We've reached 89 percent of our goal in our second subscription drive.  Your subscriptions and donations are deeply appreciated.  But we must achieve the other 11 percent to help secure a bright future for Urgent Agenda. 

It is imperative, especially if we go into political opposition, to have a strong subscriber base.  Otherwise, we cannot maintain the service in the way that you wish it.

In two weeks we will probably have a President-elect Obama and heavy Democratic majorities in Congress.   

So please subscribe today in the right-hand column.  We want Urgent Agenda to be your online home as we fight for our principles.  Please read the following notice and do subscribe.

TO OUR READERS

Our second subscription drive is on.  Subscriptions are absolutely critical to the survival of Urgent Agenda.  If you like what you see, and our readership growth shows that you do, please subscribe in the column on the right. 

Consider:  A week of Urgent Agenda costs less than a candy bar.  That's right - a week for less than a Milky Way.  We think that's an awfully good deal.

Our main page will always be free.  Subscribers support it because they want to guarantee that it exists at all, and maintains its standards.  But now, new and current subscribers (and donators) will receive special benefits.  We will be offering what amounts to an extra day of Urgent Agenda, additional audio reports, and a special e-mail address for subscribers to write to us and make their feelings known.  The "extra day" will be drawn from the research done for Urgent Agenda, and will include subjects we don't cover on the main site.  Special subscriber services will be launched soon after the election.

If for any reason you wish to cancel your subscription, the unused portion will be returned to you, upon request. 

On election day, if current trends continue, we will become part of the loyal opposition.  If trends reverse, we will be an honest gadfly to a McCain presidency. 

A voice like Urgent Agenda is needed now, more than ever.  Only you can guarantee that this voice will continue to be heard as we enter very uncertain times. 

We must be a subscription-based service.  Please become a subscriber, and join a very special, self-selected group.

---------------------------------------------------

SNIPPETS, our daily collection of short items and comments, is here.

--------------------------------------------- 

Answers to last week's "Current Question" are here. The new "Current Question" is here, in the right-hand column.

----------------------------------------------------

TO LISTEN TO OUR AUDIO COMMENTARIES, GO HERE.  AUDIO CLIPS ARE POSTED PERIODICALLY.

(Here is my audio commentary:  "Will there be a second Cuban Missile Crisis?")

We are working on podcasts.

----------------------------------------------------------

We invite you to visit the new website for Hudson New York, the New York branch of  Hudson Institute.  You'll find it here.  I have a short piece on Obama published at the site.

AS WE BEGIN OUR ELECTION COUNTDOWN, WE'LL BE PUTTING MORE ON URGENT AGENDA EACH DAY.  DO CHECK BACK OFTEN.

WEDNESDAY,  OCTOBER 29,  2008

NOTE AT 11:14 P.M. ET:  Reader Jim Meyer alerts us to a superb piece by Katherine Ernst in the equally superb City Journal.  It's about Barack Obama's considerable ego, and contains this gem:

Here’s Obama in his own words to the Chicago Sun-Times on November 4, 2004: “I was elected yesterday. . . . I have never set foot in the U.S. Senate. I’ve never worked in Washington. And the notion that somehow I’m immediately going to start running for higher office just doesn’t make sense. So look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years, and my entire focus is making sure that I’m the best possible senator on behalf of the people of Illinois. . . . I am not running for president in 2008.”

More change we can believe in.  The whole article is well worth reading.

UPDATE AT 9:44 P.M. ET:  From the Las Vegas Review-Journal:   Analysts have predicted that new voters, young voters and Hispanic voters will turn out in record numbers in this election. But as Nevadans continue to flock to the polls, turnout among those three groups is lagging, at least in the early going.  While turnout statewide was nearly 25 percent through Sunday, it was just 20 percent among Hispanic voters, 14 percent among voters under 30 and 15 percent among those who didn't vote in the last three elections, according to an analysis of state early voting records through Sunday prepared by America Votes, an organization that works to mobilize voters.

