LATE EVENING POSTING,  APRIL 3,  2008

Posted at 10:46 p.m. ET

THE DEMOCRATS' PATRIOTISM PROBLEM

It's been a problem for Democrats since the sixties.  The party that led us through World War I, World War II, and Korea, and gave us the framework for fighting the Soviets in the Cold War, is no longer perceived as the patriotic party, the national-defense party, the recruiting-office party.

Today, the Democratic Party is perceived by millions of Americans as the tofu party, the party that regards military service as a waste of time, and as someone else's job.

Joe Klein, writing in Time, analyzes the problem as it applies to Barack Obama:

This is a chronic disease among Democrats, who tend to talk more about what's wrong with America than what's right. When Ronald Reagan touted "Morning in America" in the 1980s, Dick Gephardt famously countered that it was near midnight "and getting darker all the time." This is ironic and weirdly self-defeating, since the liberal message of national improvement is profoundly more optimistic, and patriotic, than the innate conservative pessimism about the perfectibility of human nature. Obama's hopemongering is about as American as a message can get — although, in the end, it is mostly about our ability to transcend our imperfections rather than the effortless brilliance of our diversity, informality and freedom-propelled creativity.

Patriotism is, sadly, a crucial challenge for Obama now. His aides believe that the Wright controversy was more about anti-Americanism than it was about race. Michelle Obama's unfortunate comment that the success of the campaign had made her proud of America "for the first time" in her adult life and the Senator's own decision to stow his American-flag lapel pin — plus his Islamic-sounding name — have fed a scurrilous undercurrent of doubt about whether he is "American" enough.

And then...

"In this campaign, we will not stand for the politics that uses religion as a wedge and patriotism as a bludgeon," he said on the night that he lost Ohio and Texas. But then he added, "I owe what I am to this country, this country that I love, and I will never forget it." That has been the implicit patriotism of the Obama candidacy: only in America could a product of Kenya and Kansas seek the presidency. It is part of what has proved so thrilling to his young followers, who chanted, "U-S-A, U-S-A," the night that he won the Iowa caucuses. But now, to convince those who doubt him, Obama has to make the implicit explicit. He will have to show that he can be as corny as he is cool.

The problem is that Obama represents a wing of his party that thinks patriotism is in fact corny, that national defense is simply a plot by the defense industry, and that our enemies are "misunderstood."  It is a wing that holds that there's nothing special about America.

Klein is right.  Obama must now show that he can be as corny as he is cool.  But the word "corny" itself is revealing.  It is a word of contempt.  It reminds me of the phrase, "the flyover people," used in Hollywood to describe the audience in between the coasts.  When the battle is joined, those are the people we depend on.  And they aren't corny.

Back tomorrow.

April 3, 2008.      Permalink          

EVENING UPDATE,  APRIL 3,  2008

Posted at 7:30 p.m. ET

INCREDIBLE!

What a week for Barack Obama!

First, he's endorsed by Jane Fonda.

And now...Jimmy Carter.

With more endorsements like this, the man can't miss losing.

Now, Carter didn't formally endorse Obama.  He simply did his cute little Jimmah thing and told how his whole family was for Obama, and, well, you know...  You can read the whole exciting story here.  With this, Obama has the Norwegian Parliament vote right in the palm of his hand:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Former President Carter wouldn't quite say it, but he left little doubt this week about who he'd like to see in the White House next year.
Speaking to local reporters Wednesday on a trip to Nigeria, the former Democratic president noted that Barack Obama had won his home state of Georgia and his hometown of Plains.

"My children and their spouses are pro-Obama. My grandchildren are also pro-Obama," he said at a news conference, according to the Nigerian newspaper This Day. "As a superdelegate, I would not disclose who I am rooting for, but I leave you to make that guess."

Carter's spokeswoman confirmed the remarks.

Asked about the comments, Hillary Rodham Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson, said: "Both Senator Clinton and President Clinton have a great deal of respect for President Carter and have enjoyed their relationship with him over the years. And, obviously, he is free to make whatever decision he thinks is appropriate."

