WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6,  2008

THERE SHE IS, MISS...?

Posted at 9:49 p.m. ET

At the end of an episode earlier in the day (organ music rises), I speculated on the possibility that Barack Obama, languishing in the polls (fearful music) might have to turn to Hillary Rodham Clinton as his vice presidential choice (danger music) to unify the party and give him a boost (boost music).

Now we see that Hillary is indeed in action, and she sounds all business.  The Clintons know how to read polls, too.

Sen. Hillary Clinton told a gathering of supporters last week that she's looking for a "strategy" for her delegates to have their voices heard and "respected" at the Democratic National Convention -- and did not rule out the possibility of having her name placed into nomination at the convention alongside Sen. Barack Obama's.

"I happen to believe that we will come out stronger if people feel that their voices were heard and their views were respected. I think that is a very big part of how we actually come out unified," Clinton, D-N.Y., said at a California fundraiser last Thursday, in a video clip captured by an attendee and posted on YouTube.

Yes, it's all about "respect" and voices being heard.  Oh, come on.  This is about power and how to get it.

The refusal to publicly announce her intentions is widely seen as a bargaining chip Clinton is holding on to as party officials negotiate logistics regarding her convention speech and other activities, according to several Democrats who are closely involved in the matter.

Clinton plans to hold a Web chat with supporters Thursday afternoon where she might clarify her convention role. In announcing the Web chat, she urged her supporters to continue to stay tuned to her Web site for updates about her convention activities.

But the very fact that details of her convention role remain unresolved less than three weeks before the Democrats descend upon Denver is a fresh sign of the difficulties the party will face at a convention when nearly half the delegates were chosen because of their support for a candidate who will not be the nominee.

Look, here's a scenario.  I'm not predicting it.  I don't make predictions.  But it's possible, and, I think, will be increasingly likely if Obama continues to weaken in the polls.  Drumroll please:

1.  The convention starts.  There is tension as delegates see that the latest Rasmussen and Gallup trackers show a dead heat.  Obama has not made any progress in three months.

2.  Hillary Clinton's backers demand that her name be placed in nomination.  There are hints of a walkout.

3.  Hillary Clinton to oppose all these efforts, but behind the scenes is working to increase pressure on Obama to recognize her delegate strength.

4.  Obama, huddling with aides, realizes that he must satisfy the Clinton people to truly unify the party and have a serious shot at winning. 

5.  But Obama cannot bring himself to choose Clinton.  It's too humiliating.  So he falls back on an old political tactic:  "I believe in democracy," he says in a dramatic, first-night, "unscheduled" appearance at the convention.  "I believe the delegates to this convention should choose the vice presidential candidate."  There is thunderous applause.  Everyone knows the code language.  The only candidate who has any real support for second place is Hillary Clinton.

6.  Clinton issues a statement saying she fully endorses full democracy at the convention, "unlike the other party, which will have its choice dictated by John McCain and the oil interests."

7.  The script is written.  Only one name is placed in nomination for vice president:  Hillary Clinton.

8.  The convention votes.  The choice of Clinton is unanimous, word having been passed from the Obama bunker that Obama would "enthusiastically" back a democratic choice.

9.  Obama and Clinton make a stunning appearance together.  The party is unified.  The country is disgusted. 

10. Clinton costs Obama more votes than she brings in.

11. John McCain is inaugurated on January 20th.

12. Hillary Clinton, delighted, plans for 2012.

Hey, you never know.

Posted at 9:49 p.m. ET, August 6, 2008.      Permalink          

FREUDIAN STUFF?

Posted at 6:19 p.m. ET

Reader Alan Weick alerts us to Jennifer Rubin's blog at Contentions.  She quotes another writer, and you just have to wonder what this guy was thinking.  Very funny:

As the pundits plod through the season of VP speculation they sometimes reveal more about themselves and the tops of the tickets than the VP picks. This one from The New Republic is a case in point (and I think is not intended to be funny):

But ideology isn’t the only reason some of us are wary of Bayh. Another is his history of accomplishment–or relative lack thereof. I’ve been reading clips and calling around Capitol Hill lately, looking into Bayh’s record. And I’d be hard-pressed to name an issue on which he’s really distinguished himself. There’s no legislative agenda or initiative for which he is particularly famous. And there are no episodes in which he demonstrated particularly astute judgment...

...This matters because–as I’ve written before–I think the most important criteria for picking a running mate is choosing somebody capable of serving as president in a time of crisis. It’s particularly important when choosing somebody as young as Bayh, since–if all goes well–he’ll become the heir apparent eight years hence. Accomplishments don’t necessarily equal readiness to be president. But, all other things being equal, I’d argue they are a decent indicator.

Jennifer Rubin adds:

Whoa, there. No accomplishments? Experience is a “decent indicator” of ability to serve, especially in a crisis. You’re not thinking of . . . nah. And, mind you, this analysis concerns a man who has served two terms as governor and has been a U.S. Senator since 1998. Really, it’s bad form for the Obamaphiles to be bringing up accomplishments and experience now.

As she said, it wasn't intended to be funny.  But, really now, writers have to concentrate on what they're doing.  It is funny.