COMMENT:  Interesting, interesting.  If that trend continues - and it may not - the projections of Obama's vote may be too high.  As Sinatra might have put it, leave us we should pray.

UPDATE AT 6:42 P.M. ET:  The IBD/TIPP poll, possibly significant because it was the most accurate in 2004, has Obama up three, the same as it's been for six days.  And here's the key point:  Obama's number is at 46.9 percent.  As noted here before, polling experts now zero in on the front runner's number.  If it's under 50 percent, he might be in trouble.  This is way under 50 percent.

COMMENT:  Historically, Obama is a poor closer.  He barely made it over the finish line in his race against Hillary Clinton.  And he generally does not deliver votes that match his polling.  He overpolled by about seven percent in the primaries.  That is not a guarantee of future results, of course, but it's grounds for optimism.  McCain can pull this out.  Get your friends and family to vote!

CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN.  RIGHT.

Posted at 6:13 p.m. ET

Mike Allen, at The Politico, lets us in on the kind of change we can expect in politics if The One makes it over the finish line next week.  I wonder how many young, idealistic kids ringing doorbells for "O" tonight are aware of this:

Aides to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) scheduled pricey luncheons, roundtables, readings, VIP receptions and policy dinners with campaign officials and advisers, offering donors a taste of his potential administration.

Supporters could eat dinner in Los Angeles with Warren Buffett, an Obama adviser and one of history’s shrewdest investors, for $28,500, the federal limit for donations by an individual to a national party committee.

Or they could attend a “VIP reception” with the sage of Omaha for $10,000, or an “economic roundtable” for just $1,000.

The Obama campaign declined to comment on the schedule.

Of course they declined.  They figure, only one reporter asked about this, and we can stiff him without getting the press upset.  When has the press ever been upset with Obama?

Much has been made of Obama’s canny mining of small-dollar donors, with constant e-mails asking for donations of as little as $5. The average donation in September was $86. Two-thirds of the $150 million was raised via the Web.

But his campaign also has an elaborate machine for courting big check-writers. Obama kept the checks flowing this month with a gold-plated schedule of headliners who would have new prominence in a Democratic Washington.

A reception, policy discussion and lunch was offered in Newark, N.J., with David Cutler, Obama for America’s senior health care adviser, for $500 for a guest or $2,300 for a VIP.

Guess life and death issues don't bring as much as Buffett.

—Luncheon in New York with Dennis Ross, Special Middle East Coordinator under President Clinton — $10,000, $5,000, $2,500 or $1,000.

—Reception in Belmont, Mass., with Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick — $2,500, $1,000, $500 or $250.

—Reception in New York with Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), Obama’s running mate —- per couple $28,500, $14,250, $5,000 or $1,000.

—Reception in Chicago with Michelle Obama — $28,500, $10,000 or $2,500.

Now we're talking.  No cheapskates here.

Yup, it's a new day in American politics.  Brought to you by the Daley machine in Chicago. 

I know we're all looking forward to being uplifted by this change we can believe in.

Yuch.

October 29, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 2:20 P.M. ET:   The Dow is up 92.

UPDATE AT 1:54 P.M. ET:   Three new trackers have published.  Battleground has Obama up three, 49-46, same as yesterday.  Hotline has him up seven, 49-42, a loss of one for Obama since yesterday.  Gallup's traditional measure has Obama up three, 49-46, a gain of one for Obama since yesterday.  Gallup's expanded measure, taking into account possible new voters, has him up seven, 51-44, same as yesterday.

COMMENT:  Please note that only in the Gallup expanded measure does Obama, at 51, break 50 percent.  Earlier, only the Rasmussen report had Gallup at exactly 50, whereas Zogby had him at 49.  McCain is still a long shot, but, based on the pattern of the last three or four days, the race seems to be tightening.  The key figure is Obama's percentage.  If he cannot reach at least fifty percent, we could conceivably have an upset on Tuesday. 

There'll be a lot of political discussion in American households this weekend.  These are the days when the McCain campaign must be at its best.  This race is not over.

