THURSDAY, AUGUST 7,  2008

REALITY WATCH

Posted at 11:09 p.m. ET

More news to keep you sober, and to put the world into perspective.  Martin Sieff, the seasoned correspondent for UPI, brings us up to date on a threat that's surfaced before, but which has never been fully addressed.  As usual, most people aren't even thinking about it:

The threat is real, the technology exists, and it is available and incredibly cheap; at least a half-dozen rogue states and well-funded terrorist groups around the world could afford it, and the menace puts in danger the lives of more than 200 million Americans. Yet almost nothing has been done about it.

The threat is that of old, short-range Scud ballistic missiles being launched with nuclear or biological warheads from large container cargo ships from outside U.S. territorial waters, some of the nation's leading experts in ballistic-missile defense (BMD) warn.

And...

The entire populations of the U.S. Eastern seaboard and the West Coast, some 70 percent of Americans totaling more than 210 million people, are at risk from such attacks, experts have warned.

Sleeping better already?

The technology to intercept one or a few Scud missiles not only exists, it is mature and reliable...

...However, both the U.S. government and the American mainstream media have lost track of the threat posed by mounting Scuds and their light, very mobile launching pads in container ships and firing them at sea, experts warn.  In fact, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency and its boss, Lt. Gen. Henry "Trey" Obering III, have been warning for years about the grave danger posed by offshore ballistic-missile launches. But on Capitol Hill and in the U.S. media alike, their warnings have fallen on deaf ears.

Next time some media flak tells you that journalists are "the nation's eyes and ears," I encourage you to laugh out loud.

The advantages of such a mode of attack are obvious, experts say. The weapons systems involved are extremely cheap. Land-based ballistic missiles can be almost instantly identified with their countries of origin after takeoff. But Scuds launched from container ships cannot.

Writing for BusinessNet in November 2005, analyst Otto Kreisher noted there were already 75,000 anti-ship cruise missiles in circulation around the world in at least 70 countries, and many of them could easily be programmed to attack land targets instead.

But if only we can get people around the world to love us, none of this would mean a thing.  Right?  Of course it's right.  Why, let's join hands.

We're going to be surprised one of these days.  In a few seconds we can suffer more casualties than in all American wars put together. 

But too many people shrug at the thought.  I mean, just the idea of airliners being hijacked and plunged into buildings.  How absurd.

Posted at 11:09 p.m. ET, August 7, 2008.      Permalink          

WATCH IRAN

Posted at 5:53 p.m. ET

We're focused on our election campaign, with our conventions only weeks away, but we shouldn't take our eye off Iran.  The so-called "negotiations" with that country over its nuclear program are deadlocked, we are threatening further sanctions through the U.N., but Russia, which would have to approve those sanctions, is opposed.  Tensions are rising, with Iran receiving mixed messages from the assortment of doves and hawks in the West.

This morning, on SNIPPETS, we reported that two more American carriers are headed for the Iran area, this following a threat by an Iranian official to shut down the Strait of Hormuz if we take military action.  A good chunk of the world's oil supply passes through that strait.

Reader David L. Renegar writes:

I recall when asked at a news conference during the hostage crisis, Carter Defense Secretary Harold Brown said that, if Iran tried to close the Strait of Hormuz, we would go to war. I also recall that during the first Gulf War a defense analyst saying that whenever the US has two or more carriers dispatched to an area that war is very likely. Since two more carrier groups are now steaming towards the Persian Gulf to join the carriers already there, it would seem to me the likelihood of the US striking Iran is quite real. Why bear the costs of sending these carrier groups over there just to intimidate them? I wonder if Bush is doing this in the event Obama wins.

I wonder too.  It's appeared in recent months that the president has bought into the Bush 41 style of doing things, as advocated by Rice and Gates.  Clearly, we've spoken less belligerently and gone the diplomatic route, even sending a senior State Department diplomat to speak with the Iranians across a table.  Nothing has worked, and the centrifuges in Iran keep spinning.