Posted at 6:19 p.m. ET, August 6,  2008.      Permalink          

TRACKERS

Posted at 1:43 p.m.ET

Both trackers for the day are now out.  One shows the slightest gain for Obama, the other the slightest slippage.

As reported earlier at SNIPPETS, Rasmussen has Obama up one.  In the last two days he had McCain up one.

But Gallup has Obama up two.  Yesterday Gallup had him up four.

Averaging the two, Obama has a 1.5-point lead today.

Please note that Gallup measures registered voters and Rasmussen likely voters.  Also, Obama generally polls better than he delivers on election day.

The news continues negative for Obama.  He should be gaining in a Democratic year.  Instead, he's either barely holding his own, or slipping back. 

What will Obama do?  The next story down suggests that he's overexposed, that people are getting tired of all the coverage of the sainted one.  The one thing he can do is to produce a spectacular vice-presidential nominee.  But who could that possibly be?  He'd have to go outside politics for a real surprise...

...or, he could do what Jack Kennedy did in 1960, and pick an inside-the-party opponent, someone who could unify the Dems and create some excitement, at least in the convention hall.  How does Barack-Hillary sound to you?

Don't be shocked.  Obama is vain, arrogant and presumptuous, and he would hate to do it.  And in a general-election campaign Clinton can repel as many votes as she would attract.  Or more.  But if he continues to falter in the polls, and forces within the Democratic Party start to doubt him, he may be forced to swallow his pride for the first time in his life.

Posted at 1:43 p.m. ET, August 6, 2008.      Permalink          

A WORN-OUT WELCOME

Posted at 11:30 a.m. ET

More bad news for Obama.  He is apparently wearing out his welcome among voters, or his worshippers in the media are wearing it out for him.  Fox News reports:

Barack Obama may be the fresh face in this year’s presidential election, but nearly half say they’re already tired of hearing about him, a poll says.

With Election Day still three months away, 48 percent said they’re hearing too much about the Democratic candidate, according to a poll released Wednesday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. Just 26 percent said the same about his Republican rival, John McCain.

Oh goody.  Let's make John the fresh face.

Two-thirds of Republicans and about half of independents said they’ve heard too much about Obama, as did a third of Democrats, a significant number.

Yes, I'd say that's significant.  I've said before at Urgent Agenda that a newcomer doesn't stay new very long because of the mass media.  Obama doesn't wear well.  You get tired of the overblown rhetoric. 

At the same time, nearly four in 10 said they’ve been hearing too little about McCain — about four times the number who said so about Obama. About half of Republicans, four in 10 independents and even a quarter of Democrats said they’ve not heard enough about the GOP candidate.

Very good, very good, very good.

Posted at 11:30 a.m. ET, August 6, 2008.      Permalink          

THE HEIR NOT-APPARENT

Posted at 7:26 a.m. ET

I always like to quote Tony Blankley because he's one of the most perceptive columnists around.  Here he slams Barack Obama, who needs slamming, and says some things that have needed saying:

It's getting tricky to know how to refer to he who presumes to be the next president. It was made clear several months ago that mentioning his middle name was a forbidden act. (Pass out more egg shells.) Then, last week "he" warned his followers that, having nothing honorable to say, Sen. John McCain would try to scare voters by pointing to Barack Obama's "funny name" and the fact that "he doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills."

Now, putting aside for the moment the racial component of his warning, what are we to make of the "funny name" reference? Many people have "funny" names.

Think Eisenhower.  Think Schwarzkopf. 

But "he" has made it clear that the mere use of his name would be freighted with coded innuendoes of something too horrible to say straightforwardly. One has to go back to Exodus 3:13,14 to find such strict instructions concerning the use of a name. Moses explained:

"Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?" And God said to Moses, "I Am Who I Am." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, "I Am has sent me to you.'"

So, perhaps we can call him, for short, Sen. I AM (full code name: I Am who you have been waiting for).

Good choice.  Maybe a new birth certificate is in order.

Perhaps I shouldn't dwell on these matters, but the more I watch this man the more stunned I am at his over-confidence and towering pride. I have known a number of great and powerful men (and read biographies of many more) - and they surely don't lack confidence and ego.But who amongst the great would have answered the question posed to the junior senator from Illinois a few weeks ago as he did? Asked whether he had any doubts, he said "never."

And that has hurt him.

Here is a man who talked almost contemptuously of Gen. David Petraeus. Explaining his differences with the general, he said that his "job is to think about the national security interest as a whole, [the generals'] job is just to get their job done here[ in Iraq]."

Of course, right at the moment the junior senator from Illinois doesn't yet have "his" job, while Gen. Petraeus, as confirmed CENTCOM Commander, has direct responsibility for both Afghanistan and Iraq and everything in between and around them.

But in the mind of Sen. I AM, he already is, while to the senator, perhaps our greatest general in two generations is just another flunky carrying out routine orders. It is repulsive to see such a mentality in a man who would be president.

"Repulsive" is the right word.  In the story below, titled "Obama Stalls," we see that many Americans are indeed becoming repulsed, or at least hesitant.