You know, one has to wonder about the people who are drawn to Obama:  Rev. Wright, Jane Fonda, Carter, Samantha Power, assorted leftist ideologists, the MoveOn crowd.  How can a man with backing like that be the kind of uniter he says he wants to be?  Easy.  He simply declares those who disagree with him divisive, and ignores them.  It's done on the left every day.

If Obama wants to appeal to the broad middle, which he'll have to do in a general-election campaign, he'd better pick up some endorsements that carry less baggage than Jane Fonda or Jimmy Carter.

April 3, 2008.     Permalink          

BARONE'S GEOGRAPHY LESSON

Michael Barone, one of our best political analysts, has a remarkable piece on the "geography" of the Democratic race.  His conclusion is that  Obama appeals to the academics, Clinton to the Jacksonians.  This is one of the best political articles I've read in recent years, thoroughly researched in the Barone manner, and I highly commend it to you:

In reviewing the maps of the Democratic primary results, in Dave Leip's electoral atlas, I was struck by the narrow geographic base of Barack Obama's candidacy. In state after state, he has carried only a few counties—though, to be sure, in many cases counties with large populations. There are exceptions, particularly in the southern states with large numbers of black voters in both urban and rural counties. But overall, the geographic analysis has pointed up to me a divide between Democratic constituencies—a divide as stark as that between blacks and Latinos or the old and the young—which has not shown up in the exit polls. It's a division that helps to explain the quite different performances of Obama and Hillary Clinton in general election pairings against John McCain.

Barone examines the contest thus far, state by state.  Even he says that you don't have to go through all this, and can skip to the concluding paragraphs for the essence of the argument.  He says:

But looking at these electoral data suggests to me that there's another tribal divide going on here, one that separates voters more profoundly than even race (well, maybe not more profoundly than race in Mississippi but in other states). That's the divide between academics and Jacksonians. In state after state, we have seen Obama do extraordinarily well in academic and state capital enclaves. In state after state, we have seen Clinton do extraordinarily well in enclaves dominated by Jacksonians.

Academics and public employees (and of course many, perhaps most, academics in the United States are public employees) love the arts of peace and hate the demands of war. Economically, defense spending competes for the public-sector dollars that academics and public employees think are rightfully their own. More important, I think, warriors are competitors for the honor that academics and public employees think rightfully belongs to them. Jacksonians, in contrast, place a high value on the virtues of the warrior and little value on the work of academics and public employees. They have, in historian David Hackett Fischer's phrase, a notion of natural liberty: People should be allowed to do what they want, subject to the demands of honor. If someone infringes on that liberty, beware: The Jacksonian attitude is, "If you attack my family or my country, I'll kill you." And he (or she) means it. If you want to hear an eloquent version, listen to Sen. Zell Miller's speech endorsing George W. Bush at the 2004 Republican National Convention. The academic who hears the Rev. Jeremiah Wright declaiming, "God damn America," is not unnerved. He hears this sort of thing on campus all the time. The Jacksonian who watches the tape sees an enemy of everything he holds dear.

This is a brilliant analysis, and it continues in that tempo.  Barone compares Obama to Adlai Stevenson, the well-spoken but weak Democratic presidential candidate of 1952 and 1956.  Just read this, carefully:

Like Stevenson, he speaks fluently and often eloquently but does not exude a sense of command. He is an interlocutor, not a fighter. His habit of stating his opponents' arguments fairly and sometimes more persuasively than they do themselves has been a political asset among his peers and in the press but not among Jacksonians, who are more interested in defeating than in understanding their enemies. He has the body of a younger man—he is slim like a man of 31 rather than 46—and moves gracefully but without exuding the sense that you get from every movement of Colin Powell, that he is in charge. Ronald Reagan also had the gift of graceful maneuver, from the movies discipline of knowing the camera was always on him, but he also had the sense of command and an understanding that he must always be in charge: hence the moment, after he was shot and then walked out of the ambulance into George Washington University hospital, when he got out of the car, stood up and (for me, the greatest gesture) buttoned his suit coat, and walked into the building and then, when out of camera range, collapsed on the floor. Would Obama be capable of doing that, while in great pain and in mortal danger? Maybe. The academic doesn't think about it. The Jacksonian thinks it's very unlikely.