Today, Condi Rice took a somewhat harder line, and echoed comments by Israel's defense Minister, Ehud Barak, who just visited her in Washington:

Just days after Iran failed to accept incentives in return for suspending their uranium enrichment program, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Thursday that while Washington will continue to pursue a diplomatic resolution to the standoff with Teheran, all options remain in the cards.

"The president keeps all his options on the table, and we still believe that the diplomatic option can work and there's time for it to work," she told Yahoo! News.

"I don't want to get into timelines, but the fact is we're working on it every day," Rice maintained. She added that the current diplomatic efforts were based on the assumption that "there are reasonable people in Iran that see this is not the way to run a country."

The issue is not whether they're reasonable.  The issue is whether the reasonable faction has any real power.  There were reasonable people in imperial Japan and Nazi Germany as well, including generals and admirals.  Lot of good their "reasonableness" did us.

Watch this situation very closely.  Iran can be the wild card in our foreign policy during Bush's remaining months in office.  It can also be the wild card in the campaign.

Posted at 5:53 p.m. ET, August 7, 2008.      Permalink          

TRACKERS

Posted at 1:59 a.m. ET

Both trackers are out for today.  There's a slight gain for Obama, something we also saw yesterday.

Rasmussen has Obama up one.

Gallup has him up three.

So Obama retains his small lead.  Again we point out that these are snapshots in time.  We also point out that McCain hasn't really gained.  He did have a one-point lead in the Ras survey earlier in the week, but lost it.

Still, there is no reason for applause in the Obama camp.  He should be much further ahead.  McCain, who's now turning into a fighter, is keeping the race close, and can pull this out.

Posted at 1:59 p.m. ET, August 7, 2008.      Permalink          

REPEAT PERFORMANCE

Posted at 8:38 a.m. ET

I normally don't repeat material.  But we got such a strong response to the post late last night on Hillary Clinton's possibly being named as Obama's v.p., that I thought it wise to reprint the scenario, for those who might have missed it. 

We noted that Obama is languishing in the polls.  What if this continues to the Dem convention at the end of the month?  An uneasy party may look to a dramatic gesture to unify the troops and push into the fall campaign with renewed energy.  And who might, behind the scenes, be leading this charge?  Do you have any doubt?

No, I don't think it's realistic to think that Clinton might rip the nomination from Obama.  The African-American community, critical to any Democratic candidate, would be in open revolt, now and evermore.  But there is that second slot, and here is a scenario for how Clinton might get it:

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 8:38 a.m. ET, August 7, 2008.       Permalink          

LEADING ON YOU TUBE - McCAIN?

Posted at 7:48 a.m. ET

I am informed by those of a different generation that this is "awesome," "totally awesome," and "incredibly awesome."  I assume these are good things.

It turns out that John McCain is winning in one critical battle of the political wars:  The number of hits received on YouTube.  You read it here first...well, second or third.  But the man who sometimes looks like he's ready to be shipped off to a museum is making a bit of a name for himself with the new generation:

Paris Hilton may think John McCain is just a “wrinkly white-haired guy,” but the Republican presidential candidate apparently has figured out the younger generation just fine. Over the past two weeks, his “celebrity” attacks have stomped Democratic presidential opponent Sen. Barack Obama in YouTube hits.

Mr. McCain has pumped out a series of brutal yet entertaining attack ads and Web videos mocking the press and Mr. Obama, and the combination of wit and insult has pushed his YouTube channel to the sixth most watched on the site this week. Mr. McCain has beat Mr. Obama's channel for seven straight days and 11 of the past 14 days, in a signal he intends to compete for the YouTube vote.

That is a giant reversal. Mr. Obama had been quadrupling Mr. McCain's YouTube views and beat him every day since February, according to TubeMogul, which tracks online video viewing.

You know, McCain could cut into that youth vote.  Young people might ignore their parents, but they'll listen to their grandparents.  And McCain is granddad.  There's just enough age difference to make him interesting. 

The McCain campaign said it was simply a decision to have fun with commercials, like the “Celebrity” ad released last week that compared Mr. Obama to Miss Hilton and Britney Spears, and “The One” Web ad that mocks the adulation from Obama supporters and compares the Democrat to Moses as he parts the Red Sea.

