EVENING UPDATE:  APRIL 17,  2008

Posted at 7:12 p.m. ET

THE PREVIEW

It is, in my view, vulgar and ugly, but a preview of things to come.  James Taranto, at Best of the Web Today, alerts us to an offensive column by David K. Shipler in The Los Angeles Times.  Shipler is the Pulitzer-Prize-winning former Jerusalem correspondent for The New York Times.  He was one of those who set The Times on the "moral equivalence" course in its Mideast reporting, and is reliably liberal.  Now Shipler informs us that virtually every criticism of Barack Obama has racist undertones.  We're going to get this in the fall, in subtle and not-so-subtle ways, so better learn it now.  Shipler:

Whether by calculation or coincidence, Hillary Clinton and Republicans who have attacked Barack Obama for elitism have struck a chord in a long-standing symphony of racial codes. It is a rebuke that gets magnified by historic beliefs about what blacks are and what they have no right to be.

Clinton is no racist, and Obama has made some real missteps, including his remark last week that "bitter" small-town Americans facing economic hardship and government indifference "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them." Perhaps he was being more sociological than political, and more sympathetic than condescending. But when his opponents branded him an elitist and an outsider, his race made it easier to drive a wedge between him and the white, rural voters he has courted. As an African American, he was supposedly looking down from a place he didn't belong and looking in from a distance he could not cross.

This could not happen as dramatically were it not for embedded racial attitudes. "Elitist" is another word for "arrogant," which is another word for "uppity," that old calumny applied to blacks who stood up for themselves.

Read the whole piece.  It goes on like that, dissecting words and phrases.  Shipler is exactly wrong.  Obama is accused of elitism because he is an elitist, not because of his race.  What is remarkable about this campaign is the absence of racism, not its presence.  Shipler should have learned from the 2000 campaign, when Joe Lieberman became the only Jew ever to run on a national ticket.  It was hardly mentioned at all, and the Gore-Lieberman team did receive more votes, in the popular count, than Bush-Cheney.

Some people just won't give Americans an even break.

April 17, 2008.      Permalink          

MORE UPROAR

The troops are increasingly restless.  John Fund, at The Wall Street Journal, reports that liberals are also going nuts over something else in the debate:

Many liberals exploded in anger last night over the fact that Barack Obama was asked by ABC moderator George Stephanopoulos for the first time to explain his relationship with William Ayers, a former member of the 1960s terrorist group Weather Underground, which set off bombs in the Pentagon and Capitol.

Mr. Ayers, asked in the Sept. 11, 2001 New York Times if he regretted his actions, said he only wished he had set off more bombs.

Mr. Obama knew enough to try to distance himself from Mr. Ayers. "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from.... The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense, George."

Yeah, but Barack, you don't get it.  Things in politics are added together.  You add this to Rev. Wright, to some of your strange advisers, to the fact that a Hamas official endorsed you, to...well, you get the idea, don't you, Barack?

Fund quotes Sean Hannity, who originated discussion of the issue, as saying that "the left-wing blogs are going nuts over this (and crying foul)."  Fund says:

That's understandable, given that the way Mr. Obama handled the question almost guarantees he will have to address it again. But that doesn't mean the issue is illegitimate or inappropriate. It just means it's finally been raised in a campaign that has given Mr. Obama too many passes on his background.

It's going to get very, very rough.  And just wait until Michelle Obama opens her mouth again.

April 17, 2008.      Permalink           

DEMOCRATIC TIN EARS

The Democratic Party continues its winning ways.  Not.

A resolution welcoming Pope Benedict to the United States had to be altered, at the insistence of Senator Barbara Boxer of California, to eliminate a reference to the fact that the pope values "each and every human life."

Apparently, the pro-abortion forces feared the implication of the words.

I don't how readers feel about abortion, and it's not relevant here.  There is a time in politics to be gracious.  The phrase "each and every human life" can be interpreted the way one wishes, and in accordance with one's conscience.  The idea that the Democrats can object to such life-affirming language says much about what's happened to the Democratic Party.  Too many of its members believe that Roe v. Wade was the most important event of the 20th century.

Earth to Democrats:  It wasn't.

I'll be back later, with your answers to yesterday's question about what we should do with the now-unemployed Italian Communists, and maybe another item.