That's why Michael Barone enjoys the reputation he has won over many years.

April 3, 2008.      Permalink          

UNCLE SAM DIDN'T WANT HER

Finally, Bill Clinton announces that Hillary once tried to join the Army.  Now, as Jake Tapper of ABC points out, this is similar to the tale Hillary herself once told about trying to join the Marines.  Well, look, Army, Marines...to a liberal, what's the difference?  The story:

Possibly to avoid being one-upped on Indiana national security politics, former President Bill Clinton told a crowd in Columbus, Indiana, today that his wife had tried to join the Army.

"I remember when we were young, right out of law school, she went down and tried to join the Army and they said 'Your eyes are so bad, nobody will take you,'" he said, after heralding her record on issues of concern to the military, such as body armor and access to health care.

I assume this is a version of the "Hillary Clinton tried to join the Marines" anecdote that then-First Lady Clinton told in 1994 that we wondered about since it's a story she never seems to have told again.

The original story was that in Fayetteville, Arkansas, in 1975, Hillary walked into a local Marines recruiting office. The Marine recruiter looked at her, she recalled, and asked how old she was. Twenty-seven, she said.

"He looked at me, and in those days that was before I learned how to wear contact lenses," Sen. Clinton told a crowd of women veterans in 1994. "I had these really thick glasses on. He said, ‘How bad's your eyesight?' I said, ‘It's pretty bad.' …Finally said to me, he said, 'You're too old. You can't see. And you're a woman.…But maybe the dogs would take you.'"

("Dogs" being a reference to the Army.)

Can you imagine Hillary with the Marines on Iwo Jima?  She'd want to raise that flag herself just to get all the credit. 

She has not, as they say, worn the uniform.  The country is stronger for it.

And I'll be back later tonight with an additional note or two.

April 3, 2008.      Permalink          

AFTERNOON POSTINGS,  APRIL 3,  2008

Posted at 3:25 p.m. ET

MONUMENTAL!

Jane Fonda has endorsed Barack Obama.

Aren't you excited?

It's ironic that Fonda, a disgraceful individual who betrayed her country during the Vietnam War, has endorsed a man who'll be running against John McCain, a great hero of that war.

If Obama were smart, and courageous, he'd turn this into a decisive moment and politely decline the endorsement, saying he simply disapproves of Fonda's behavior during Vietnam, and her political extremism since.  He might add, in declining, that he'll be running against a man who endured torture in a North Vietnamese jail while Fonda posed with enemy anti-aircraft crews not far away.  It would be an insult to McCain, he should say, to accept the endorsement.

What a great moment that would be. 

The trouble is, Obama isn't very courageous.  He has a history of ducking controversial votes and issues.  Declining the Fonda endorsement would antagonize some of the leftist "intellectuals" among his base. 

So don't expect much...except maybe a new night club act featuring Jane Fonda and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. singing socialist duets.

I'd stand in line for that.

April 3, 2008.      Permalink          

NEW TRACKERS

In national tracking polls through yesterday, Rasmussen has McCain up seven over Obama, Gallup has him up one.

Rasmussen has McCain up five over Clinton, Gallup has him up two.

Again, I stress, these are tracking polls, simply indicative of trends, not final results.  But I must comment on the fact that Obama's position against McCain is not nearly as strong as it should be at this point, since he is leading the Democratic race.  By contrast, Clinton continues to run slightly stronger in the general than Obama, a signal that she has greater appeal to the center, despite her widespread unpopularity.

Now, it's possible that, once the Democratic race is settled and the anger dies down, the Dem candidate will be strengthened.  On the other hand, some disappointed moderate Democrats, especially Hillary supporters, might defect if Obama is chosen.