UPDATE AT 1:37 P.M. ET:  The Dow is up 113.

UPDATE AT 8:21 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen normally publishes its daily tracker at 9:30 a.m. ET, but Drudge apparently got an advance copy.  It shows Obama up only three points, a decline of two since yesterday.

COMMENT:  Rasmussen's results don't swing as wildly as some polls.  When you see a sudden change like this it may - I stress may - have some meaning.  We'll check it against other polls due out later today.

MORRIS

Posted at 8:12 a.m. ET

Dick Morris has been astute during this election year, identifying early the problems in John McCain's campaign.  How does he read the final week, leading to the election?  He believes the undecided vote is key, and can break McCain's way:

If current survey trends continue, Obama will finish with less than 50 percent in the polls. Even discounting the Nader vote (some people never learn), the undecided voters could tip the race either way. How will they break?

Since there is no incumbent, they cannot automatically be assigned to the challenger; and since turnout is likely to be huge, the current undecided voters will probably make their way to the polls and cast their ballots.

But for whom?

And...

As Obama has oscillated, moving somewhat above or somewhat below 50 percent in all the October polls, his election likely hangs in the balance. If he falls short of 50 percent in these circumstances, a majority of the voters can be said to have rejected him. Likely a disproportionate number of the undecideds will vote for McCain.

But don't write Obama off. His candidacy strikes such enthusiasm among young and minority voters that there is still a chance that a massive turnout will deliver the race to the Democrats...

...The effect of this increased vote is hard to calculate, but it may be enough to offset the undecideds who will vote for McCain.

But...

But the basic point, one week before Election Day, is that even if Obama clings to a four- or five-point lead over McCain in the polling, the election is not over. The question is not so much how large his lead is over the Republican, but whether or not he is topping 50 percent. As long as the polling leaves him below that mark, he is vulnerable and could well lose.

John Fund, in a talk I heard last night, also made the point that Obama has never exceeded, in the primaries, his last poll numbers.  So if his final poll numbers next Monday have him below 50 percent, he could be in trouble.

Clearly, in recent weeks, McCain has been able to cast Obama as a leftist. He has made the issue of income redistribution central to the campaign. With the aid of Joe the Plumber and the discovery of Obama's Chicago PBS interview, in which he lamented the absence of redistribution of wealth, McCain has made the proposition seem central to Obama's ideology.

Finally...

The audacity of Obama's injection of a social democratic concept borrowed from Western Europe into American politics is stunning. And almost half the voters seem to be buying it.

Maybe not.

October 29, 2008.      Permalink          

THE POLLS

Posted at 7:06 a.m. ET

All the polls point to an Obama victory.  But could the polls be wrong?  It is the question a number of analysts are asking.  It is, after all, such an unusual political year, with the first African-American presidential nominee of a major party, with predictions that normally underrepresented groups will vote in larger numbers, with stories of large-scale voter-registration fraud, and with allegations of massive press bias.  The Washington Post reports:

Sen. John McCain and his allies say that they are. The country, they say, could be headed to a 2008 version of the famous 1948 upset election, with McCain in the role of Harry S. Truman and Sen. Barack Obama as Thomas E. Dewey, lulled into overconfidence by inaccurate polls.

"We believe it is a very close race, and something that is frankly very winnable," Sarah Simmons, director of strategy for the McCain campaign, said yesterday.

Typical campaign spin?

Few analysts outside the McCain campaign appear to share this view...

...Still, there appears to be an undercurrent of worry among some polling professionals and academics. One reason is the wide variation in Obama leads: Just yesterday, an array of polls showed the Democrat leading by as little as two points and as much as 15 points.

An expert view:

"I have been wondering for weeks" whether the polls are accurately gauging the state of the race, said Steven Schier, a political scientist at Carleton College in Minnesota. Borrowing from lingo popularized by former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Schier asked what are the "unknown unknowns" about polling this year: For instance, is the sizable cohort of people who don't respond to pollsters more Republican-leaning this year, perhaps because they don't want to admit to a pollster that they are not supporting the "voguish" Obama?