April 17, 2008.      Permalink          

LATER AFTERNOON POSTING:  APRIL 17,  2008

Posted at 5:42 p.m. ET

THE UPROAR

There's a growing uproar over ABC's performance during last night's Obama-Clinton debate in Pennsylvania.  Part of the discontent, at least among some liberal bloggers, deals with the fact that ABC reporter George Stephanopolous was once a staff member in the Clinton campaigns and the Clinton White House, and seemed especially rough on Barack Obama.

It is true that Stephanopolous was in the Clinton camp.  However, it is also true that he went to Columbia with Barack Obama, and the two were there for three coinciding years.  So there are old school ties. 

Bottom line:  Stephanopolous is a professional journalist, and his work is out there for all to see.  Viewers can make their own judgments on his performance.  I thought he was tough, but reasonable.

Here, Stephanopolous defends himself in an interview with Michael Calderone of The Politico:

Despite criticism, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos defended his performance in last night’s Democratic debate, which he co-moderated with Charles Gibson.

“We asked tough but appropriate questions,” Stephanopoulos told me by phone this afternoon.

When I asked whether questions about flag pins or Bosnia are actually relevant to voters, he replied: “Absolutely.”

“The vote for the president,” Stephanopoulos said, “is one of the most personal” decisions that someone makes.

“When people make that choice, they take into account how candidates stand on the issues,” he said, but also are concerned with “experience, character [and] credibility.”

“You can’t find a presidential election where those issues didn’t come into play,” he said.

Stephanopoulos explained that since the candidates are not far apart policy-wise, the “core of the nomination fight” has been about these issues.

“They’ve been fighting it out on this turf,” he said, adding that these are things that “came up between this debate and the last one.”

I think that's fundamentally correct.  Oscar Hammerstein II, the great lyricist, was once challenged by a snotty critic about the fact that he wrote so often of sentimental things.  Hammerstein replied that those are the things people are interested in.

People are interested in these "non-policy" issues as well.  They're legitimate.

April 17, 2008.      Permalink          

AFTERNOON POSTINGS:  APRIL 17,  2008

Posted at 3:16 p.m. ET

TRACKERS

The most stunning tracking poll of the day comes from Reuters/Zogby, which has Clinton up only one point in Pennsylvania.  Another poll, out yesterday, had Obama up slightly.  These polls have not been confirmed by others, however.

If those polls are in any way accurate it would mean that Obama wasn't hurt in Pennsylvania by his San Francisco remarks, and may even have gained.  But we don't know if the polls are accurate.  One thing we are seeing, though, is the difficulty Senator Clinton has in exploiting Obama's weaknesses.  The fact that she is widely disliked, and her inability to recall things accurately - that's a polite way of saying it - are having their effect.

The national trackers show little change, and again we see the continuing Rasmussen-Gallup split.  Ras has McCain up four over Obama, whereas Gallup has Obama leading by two.

Ras has McCain up eight over Clinton, but Gallup has Clinton up one.

The Democratic primary campaign is giving McCain plenty of fodder for the fall, if he and his team have the skill to use it. 

April 17, 2008.      Permalink          

THE TRAVELER

Reader Ken Willis refers us to this cartoon, which requires no explanation:

April 17, 2008.      Permalink          

THURSDAY:  APRIL 17, 2008

Posted at 6:56 a.m.

FOLLOWING THE MONEY

The Obama tax returns were released just before last night's Pennsylvania debate:

PHILADELPHIA - Democratic Sen. Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, made $4.2 million last year as widespread interest in the presidential candidate pushed the sales of his two books.

In tax returns the campaign released Wednesday, the Obamas reported a significant jump in their income from the previous year as profits from the books "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope" accounted for some $4 million. The Obamas paid federal taxes of $1.4 million and donated $240,370 to charity.

Their salaried income was $260,735, which included his $157,102 salary as a U.S. senator and hers of $103,633 as vice president of community and external affairs at the University of Chicago Medical Center.

The Obamas exhibited no bitterness, and neither turned to guns nor immigrant-bashing.

But they did turn to religion:

Among the charitable donations in 2007 was $26,270 to Trinity United Church of Christ, where the incendiary sermons of Obama's former pastor have created problems for the candidate.

Amazing that Obama never suspected that this would come up in a heated election campaign.

But the Obamas can in fact claim "comparative poverty":

By comparison, Clinton and her husband, the former president, reported $20.4 million in income for 2007. Almost half the former first couple's money came from Bill Clinton's speeches. The Clintons made nearly $109 million since leaving the White House in 2001, capitalizing on lucrative business ventures and his speaking engagements.

