats: 

                              Poll Date         Sample     Obama (D) McCain (R) Und    Spread

Rasmussen Tracking 03/10 - 03/13   1700 LV      44            45           11    McCain +1.0

Gallup Tracking 03/10 - 03/12          4355 RV     46            44            4     Obama +2.0

NBC/WSJ 03/07 - 03/10                  1,012 RV    47            44             5    Obama +3.0

Newsweek 03/05 - 03/06                 1,215 RV    46            45                   Obama +1.0

Then there are state tracking polls.  As expected, the Democrats win California handily.  It has become reliably Democratic.  But look at Ohio:

In new Rasmussen general election polls in California and Ohio, Clinton and Obama both beat McCain in the Golden State, while McCain beat both Democrats in Ohio. Obama's margin over McCain is twice that of Clinton's.

Ohio (March 13, 500 LV)
McCain 46 - Obama 40
McCain 46 - Clinton 40

California (March 12, 500 LV)
Obama 53 - McCain 38
Clinton 46 - McCain 39

Ohio is a bellwether state.  It is a very good indication of where things are going politically.  The results for Clinton and Obama are identical, and both lose to McCain.  If I were a Democrat, I'd leave the tux in storage.  There might not be any state dinner invitations to the White House.

THE PASTOR

The Atlantic, not known as a bastion of conservatism, expresses alarm at Obama's connection with his controversial minister, and urges Obama to do more to clarify the relationship:

So far, Obama has attempted to laugh off Wright's penchant for inflammatory rhetoric, comparing him to "an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with," and suggesting that this is "what happens when you just cherry-pick statements from a guy who had a 40-year career as a pastor." But as Wright's America-bashing gets more airtime -- and as his Obama-boosting sermons put his church's tax exemption at risk -- Obama may have to go further down the road to explicitly disavowing his pastor. His connection to Wright isn't the equivalent of John McCain's going to Liberty University to make nice with Jerry Falwell. It's the equivalent of John McCain taking his wife and children, most Sundays, to Jerry Falwell's church. And the disconnect between Obama's studied moderation and his congregation's radicalism requires more of an explanation than he's offered so far.

In an election when many expected that Mitt Romney's fate would be determined by how he talked (or didn't) about his Mormon faith, it may be Obama whose candidacy ends up riding on how he addresses the relationship between his politics and his church.

Yeah, I'm afraid so.

THE PASTOR II

Paul Mirengoff, at Power Line, continues his mult-part discussion of the now-famous pastor, noting Obama's latest comments on the subject:

Here's Obama latest response regarding his spiritual leader and that leader's odious views:

Q: I don't know if you've seen it, but it's all over the wire today (from an ABC News story), a statement that your pastor (the Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's South Side) made in a sermon in 2003 that instead of singing "God Bless America," black people should sing a song essentially saying "God Damn America."
A: I haven't seen the line. This is a pastor who is on the brink of retirement who in the past has made some controversial statements. I profoundly disagree with some of these statements.

Q: What about this particular statement?

A: Obviously, I disagree with that. Here is what happens when you just cherry-pick statements from a guy who had a 40-year career as a pastor. There are times when people say things that are just wrong. But I think it's important to judge me on what I've said in the past and what I believe.

Paul observes:

Several points come to mind. First, the "things [Obama] believes" (and should be "judged" on) include the following: Pastor Wright should be his spiritual leader; Pastor Wright's church should receive a substantial amount of money from Obama; Obama's children should, at an impressionable age, be exposed to Pastor Wright's sermons, as opposed to less hateful religion instruction they could receive elsewhere.

Second, Obama is still defending Wright, and very lamely (Wright's "on the brink of retirement;" he's made "some controversial statements" in the past; his statements are being "cherry picked"). Wright wasn't near retirement in 2001 when he blamed 9/11 on the U.S; nor was he near retirement in 2003 when he said God should "damn America." And the statements at issue aren't merely "controversial" or "just wrong"; they are deplorable.

Worst of all is Obama's suggestion that Wright is the victim of "cherry picking." Wright's statements span a full range of issues including (just to mention some that have come to light so far) America's treatment of its citizens (some are treated as less than human); America's overall approach to the world (horrible enough to deserve 9/11); Israel and Palestine (Israel commits war crimes with U.S. assistance); World War II (it was criminal for the U.S. to bring the war with Japan to a successful conclusion the way it did); and HIV (he suspects the U.S. government of helping to spread the virus). As ABC News said, its "review of dozens of Rev. Wright's sermons, offered for sale by the church, found repeated denunciations of the U.S." And let's not forget Wright's decision to honor Louis Farrakhan.

So there's no cherry-picking occurring here. Furthermore, the cherry-picking defense, even when plausible, has never been accepted when it comes to racism. Don Imus, for example, has received widespread condemnation for very occasional statements that showed racial insensitivity. Trent Lott was condemned for one statement praising Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign.