If so, that could mean the polls are routinely understating McCain's support. "I have no evidence that this is happening," Schier said, but he added: "I'm still thinking there's a 25 percent chance that this is a squeaker race and McCain pulls it out."

The opposing view:

"It is very unlikely that we are going to get surprised by a last-minute movement," said John R. Petrocik, chairman of the political science department at the University of Missouri. "Obama has been running six to eight points ahead for the better part of two weeks, and it's hard to imagine that turning around."

The McCain campaign is insistent, but its position appears based on the notion that turnout this year will resemble turnout in 2004.

To buttress its point of view, the McCain team points to results reported yesterday by the Gallup organization, whose daily tracking poll showed Obama up 49 percent to 47 percent using Gallup's traditional turnout model, which assumes that turnout will follow the patterns of past elections. Obama has a larger lead, seven points, using a model that allows a higher presence of first-time voters.

The McCain campaign says that expected increases in African-American and new voters will be offset by increases in Republican voters. 

Who is right?  We'll know next Wednesday morning.  Or, maybe we won't.  John Fund, of The Wall Street Journal, said last night that, if the race is close, the recounts and accusations of voter fraud could dwarf anything seen in past elections.  The outcome might not be known for days.

October 29, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 6:08 A.M. ET:  Zogby has Obama up five this morning, 49-44, a gain of one since yeserday.

COMMENT:  We note that Obama is still under 50 percent.  With all the talk of landslide, he still hasn't captured half the vote in a number of polls.

TUESDAY,  OCTOBER 28,  2008

FULL FUNDING

Posted at 11:58 p.m. ET

I just returned from a talk at Hudson New York given by John Fund of The Wall Street Journal.  He is also the author of "Stealing Elections - How Voter Fraud Threatens our Democracy."  It's late, so let me just give you the bullet points, which I think you'll find extremely interesting:

1.  David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, is also the chief strategist for the Daley machine in Chicago.  Fund wonders what kind of real political change can come out of that relationship.

2.  ACORN, which is under investigation in a number of states, is in serious legal trouble and desperately needs an Obama victory for its own survival.  Fund suggested that an Obama attorney general would make investigations into ACORN disappear.

3.  Obama was one of the main lawyers defending the so-called Motor Voter law, allowing easy, some say sloppy voter registration.  Today, Obama is a chief beneficiary of the law he defended in court.

4.  ACORN and Obama, in Fund's words, are "marinated" in each other.  It is not a distant or vague relationship.

Now the fascinating part:

5.  Fund does not believe the Democrats will have a veto-proof majority in the Senate.

6.  Obama, in his primary campaigns, never got a percentage of the vote that exceeded his final poll number.  Now, caution, the polls will differ.  But Fund put it this way:  If Obama's final polls show him getting 51 or 52 percent of the vote, he'll probably win; if they show him at 50, it's iffy.  If Obama polls 49 percent or below in the final polls, as Fund put it, "game on."

Fund said he thinks it will be a very close race, and that we may not know the winner for days.  He also believes, as per his book, that voter fraud can play a very significant role in a close election.

Stimulating talk.  The book is very good.  The point about Obama's final poll numbers is remarkable.  Let us pray.

October 28, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 4:55 P.M. ET:  Final market count:  The Dow actually was up about 890, a spectacular day.  What political effects?  Have no idea.  Let's see.

UPDATE AT 4:05 P.M. ET:  The Dow had a spectacular day, and is up about 725 at the close.

UPDATE AT 3:37 P.M. ET:  The IBD/TIPP tracker has Obama up four, a gain of a point since yesterday.  The overall Real Clear Politics average of polls has Obama up seven. 

COMMENT:  McCain is running out of time.  We vote in a week.  But remember that Obama regularly overpolled by about seven points in the primaries.  That is not a guarantee of general-election results, but we can hope.