Just humble servants of the people.

April 17, 2008.      Permalink          

THE DEBATE

The general reaction I've seen is that the questioning by ABC reporters was tough, but that policy issues were set aside in favor of questions of credibility and personal qualities.  My sense is that most pundits think Obama did poorly, and that Clinton won by default.  No one can yet judge the impact on the vote.  We don't know who was watching.  Here's a roundup:

From Chuck Todd, NBC:

This was not a good debate for Obama, period. But it wasn't a great debate for Clinton either. Of course, that may not matter to Team Clinton. In a twp-way debate, it's not about which candidate narrowly wins -- but which candidate gets pummeled in the post-debate reviews. And Obama will get pummeled because well he did get pummeled, a little bit by Clinton and a little bit by the moderators.

In the first 40 minutes of the debate, most of the questioning was on Obama's negatives (except for a lone Bosnia-sniper question to Clinton) and that's what helped create what was a near disastrous performance by Obama in those first 40 minutes. He was weak in a lot of his answers on his personal negatives. (Did he really compare Tom Coburn to a one-time '60s radical/terrorist?)

From David Brooks, New York Times:

First, Democrats, and especially Obama supporters, are going to jump all over ABC for the choice of topics: too many gaffe questions, not enough policy questions.

I understand the complaints, but I thought the questions were excellent. The journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities. Almost every question tonight did that. The candidates each looked foolish at times, but that’s their own fault.

And...

Second, Obama and Clinton were completely irresponsible. As the first President Bush discovered, it is simply irresponsible statesmanship (and stupid politics) to make blanket pledges to win votes. Both candidates did that on vital issues.

And...

The third point concerns electability. The Democrats have a problem. All the signs point to a big Democratic year, and I still wouldn’t bet against Obama winning the White House, but his background as a Hyde Park liberal is going to continue to dog him. No issue is crushing on its own, but it all adds up. For the life of me I can’t figure out why he didn’t have better answers on Wright and on the “bitter” comments. The superdelegates cannot have been comforted by his performance.

Final grades:

ABC: A
Clinton: B
Obama: D+

From Michael Goodwin, New York Daily News, on Obama:

He answered some better than others, and some not at all. But the mere fact that at least five damaging issues were thrown at him within 30 minutes was testament to how much the race has changed in the six weeks since anti-American remarks by Obama's pastor, the Rev. Jeramiah Wright, became public.

That was the high-water mark of Obama's campaign, and now the cracks are showing. My bet is that his ineffective answers on Wednesday night will mean more doubts among voters and more concern among Democratic superdelegates about whether Obama is electable in November.

The result is that Clinton, despite her own electability issues and an imperfect evening, scored a debate victory just a week before the Pennsylvania primary.

From Walter Shapiro, at Salon:

This was not an evening that will shimmer in Obama's memory book. Facing a new-guy-on-the-block hazing from moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, Obama at times displayed a whiff of petulance at the steady assault of questions about the controversial sermons of his former minister Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his Chicago social connection to Bill Ayers, a semi-unrepentant alumni of the Weather Underground. Clinton, who faced her own credibility challenges over her hyperbolic description of her wartime visit to Bosnia, seemed content to take refuge in her mantra about her "16 years of being on the receiving end of what the Republican Party dishes out." Her unsubtle message: I am the only one on this stage who can take it.

But with the April 22 Pennsylvania primary less than a week away, Obama won the debate by the simple act of not losing. While divining the reaction of channel-flipping Democrats to a debate is a tricky business, there did not seem to be a moment that would magically transform the contours of a race in which Obama has long been the odds-on favorite.

From Philip Klein at The American Spectator:

PHILADELPHIA -- Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton squared off last night in a debate to help Democrats choose their party's nominee, but the big winner wasn't either Democrat. It was Republican John McCain.

Both Clinton and Obama were rattled as ABC moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopolous grilled them on a number of issues that have not been brought into focus before.

Clinton came across as craven and dishonest, while the normally eloquent Obama buckled under tough questioning about his relationships with former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers and Rev. Jeremiah Wright. When the debate moved to policy, both candidates contradicted themselves repeatedly and revealed the hollowness of their liberal positions.

Trackers should pick up the debate reaction within a few days.  But Pennsylvania votes Tuesday, so the polls will soon be memories.