Obama appears to be playing a double game here, distancing himself from Wright without really denouncing him. It's essentially the same game Obama (we now see) has been playing for years -- cater to racist black nationalists at home while presenting himself as "post-racial" nationally.

Paul's arguments are entirely logical, but he will undoubtedly be dismissed as a right-wing conspirator.

OBAMA RESPONDS

It's clear that the pastor problem has gotten the attention of the Obama campaign.  Here, Obama posts a late, written response:

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

Yeah, okay, okay.  But Obama seems finally to get what people are concerned about:

Because these particular statements by Rev. Wright are so contrary to my own life and beliefs, a number of people have legitimately raised questions about the nature of my relationship with Rev. Wright and my membership in the church. Let me therefore provide some context.

He goes on:

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.

Let me repeat what I've said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country.

With Rev. Wright's retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss, III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good. And while Rev. Wright's statements have pained and angered me, I believe that Americans will judge me not on the basis of what someone else said, but on the basis of who I am and what I believe in; on my values, judgment and experience to be President of the United States.

Is this enough?  I don't think so.  It's going to take a public speech, similar to the one John F. Kennedy gave to the Houston ministers in 1960, to begin to clear this.  Obama must devote a press conference to it, and reply to the issues raised by Paul Mirengoff.  And then he has to address related items:  What is his connection to William Ayers, the radical former Weather Underground member who says that he wishes he'd committed more acts of violence in his activist days?  Why has he had nut cases like Samantha Power, now resigned, on his campaign?  

Obama has made "judgment" a hallmark of his campaign.  How good a judge of people is this presidential candidate?

Stuff like this doesn't go away.  It festers. 

A WARNING FROM McCAIN

Senator McCain has wisely warned that the boys in the Afghan condo caves might try to influence our presidential campaign:

SPRINGFIELD, Pennsylvania (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Friday he fears that al Qaeda or another extremist group might attempt spectacular attacks in Iraq to try to tilt the U.S. election against him.

McCain, at a town hall meeting in this Philadelphia suburb, was asked if he had concerns that anti-American militants in Iraq might ratchet up their activities in Iraq to try to increase casualties in September or October and tip the November election against him.

"Yes, I worry about it," McCain said. "And I know they pay attention because of the intercepts we have of their communications ... The hardest thing in warfare is to counter someone or a group of individuals who are willing to take their own lives in order to take others."

McCain has to hit this theme often enough for the public to absorb it.  Of course al Qaeda will try to influence how we vote.  That's the business they're in.  But, like so many foreign enemies, they may miscalculate.  They miscalculated on 9-11 by not realizing how strongly we'd fight back. 

The McCain campaign should be war-gaming how they'd respond to any number of enemy actions until election day.  If al Queda attacks, the Dems probably won't be able to resist the temptation to claim that the attack proves we're wrong in some way.  That could backfire, very badly, if the American people respond to enemy action with defiance, rather than acquiescence.

IRAN VOTES

Well, it isn't exactly Super Tuesday, but Iran votes today.   Drum roll please.  It's a mullah-style election, where almost all the reformist candidates were barred from running, so the choices Iranians have won't exactly rival the selection at your supermarket.  The report:

In the middle-class neighborhoods of central and western Tehran, mosques were crowded as people turned out, and many said they were voting for reformers.

But with most high-profile reformists barred from running by a conservative vetting body, religious conservatives are still expected to tighten their grip on power, and only minor reformist candidates are taking part.

Indeed, the election has largely come down to a contest between conservatives who still support the president and those who have become his opponents.

All opinions are welcome, as long as they're Islamic opinions.  But who are we to judge?

It goes on:

People said they were unhappy about the policies of the government, and in particular cited problems like unemployment. There is much anger over unemployment, inflation and fuel shortages in this oil-rich country and frustration that Mr. Ahmadinejad’s economic policies have only made the poor poorer and the rich richer.

There was apparently not much comment on the esteemed president's threat to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.  But why would a worldly, sophisticated reporter ask about such trivia?  I mean, a progressive doesn't go there, does one?

Don't wait up for the returns. 

HELP!

I freely admit, before God and Court, that I have no idea what this last story is about.  I present it to you in full:

ROSEBURG, Ore. -- The parent company of an Oregon railroad operation that shut down a line through the Coast Range has put up $24 million to help pop singer Michael Jackson keep his Neverland Ranch.

The amount is just a little more than the estimated cost of repairs to the Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad's line between Coquille and Eugene.

The line is owned by RailAmerica, whose parent company, Fortress Investment Group, signed a "confidential" agreement that allows Jackson to retain ownership of his property.

RailAmerica has asked for state help with the Oregon line, but Gov. Ted Kulongoski has said that any public-private repair effort can come only after the route is reopened.

Any Oregonians out there?  Does anyone understand that story?  Please feel free to e-mail us at comments@urgentagenda.com

We'll solve this.

And I'll be back tomorrow.

Posted on March 14, 2008.