EARLY EVENING POST:  JULY 2,  2008

Posted at 7:57 p.m. ET

OBAMACASH

There was a time, at least in our imagination, that the Democratic Party was the party of the little guy, and the GOP ran the country clubs.  The Republicans had the cash, the Democrats the muscle power.

That was long ago in, as they say, another galaxy.  David Brooks examines the true nature of Dem finances, and what they mean for the country:

Barack Obama sells the Democratic Party short. He talks about his fund-raising success as if his donors were part of a spontaneous movement of small-money enthusiasts who cohered around himself. In fact, Democrats have spent years building their donor network. Obama’s fund-raising base is bigger than John Kerry’s, Howard Dean’s and Al Gore’s, but it’s not different.

As in other recent campaigns, lawyers account for the biggest chunk of Democratic donations. They have donated about $18 million to Obama, compared with about $5 million to John McCain, according to data released on June 2 and available at OpenSecrets.org.

People who work at securities and investment companies have given Obama about $8 million, compared with $4.5 million for McCain. People who work in communications and electronics have given Obama about $10 million, compared with $2 million for McCain. Professors and other people who work in education have given Obama roughly $7 million, compared with $700,000 for McCain.

Party of the little guy.  As long as the little guy has two homes and a Volvo.

When he is swept up in rhetorical fervor, Obama occasionally says that his campaign is 90 percent funded by small donors. He has indeed had great success with small donors, but only about 45 percent of his money comes from donations of $200 or less.

The real core of his financial support is something else, the rising class of information age analysts. Once, the wealthy were solidly Republican. But the information age rewards education with money. There are many smart high achievers who grew up in liberal suburbs around San Francisco, L.A. and New York, went to left-leaning universities like Harvard and Berkeley and took their values with them when they became investment bankers, doctors and litigators.

And of course they love the little guy, as long as he lives somewhere else.

If the Democrats are elected, this highly educated class will have much more say over policy than during the campaign. Undecided voters sway campaigns, but in government, elites generally run things. Once the Republicans are vanquished, I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for that capital gains tax hike or serious measures to expand unionization.

Hmm.  Why do these people scare me?  Maybe it's because, with their wealth and mobility, they won't bear the consequences of many of their foolish ideas.  And if their chic national-defense theories make us weak and provoke another war, it will not be their sons and daughters who serve.

July 2, 2008.      Permalink          

SECOND AFTERNOON POST:  JULY 2,  2008

Posted at 5:43 p.m.  ET

LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, held a press conference today.  What he said was newsworthy, but I really wonder whether it should have been said at all.  See what you think:

The nation's top military officer said today that more U.S. troops are needed in Afghanistan to help tamp down an increasingly violent insurgency but does not have sufficient forces to send because of the war in Iraq.

It may be true, but by saying it Mullen telegraphs certain things to the enemy.  In addition, he seems to be endorsing a position taken by Barack Obama, and he shouldn't appear to be taking sides.  More:

"I don't have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq," Mullen said. "Afghanistan remains an economy of force campaign, which by definition means we need more forces there. We have the ability in almost every single case to win from the combat standpoint, but we don't have enough troops there to hold. That is key to the future of being able to succeed in Afghanistan."

Boy.  Again, I just don't think saying things like this in public helps the cause.

He spoke about Iran:

"Clearly there is a very broad concern about the overall stability level in the Middle East," Mullen said. For the military, "opening up a third front right now would be extremely stressful on us. That doesn't mean we don't have the capacity or the reserve, but that would be very challenging and the consequences of that are very difficult to predict."

In other words, he doesn't know if we'd win.  This must be great for morale.  By definition, the chairman has responsibilities that border on the political, but I don't think this is the way to carry them out.  Finally...

Mullen said plainly that he opposes the U.S. or Israel engaging Iran with a military strike.

"My strong preference is to handle all of this diplomatically with the other powers of government, as opposed to any kind of strike occurring," Mullen said. "This is a very unstable part of the world and I don't need it to be more unstable."

This is the classic thinking of Bush 41 - stability over everything.  Mullen was selected by a Bush 41 protégé, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.  Notice that Mullen doesn't directly deal with the question of what happens if Iran gets the bomb.  The Bush 41 approach would be to kick the can down the road to the next president, which is what Bush 41 did with Saddam Hussein.  It's apparently what we're doing now.

It's hard to be encouraged by talk that borders on the defeatist.

July 2, 2008.       Permalink          

AFTERNOON POST:  JULY 2,  2008

Posted at 2:18 p.m.

TRACKERS

Both our usual daily trackers have now been published.  Rasmussen still has Obama up five over McCain, but Gallup shows a drop from five yesterday to two points today.  Of course, there's a margin of error, and slight variations, especially on one day, may signify nothing at all.  I would therefore not take the Gallup report of a drop very seriously.  Tracking polls, as we note here from time to time, are valuable largely for detecting trends, which takes a number of days, sometimes weeks.

July 2, 2008.      Permalink          

WEDNESDAY:  JULY 2,  2008

Posted at 6:58 a.m. ET

CAUTION!

The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz is reporting a possible "concession" from Iran regarding its nuclear program:

Unofficial reports from Iran, supported by several Iranian legislators, suggest that Tehran is willing to suspend its nuclear program for at least six weeks as a goodwill gesture to the West.

According to the reports, released on various Iranian Web sites, Tehran would suspend the installation of new centrifuges at the Natanz nuclear facility in the first stage of the suspension, after which it would be willing to halt the enrichment of uranium for an undetermined amount of time.

The steps would be taken in exchange for the launching of new talks with the five representatives of the United Nations Security Council and Germany (P5+1).