For a man, his personality is his destiny. If he becomes president, his flaws become the nation's dangers. The voters must judge carefully both the personality and the ideas of those who would be president.

Let us hope they do.  I have a certain confidence in the wisdom of the American voter.  But citizens don't get their news directly.  They get it through the media, and I fear that what they're getting in this election campaign is so slanted, so rigged, that a wise decision may be impossible.

In a close election the media can swing enough votes, through news coverage, to determine the result.  That is not change we've been waiting for, and we have to be on guard.

Posted at 7:26 a.m. ET, August 6, 2008.      Permalink          

REMEMBRANCE

Posted at 7:05 a.m. ET

Today is the 63rd anniversary of dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.  No one with any human feeling enjoys thinking about it, and the day will be marked in Hiroshima itself with appropriate memorials.

However, the usual suspects will probably be out somewhere distorting the history and marring the remembrance.  It is easy, and politically expedient for the left, to second-guess President Truman's decision to use the bomb.  But if you were a soldier in the Pacific, or heading to the Pacific, and faced with being part of the invasion of Japan, there was no second guessing.  Another bomb was used against Nagasaki on August 9th, and the war ended in Japanese surrender on the 14th.  As the historian Paul Fussell, who was a young officer in the Pacific theater, has said, recalling his feelings, "We were going to live."

Those insist on tut-tutting and finger pointing might note that the real villains of Hiroshima were not the American airmen or those who ordered them over the city, but the stuck-in-the-muds who kept this country weak before World War II and invited the Japanese attack that led ultimately to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Churchill called World War II "the unnecessary war," unnecessary because it could have been prevented by backbone and preparedness of the free nations.

And that is a lesson for today as we deal with nations like Iran.

Posted at 7:05 a.m. ET, August 6, 2008.      Permalink          

OBAMA STALLS

Posted at 6:48 a.m. ET

We've noted here many times that Barack Obama, in what is supposedly a strong Democratic year, should be well ahead in the polls, but isn't.  Now The Politico notes that he's stalled in the polls, and examines the problem.  Even a saint, apparently, can run into trouble:

In the two months since Barack Obama captured the Democratic nomination, he has hit a ceiling in public opinion, proving unable to make significant gains with any segment of the national electorate...

...Obama remains ahead, depending on the national poll, by low to high single digits. The Gallup Poll Daily tracking survey, which randomly interviews at least 1,000 voters each day, has recently found that Obama leads by 3 to 4 percentage points.

In the first full week of the general election, June 9 to 15, Obama led by between 2 and 7 percentage points. Just short of two months later, registered voters have not significantly shifted their view, as Gallup finds public opinion still fluctuating between roughly the same margins.

I wish the writer had noted that McCain now leads in the Rasmussen tracker.  Maybe that's too much disappointment to report.

Three demographic groups have generally kept Obama ahead in the past two months: African-Americans, youth and Hispanics. But a lead based on those groups is a tenuous one. The youth vote, notorious for not meeting expectations, must turn out in significantly higher numbers than in past elections. Obama must continue to win the black vote nearly unanimously and still turn out new African American voters. McCain must continue to underperform with Hispanics by about 10 percentage points compared to Bush in the summer of 2004.

And...

McCain might also be said to have hit a ceiling himself. At best, he has only statistically tied Obama for fleeting periods this summer.

A bit of a slant here.  Again, the reporter might have noted a McCain lead in a few polls, even if statistically insignificant.

If there is a primary explanation as to why the race has remained close this summer, it is that Obama has failed to make gains overall with white voters, who still cast about three in four ballots on Election Day.

Like Gore in 2000, Obama nearly splits white women and loses white men by a large margin, according to an aggregate of polling in June and July 2008 and 2000 polling by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press.

Depending upon the week in June or July, by Gallup’s measure, Obama has roughly fluctuated between splitting or, at worst, trailing by about five percent with white women. In that same period, Obama has only won between 34 and 37 percent of white men.

Finally...

What all this suggests is a general election that is much tighter than many analysts predicted and defined by far more stubborn levels of support.

As it stands, on August 3 the RealClearPolitics average of national polling had 46.6 percent of the public supporting Obama, putting him narrowly ahead of McCain. Exactly two months before, on June 3, that same average had Obama at the exact same level of support—46.6 percent.

What we seem to be seeing, I hope, is a repeat of the primary experience.  The more Democratic voters learned about Obama, the less they seemed to yearn for him.  Obama has yet to fill in the self-portrait of himself.  Maybe there's just no filler available.  He speaks well, is attractive personally, yet can't seem to assure the electorate that he's up to the presidency.  His trip to Europe and the Mideast, if anything, seemed to highlight the questions rather than provide the answers.

But don't get too confident.  Obama is a quick learner.  There are three debates scheduled.  If McCain falters, or comes out with one of his famous gaffes, it could shift enough voters to make a difference.  On the other hand, the contrast between McCain and Obama, which I'd feared, may work in McCain's favor if his performance is otherwise solid - the wise counselor against the young, inexperienced and overconfident kid.

Stand by.  It's far from over.

Posted at 6:48 a.m. ET, August 6, 2008.      Permalink