The videos were linked on key sites such as the Drudge Report and broke into mainstream coverage through television and celebrity blogs, expanding viewership to people Mr. McCain has never reached before.

“I think we knew it would draw some attention. I don't think we knew it would be as big a hit on YouTube,” said spokesman Brian Rogers.

More...

Mr. Obama's YouTube channel beat Mr. McCain's every day from February through mid-July, when Mr. McCain's new style began to show. That was when the campaign launched “Obama Love,” mocking press coverage of the Democrat, set to Frankie Valli's “Can't Take My Eyes Off You.”

And...

Overall, Mr. Obama's YouTube channel still dominates, with 51 million all-time video views. Rep. Ron Paul, Texas Republican, is second with 15.3 million views and Mr. McCain trails in third with 8.3 million views.

“The Obama folks get it,” said Mr. Burch at TubeMogul. He said they always have new material coming out to keep continually peaking.

But Mr. McCain is catching up, with 4.1 million views this month compared with Mr. Obama's 2 million as of Wednesday evening.

You know, maybe, hey, Obama is so...over.  Know what I mean?  You know.  Hey.

It's a whole other language.  The McCain guys have apparently learned it.

Posted at 7:48 a.m. ET, August 7, 2008.      Permalink          

GERSON - OBAMA FADING?

Posted at 6:59 a.m. ET

Mike Gerson, once President Bush's chief speechwriter, joins the expressions of dismay - like the ones in the story just below - over Obama's sluggish performance, and adds some solid insights:

Yes, race is a factor:

There is clearly an undercurrent of prejudice in parts of the electorate, evident even among some Democratic primary voters. There is also massive enthusiasm among younger voters to break the color barrier in the Oval Office, coupled with large increases in African-American primary turnout. These unpredictable factors may well balance in Mr. Obama's favor, which would speak well of the country.

There are explanations enough for a close presidential race without recourse to race.

And he gives them:

First, while Senator McCain still lacks a unifying theory for his campaign, his tactics show marked improvement...

...Sometimes the right issue can be even better than the right theory, and for Mr. McCain the energy issue has been a gift. There is perhaps no other topic in American politics today on which the public is angry, seeks action, and agrees strongly with Republicans. Mr. McCain's approach is to do it all: drilling, nuclear, alternatives, and conservation.

The contrast:

Mr. Obama's approach has been reactive and irrelevant. What would his redistributed windfall profits tax do to produce energy or reduce the need for it?

More...

Second, Mr. Obama's tactics are undermining the unifying theory of his campaign...

...Since the primaries, Mr. Obama has made a tactical decision: He refuses to be painted as a liberal...

...But since Mr. Obama's short public career has been conventionally — in some cases, extremely — liberal, his tactical shift to the center has been startlingly obvious, on issues from guns to terror surveillance to Iraq, and now — reluctantly — to oil drilling.

Says Peter Wehner of the Ethics and Public Policy Center: "Obama's political calculation may be correct, but it still involves a price. It has shattered his claim to be different. It calls into question his political character, and leaves the impression he is consumed and defined by ambition."

The McCain campaign is painting a picture of the difference between the two candidates, and it is working.  Obama is painted as a celebrity candidate, a quick-to-shift lightweight without any real convictions.

The argument is powerful: Mr. McCain has roots and convictions. Mr. Obama has fans and paparazzi. And Mr. Obama's European trip — more Princess Diana than John Kennedy — served only to confirm these impressions.

All this sets up a fascinating convention season. Will Mr. McCain be able to describe some compelling vision — some combination of maverick, reformer, and patriot — that unites and justifies his campaign? Will Mr. Obama be able to reignite the inspiration of his campaign without overreaching into self-absorbed, second-rate Ted Sorensen?

Finally...

Even after his worst few weeks of the general election campaign, Mr. Obama remains in the lead. And he remains a far more talented and compelling figure than either John Kerry or Al Gore. Mr. McCain still swims upstream, but the current may run weaker than we thought.

That is exactly right.  Statistically, Obama should win.  Americans walking into voting booths, however, won't base their choices on punditry or charts.  It is up to John McCain to provide a superb alternative to a man who thought this would be a coronation.