Hmm.  Questions:  1) Is the Israeli report accurate?  Don't know.  2) If accurate, is it a breakthrough?  Not by a long shot.  In fact, it would be a fairly typical stall tactic.  Make a minor concession in return for "talks," thus avoiding greater sanctions.  Throw a small fish to the hungry hordes of "peace" advocates in the West who regard a smile as a peace treaty.  

Just as the absurd National Intelligence Estimate released by Washington at the end of last year threw off this country's strategy in dealing with Iran by casting doubt that Iran had an active weapons program, a minor concession like this can throw off the West's negotiating strategy now.  It can also impact our election campaign by making it appear - stress appear - that Mr. Obama's plea for negotiations will bear fruit.

There is an old Persian saying:  "Beware of Iranians suspending their nuclear program for six weeks."  Well, actually it's a new Urgent Agenda saying.  But we should take it seriously.

July 2, 2008.      Permalink          

THE OBAMA MORTGAGE

How important this will be depends on facts and the way McCain's people use them. 

It appears that Senator Obama got some unusual terms for the mortgage on his Chicago mansion - that's what it is - and some journalistic eyebrows are being raised.  Since it's Obama, they may not be raised too far, but any eyebrow movement involving the Illinois senator must be noted, photographed and documented.  The Washington Post reports:

Shortly after joining the U.S. Senate and while enjoying a surge in income, Barack Obama bought a $1.65 million restored Georgian mansion in an upscale Chicago neighborhood. To finance the purchase, he secured a $1.32 million loan from Northern Trust in Illinois.

The freshman Democratic senator received a discount. He locked in an interest rate of 5.625 percent on the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, below the average for such loans at the time in Chicago. The loan was unusually large, known in banker lingo as a "super super jumbo." Obama paid no origination fee or discount points, as some consumers do to reduce their interest rates.

Compared with the average terms offered at the time in Chicago, Obama's rate could have saved him more than $300 per month.

This will make ordinary homeowners feel really good about themselves.  The Obama camp replies:

Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said the rate was adjusted to account for a competing offer from another lender and other factors. "The Obamas have since had as much as $3 million invested through Northern Trust," he said in a statement.

Yeah, but you see, LeBolt, timing is everything.  He'd just become a U.S. senator, in a position to help the banking industry.  Looks funny, looks funny.

"It's certainly safe to say that this borrower did better than average," said Keith Gumbinger, an HSH vice president, noting that consumer rates vary widely. "It's a good deal."

Maybe too good.

Actually, the most fascinating part of the story, to me, isn't the part about the mortgage, but about something else that's been buzzed about for months:

Around the same time, the University of Chicago Hospitals promoted Michelle Obama to a vice president and more than doubled her pay, to $317,000.

Yeah.  Note the phrase, "around the same time."  I repeat:  Timing is everything.  This occurred after Obama's election.  Was it just a coincidence that Michelle Obama was married to a new senator in a position to help hospitals?  Has he done anything to help the University of Chicago Hospitals in the Senate?  This is a sleeper issue, but potentially a significant one, although motives are hard to prove.  If the Obamas accepted anything as part of an implied commitment to "help," that is a serious problem.  If not, no problem.

This calls for serious journalistic investigation.  Maybe a few of those who managed to get their eyebrows up can get their laptops out.

July 2, 2008.      Permalink          

OBAMABUSH?

The Democrats accuse John McCain of running for a third Bush term.  But The Wall Street Journal has a fascinating take on the charge. There is someone who appears to be running for a third Bush term, says the Journal, but it isn't McCain:

We're beginning to understand why Barack Obama keeps protesting so vigorously against the prospect of "George Bush's third term." Maybe he's worried that someone will notice that he's the candidate who's running for it.

You mean, he's the non-change we can believe in?

Most Presidential candidates adapt their message after they win their party nomination, but Mr. Obama isn't merely "running to the center." He's fleeing from many of his primary positions so markedly and so rapidly that he's embracing a sizable chunk of President Bush's policy. Who would have thought that a Democrat would rehabilitate the much-maligned Bush agenda?

For example, Obama now supports a surveillance of foreign terrorists bill whose provisions he only recently opposed. 

Perhaps it is dawning on Mr. Obama that, if he does become President, he'll be responsible for preventing any new terrorist attack. So now he's happy to throw The New York Times under the bus.

I love that.  Just love it.

More:

Look for Mr. Obama to use his forthcoming visit to Iraq as an excuse to drop those withdrawal plans faster than he can say Jeremiah Wright "was not the person that I met 20 years ago." The Senator will learn – as John McCain has been saying – that withdrawal would squander the gains from the surge, set back Iraqi political progress, and weaken America's strategic position against Iran.

Look, if Obama learns, I'm all for it.  But we should be careful not to confuse learning with posturing.

Back in the day, the first-term Senator also voted against the Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. But last week he agreed with their majority opinion in the Heller gun rights case, and with their dissent against the liberal majority's ruling to ban the death penalty for rape. Mr. Obama seems to appreciate that getting pegged as a cultural lefty is deadly for national Democrats – at least until November.

Finally...

All of which prompts a couple of thoughts. The first is that Mr. Obama doesn't seem to think American political sentiment has moved as far left as most of the media claim. Another is that the next President, whether Democrat or Republican, is going to embrace much of Mr. Bush's foreign and antiterror policy whether he admits it or not. Think Eisenhower endorsing Truman's Cold War architecture.

Most important is the matter of Mr. Obama's political character – and how honest he is being about what he truly believes. His voting record in the Senate and in Illinois, as well as his primary positions, would make him the most liberal Presidential candidate since George McGovern in 1972. But he clearly doesn't want voters to believe that in November. He's still the Obama Americans don't know.

And that's an editorial we can believe in.

July 2, 2008.      Permalink