April 17, 2008.      Permalink          

RATING THE NETWORK

It isn't just the candidates who get rated.  Tom Shales, in The Washington Post, takes a dim view of the role played by the two ABC moderators.  This is not warm and fuzzy:

It was another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.

Feelings will be hurt.  He goes on:

For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news.

And...

Gibson sat there peering down at the candidates over glasses perched on the end of his nose, looking prosecutorial and at times portraying himself as a spokesman for the working class.

And...

The boyish Stephanopoulos, who has done wonders with the network's Sunday morning hour, "This Week" (as, indeed, has Gibson with the nightly "World News"), looked like an overly ambitious intern helping out at a subcommittee hearing, digging through notes for something smart-alecky and slimy. He came up with such tired tripe as a charge that Obama once associated with a nutty bomb-throwing anarchist.

Finally...

At the end, Gibson pompously thanked the candidates -- or was he really patting himself on the back? -- for "what I think has been a fascinating debate." He's entitled to his opinion, but the most fascinating aspect was waiting to see how low he and Stephanopoulos would go, and then being appalled at the answer.

It has been reported that Tom Shales will not be invited to the ABC Christmas party this year.

April 17, 2008.      Permalink          

JIMMY'S ADVENTURE

I've often praised the Washington Post's editorial page.  Although I disagree with many of its liberal stands, it's one of the best-written and most thoughtful editorial sections in the country, and it specializes in common sense.  Today the page rips into Jimmy Carter's freelance performance in the Middle East.  The argument is persuasive:

ON THE OPPOSITE page today we publish an article by the "foreign minister" of Hamas, Mahmoud al-Zahar, that drips with hatred for Israel, and with praise for former president Jimmy Carter. We believe Mr. Zahar's words are worth publishing because they provide some clarity about the group he helps to lead, a group that Mr. Carter contends is worthy of being included in the Middle East peace process.

And...

Mr. Zahar lauds Mr. Carter for the "welcome tonic" of saying that no peace process can succeed "unless we are sitting at the negotiating table and without any preconditions." Yet Mr. Zahar has his own preconditions: Before any peace process can "take even its first tiny step," he says, Israel must withdraw to the 1967 borders and evacuate Jerusalem while preparing for the "return of millions of refugees." In fact, as Mr. Zahar makes clear, Hamas is not at all interested in a negotiated peace with the Jewish state, whose existence it refuses to accept.

And...

These facts would hardly need restating were it not for actors such as Mr. Carter, who portray Hamas as rational and reasonable. Hamas is "perfectly willing" for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas "to represent them in all direct negotiations with the Israelis, and they also maintain that they will accept any agreement that he brokers with the Israelis" provided a referendum is held on it, the former president told the newspaper Haaretz. Compare that claim with Mr. Zahar's own words on the opposite page. In fact, Mr. Zahar has called Mr. Abbas "a traitor" for negotiating with Israel -- a label that is, in the Palestinian context, an incitement to murder.

Finally...

But it is one thing to communicate pragmatically, and quite another to publicly and unconditionally grant recognition and political sanction to a leader or a group that advocates terrorism, mass murder or the extinction of another state. That is what Mr. Carter is doing by lending what is left of his prestige to an avowed terrorist such as Khaled Meshal -- or Mahmoud al-Zahar.

Well said.  Rational.  Reasonable.

April 17, 2008.      Permalink          

SAVE THE DATE

On a related theme - people who want to wipe out certain people - we're in for some festivities in the United States:

Several white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups across the United States are planning to hold events commemorating Adolf Hitler's birthday, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) reported Thursday.

Racist rallies, marches, cookouts and other events will be held in Washington, D.C., Chicago, Portland, Houston and Morganton to celebrate the Nazi dictator for his legacy of racism, anti-Semitism and hate.

And...

The ADL has compiled a list of events planned for Hitler's birthday. Among the events are an April 19 march "against illegal immigration" planned by the neo-Nazi National Socialist Movement in Washington D.C., and a "racialist cookout" in Morganton planned by Stormfront, an Internet forum popular among white supremacists and anti-Semites.

An "Adolf Hitler Memorial and BBQ" planned in association with the neo-Nazi Hammerskin Nation in Houston will involve live entertainment and a swastika lighting.

I'm sure the live entertainment will be exciting and tuneful. 

Well, it's the cost of free speech.  What grates is that so many American men died to fight the very forces that will hold these "celebrations."

Pray for rain.  And high winds.

April 17, 2008.      Permalink