Posted at 6:59 a.m. ET, August 7, 2008.       Permalink          

WHERE HAVE ALL HIS POWERS GONE?

Posted at 6:42 a.m. ET

The big question:  What has happened to Barack Obama?  He was just about ready to part the Red Sea two months ago, now the waters seem to be rushing in on him.  True, some late polls published yesterday afternoon may be mildly reassuring to the sainted candidate (TIME, Obama up five; CBS, Obama up six), but those polls were started three days before the latest trackers, which may be picking up the latest in the Obama fade (Rasmussen, Obama up one; Gallup, Obama up two).

By any reasonable standard, Obama should be up by double digits.  It's a Democratic year; his campaign is smooth, McCain's is rough; he's young and attractive, McCain borders on geezerland; the press loves him and promotes him; he gives a great speech, McCain reads from the teleprompter.

And yet, Obama can't break fifty percent.  In fact, he never seems to gain at all,  Victor Davis Hanson counts the ways Obama the Smooth has in fact messed up:

It seems the more Americans get used to Barack Obama, the less they want him as president -- and the more Democrats will soon regret not nominating Hillary Clinton.

Seems to me that's the basic, overall story.  Buyer's remorse for Obama sets in earlier than with most candidates.  The same thing happened in the primaries.  But why?

First, Obama was billed as a post-racial healer. His half-African ancestry, exotic background and soothing rhetoric were supposed to have been novel and to have reassured the public he was no race-monger like Al Sharpton...

...Yet within weeks of the first primary, the outraged Clintons were accusing Obama of playing "the race card" -- and vice-versa. Blacks soon were voting heavily against Hillary Clinton. In turn, Hillary, the elite Ivy League progressive, turned into a blue-denim working gal -- and won nearly all the final big-state Democratic primaries on the strength of working-class whites.

Ah yes, I remember it well.

Obama himself didn't help things as he taught the nation that his dutiful grandmother was at times a small-minded bigot -- no different from a "typical white person." And in an impromptu riff, Obama ridiculed small-town working-class Pennsylvanians' supposed racial insularity.

Yup.  Remember that, too.

Without evidence, he unwisely has claimed his opponents ("they") will play the race card against poor him.

As John McCain.  It was directed at him.

Second, many are beginning to notice how a Saint Obama talks down to them. We American yokels can't speak French or Spanish. We eat too much. Our cars

are too big, our houses either overheated or overcooled. And we don't even put enough air in our car tires. In contrast, a lean, hip Obama promises to still the rising seas and cool down the planet, assuring adoring Germans that he is a citizen of the world.

Yeah.  The problems build up, day by day.

Third, Obama knows that all doctrinaire liberals must tack rightward in the general election. But due to his inexperience, he's doing it in far clumsier fashion than any triangulating candidate in memory.

Experience does count.  Inexperience isn't the change we've been waiting for.

Fourth, Obama is proving as inept an extemporaneous speaker as he is gifted with the Teleprompter. Like most rookie senators, in news conferences and interviews, he stumbles and then makes serial gaffes...

Finally...

If the polls are right, a public tired of Republicans is beginning to think an increasingly bothersome Obama would be no better -- and maybe a lot worse. It is one thing to suggest to voters that they should shed their prejudices, eat less and be more cosmopolitan. But it is quite another when the sermonizer himself too easily evokes race, weekly changes his mind and often sounds like he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

And the ultimate insult:

In a tough year like this, Democrats could probably have defeated Republican John McCain with a flawed, but seasoned candidate like Hillary Clinton. But long-suffering liberals convinced their party to go with a messiah rather than a dependable nominee -- and thereby they probably will get neither.

From Hanson's mouth to you-know-who's ears.  His indictment is right on.  But, Professor Hanson, there's one additional point:  No matter what happens on election day, Democrats will feel good about themselves.  That seems to be their ultimate goal.  "We are free of prejudice.  We are the good people."  Quite a comedown from, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask..."  Well, you know the rest.

But it's far from over.  Obama is still the favorite.  But his underperformance underwhelms.

Posted at 6:42 a.m., August 7, 2008.      Permalink