UPDATE AT 3:33 P.M. ET:   The Dow is up 560 points.  Not bad.  Might even help John and Sarah.

UPDATE AT 1:55 P.M. ET:  The Gallup tracker is out, and it's surprising.  Using the traditional Gallup model, Obama is up only two, 49-47, among likely voters.  That is a loss of three for Obama.  Using Gallup's "expanded" model, taking into account possible new voters, Obama is up seven, also a loss of three since yesterday.  A trend toward tightening?  Maybe, maybe not.  Gallup notes that figures like the ones reported today have appeared periodically during the campaign.  We'll watch over the next few days to see if any trend is evident.

A new Pew poll has Obama up 15.  That is clearly an outlier.

UPDATE AT 10:56 A.M. ET:   The Dow is now up only 53.

UPDATE AT 10:52 A.M. ET:  The Hotline poll has Obama up eight, no change from yesterday.  Battleground has him up three, no change from yesterday.  The race seems remarkably stable, with no sign of the closing that McCain would need.

UPDATE AT 10:15 A.M. ET:  The Dow is up 226.

UPDATE AT 9:39 A.M. ET:  The Dow is up 191 at the opening.

UPDATE AT 9:37 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen has Obama up five, no change from yesterday. 

A DANGEROUS GAME

Posted at 9:07 a.m. ET

We've regularly discussed press bias here.  In this election cycle it's the worst we've ever seen.  Some journalists are beginning to speak out against it, although their numbers are small, and they tend to be independent of the pack.  Here, tech columnist Michael Malone, who comes from a newspaper family, tears apart the major media and its work this year.  ABC News, surprisingly, printed this piece on its website.  However, notice the disclaimer at the end.  Most disclaimers say something like, "The opinions expressed here are the author's, and do not necessarily reflect those of ABC News."  But ABC is more direct, saying:  "This is the opinion of the columnist and in no way reflects the opinion of ABC News."  So harsh, guys.  So harsh.  Must protect the bosses.

So here is Malone: 

The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game -- with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates.

The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I've found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.

But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I've begun -- for the first time in my adult life -- to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was "a writer," because I couldn't bring myself to admit to a stranger that I'm a journalist.

We understand.  We understand.

You need to understand how painful this is for me. I am one of those people who truly bleeds ink when I'm cut. I am a fourth-generation newspaperman. As family history tells it, my great-grandfather was a newspaper editor in Abilene, Kan., during the last of the cowboy days, then moved to Oregon to help start the Oregon Journal (now the Oregonian)...

...I've spent 30 years in every part of journalism, from beat reporter to magazine editor. And my oldest son, following in the family business, so to speak, earned his first national byline before he earned his drivers license.

So, when I say I'm deeply ashamed right now to be called a "journalist," you can imagine just how deep that cuts into my soul.

But we wish more like you would speak out.

There has always been bias, Malone points out, but journalists traditionally were taught to fight against it:

But even more important, we are also supposed to be taught that even though there is no such thing as pure, Platonic objectivity in reporting, we are to spend our careers struggling to approach that ideal as closely as possible.

That means constantly challenging our own prejudices, systematically presenting opposing views and never, ever burying stories that contradict our own world views or challenge people or institutions we admire.

Wonderfully stated.  But try saying that to the "I'm here to make a difference" crowd.

What is wrong?  Malone explains:

But my complacent faith in my peers first began to be shaken when some of the most admired journalists in the country were exposed as plagiarists, or worse, accused of making up stories from whole cloth...

...And yet, few of those worthies ever seemed to get fired for their crimes -- and if they did they were soon rehired into even more prestigious jobs. It seemed as if there were two sets of rules: one for us workaday journalists toiling out in the sticks, and another for folks who'd managed, through talent or deceit, to make it to the national level.

Hmm.  We've noticed that ourselves.  National organizations have big investments in their "talent."  Not to be trifled with.

Meanwhile, I watched with disbelief as the nation's leading newspapers, many of whom I'd written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page. Personal opinions and comments that, had they appeared in my stories in 1979, would have gotten my butt kicked by the nearest copy editor, were now standard operating procedure at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and soon after in almost every small town paper in the U.S.

I once got my butt kicked for leaving out a phrase in a New York Times story I was editing.  Today that would just be considered "an alternative narrative."

But nothing, nothing I've seen has matched the media bias on display in the current presidential campaign.

Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass -- no, make that shameless support -- they've gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don't have a free and fair press.

He must be referring to Democrats like Kirsten Powers, who have spoken out.

Malone isn't complaining about tough treatment of McCain and Palin.

No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side -- or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del.

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.

That isn't Sen. Obama's fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media's fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.

The low point:

The absolute nadir (though I hate to commit to that, as we still have two weeks before the election) came with Joe the Plumber.

Middle America, even when they didn't agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a presidential candidate. So much for the standing up for the little man. So much for speaking truth to power. So much for comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, and all of those other catchphrases we journalists used to believe we lived by.

Who are the real villains?

Who are the real villains in this story of mainstream media betrayal?

The editors. The men and women you don't see; the people who not only decide what goes in the paper, but what doesn't; the managers who give the reporters their assignments and lay out the editorial pages. They are the real culprits.

He is correct.  And many of them take with them the biases and cultural rot of the sixties generation.

And a final warning:

With luck, this monolithic, single-party government will crush the alternative media via a revived fairness doctrine, re-invigorate unions by getting rid of secret votes, and just maybe be beholden to people like you in the traditional media for getting it there.

And besides, you tell yourself, it's all for the good of the country …

Excellent piece.  Remember it.  The role of the press will be one of the major factors in the coming four years.  The people who helped put Obama in power will be the same ones covering his administration.  Will they cover for him?  Twist things for him?  Go on bended knee?

The answers will profoundly affect the future of this country.

October 28, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 7:45 A.M. ET:  The international markets are up this morning, pointing to the possibility of a good day on Wall Street.  McCain could conceivably benefit, although slightly, from some positive economic news right now.

REMARKABLE

Posted at 7:14 a.m. ET

We try to be careful here at Urgent Agenda to adhere to traditional journalistic standards, not the ones prevailing today.  That means looking at each story we read with a cold eye, and applying a healthy dose of skepticism.  Occasionally, though, a story comes along that is thoroughly intriguing, cannot be completely sourced, yet seems to correspond to other things we've read. 

The leftist Israeli newspaper Haaretz publishes a piece this morning that fits that description.  It seems to be exclusive to them, and provides insight into French President Sarkozy's view of Barack Obama's Iran policy.  I stress that the story has not been confirmed elsewhere, but appears well reported.  It also confirms other rumblings we hear about discontent in foreign ministries of a number of countries with Obama's seat-of-the-pants foreign policy views.  With those caveats in mind, here is what is reported:

French President Nicolas Sarkozy is very critical of U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama's positions on Iran, according to reports that have reached Israel's government.

Sarkozy has made his criticisms only in closed forums in France. But according to a senior Israeli government source, the reports reaching Israel indicate that Sarkozy views the Democratic candidate's stance on Iran as "utterly immature" and comprised of "formulations empty of all content."

Stunning.  Is it possible that France will be to the right of a new American administration?  The key phrase in that quote is "utterly immature."  It describes the Obama approach to foreign policy, but - I say this with hesitation - may also describe the American condition in this election year.

Until now, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany have tried to maintain a united front on Iran. But according to the senior Israeli source, Sarkozy fears that Obama might "arrogantly" ignore the other members of this front and open a direct dialogue with Iran without preconditions.

The One is arrogant?  No, say it ain't so.

Following their July meeting, Sarkozy repeatedly expressed disappointment with Obama's positions on Iran, concluding that they were "not crystallized, and therefore many issues remain open," the Israeli source said. Advisors to the French president who held separate meetings with Obama's advisors came away with similar impressions and expressed similar disappointment.

Yes, we've heard about those wise "advisors."

The French intelligence community believes that Iran has already obtained about 40 percent of the enriched uranium it would need for its first bomb, and that at its current rate, it will obtain the rest of the uranium it needs in the spring or summer of 2009.

However, French agencies are divided over what Iran is likely to do once it has this uranium. One view is that the Iranians will immediately make a nuclear bomb, in order to demonstrate their capability. The other is that Iran will continue enriching uranium without making a bomb - at least until it has enough enriched uranium for several bombs.

A dangerous picture either way.  And a remarkable story. 

What are we going to do next Tuesday?  Do the American people understand?  How can they possibly understand, when they're not being told.

October 28, 2008.       Permalink          

UPDATE AT 6:42 A.M. ET:  Zogby has Obama up four this morning, a loss of one since yesterday.  Zogby reports, though, that McCain cannot seem to get above 49 percent.  He also cautions that Obama had a good polling day yesterday.

COMMENT:  I have no idea whether this is accurate.  Zogby is problematical.  We'll wait for Rasmussen, out later this morning, and the others to follow.  So far I see no convincing evidence that the race is tightening, which normally happens in the last week of a campaign.  It has to tighten for McCain to have any chance at all.

"What you see is news.  What you know is background.  What you feel is opinion."
    - Lester Markel, late Sunday editor
      of The New York Times.

SUBSCRIBER CORNER

Note to subscribers and donators:  Our new subscriber services will begin shortly after the election and will be delivered by e-mail.

Subscribers and donators will soon be receiving security e-mails asking you to reply in order to be put on the Urgent Agenda list.  These are completely legitimate, and should be answered immediately.   They allow us to confirm your e-mail address and the fact that you actually wish to receive the service.  

SUBSCRIPTIONS:

Subscriptions to URGENT AGENDA are voluntary.  Why subscribe to something you're getting free?  To help guarantee that you'll continue to get it at all, and to get the additional features we now offer subscribers.  Subscriptions sustain us.  Payments are through PayPal and are secure, but you do not have to sign up for a PayPal account.  Credit cards are fine.

FOR A ONE-YEAR ($48) SUBSCRIPTION, CLICK:

FOR A SIX-MONTH ($26) SUBSCRIPTION, CLICK:

IF YOU DON'T WISH A SET SUBSCRIPTION, BUT PREFER TO DONATE ANY OTHER AMOUNT TO SUSTAIN URGENT AGENDA, CLICK:

SEARCH URGENT AGENDA:

POWER LINE:

It's a privilege for me to post periodic pieces at Power Line. To go to Power Line, click here.

To link to my Power Line pieces, go here.

THE CURRENT QUESTION

This space will regularly raise questions that relate to the news, but transcend daily headlines.  The idea is to stimulate talk about basic issues. Our last question asked: 

Last week we asked:

What is Sarah Palin's future in the Republican Party?

You can view the answers here.

NEW CURRENT QUESTION

Who do you think the leading stars of the Republican Party will be four years from now, and why?

If you'd like to send us your thoughts, click:
response@urgentagenda.com
(Please stay within two or three paragraphs.  We try to print every reply, if space allows.  Place your name at the end of the message if you wish your name published.  This question will stay up through Sunday.)

CONTACT:

YOU CAN E-MAIL US, AS FOLLOWS:

If you have wonderful things to say about this site, if it makes you a better person, please click:
applause@urgentagenda.com

If you have a general comment on anything you see here, or on anything else that's topical, please click:
comments@urgentagenda.com

If you must say something obnoxious, something that will embarrass you and disgrace your loving family, click:
despicable@urgentagenda.com

If you required subscription service, please click:
service@urgentagenda.com

FAVORITE SITES

Power Line
Faster Please (Michael Ledeen)
OpinionJournal.com
Hudson New York
Bookworm Room
Bill Bennett
Red State
Pajamas Media
Michelle Malkin
The Weekly Standard
The New York Sun
Real Clear Politics
The Corner
City Journal
Gateway Pundit
American Thinker