April 3, 2008.      Permalink          

A CORRECTION

I titled this morning's piece on our latest Medal of Honor recipient, "Lest We Not Forget."  I was firmly reminded by an e-mail from a distinguished linguist that this is incorrect.  I was trying to recall the inscription found on many war memorials.  It is, of course, "Lest We Forget."  The "not" floated in.  I regret the error.

Be back later.

April 3, 2008.      Permalink          

THURSDAY,  APRIL 3,  2008

Posted at 6:59 a.m. ET

STATE POLLS

A series of new polls in critical states provides Senator Clinton with some added ammunition.

A cautionary note:  These are early polls, snapshots, and they differ.  They simply indicate trends some seven months before the election.

In Ohio, the results suggest that Senator Clinton would defeat Senator McCain, but that McCain would defeat Senator Obama.  However, the very latest polling shows Clinton with a nine-point lead over McCain, Obama with a one-point lead. 

In Florida the results indicate that McCain defeats Obama, but also show Clinton doing far better or even defeating McCain.

In Pennsylvania, results show Obama defeating McCain by a narrow margin, but Clinton winning by a larger margin.

The results show that Clinton simply does better than Obama in these states.  They also show that Senator McCain has work to do.  These are critical states, and there is some - stress, some - indication that they are trending Democratic.  This could change very quickly.

Of course, virtually all the attention is on Democrats at this stage of the race, which may skew the results.  However, that factor will probably continue through election day, given the level of press bias, and would be especially true if Mr. Obama, a media darling to the point where it's almost a marriage, is the Democratic nominee.

There is another issue at work here.  It does appear that Senator Obama can be damaged more easily than Senator Clinton.  I suspect this is true because opinions on Clinton have hardened over the years, whereas Mr. Obama is right out of the showroom.  Impressions about his qualities are still being formed.  To some degree, Clinton is doing McCain's job by punching at Obama.  If Obama is the nominee, the McCain forces will have to assume that role.  McCain has run a gentle campaign thus far, very positive, but that may have to change.  No, that will have to change.

April 3, 2008.     Permalink          

THE McCAIN FINANCES

The Associated Press has a detailed, and at times not flattering, report on the vast wealth possessed by Cindy McCain, the senator's wife, and heiress to a beer fortune:

The McCains' marriage has mixed business and politics from the beginning, according to an expansive review by The Associated Press of thousands of pages of campaign, personal finance, real estate and property records nationwide. The paperwork chronicles the McCains' ascent from Arizona newlyweds to political power couple on the national stage.

As heiress to her father's stake in Hensley & Co. of Phoenix, Cindy McCain is an executive whose worth may exceed $100 million. Her beer earnings have afforded the GOP presidential nominee a wealthy lifestyle with a private jet and vacation homes at his disposal, and her connections helped him launch his political career - even if the millions remain in her name alone. Yet the arm's-length distance between McCain and his wife's assets also has helped shield him from conflict-of-interest problems. 

No problem with this report.  No problem at all.  However, may we please now see similar reports on the strange finances of Michelle Obama, who seems to earn a small fortune at jobs in Chicago that usually pay much lower salaries.  We also wonder why Ms. Obama's economic value apparently rose significantly upon her husband's election to the United States Senate.  This is Chicago, remember, and political stuff happens in Chicago.   

May we also see a probing examination of the Clinton finances.  The Clintons have become very wealthy since leaving the White House, and I'd especially like to know how much of the fortune is coming from foreign sources.  Just asking, just asking.  I want to see the new guest list for the Lincoln bedroom, the Clintons' personal Motel 6 when they were in power.

Okay, Associated Press.   This is a test of your fairness.  Let's have the names and numbers.

April 3, 2008.      Permalink          

IN THE REAL WORLD

Isn't this where we came in? 

Some months after a deceptively written National Intelligence Estimate drove the press to downplay the Iranian nuclear threat, the threat is back.  A group of American diplomats is warning of what will happen in the Middle East if Iran gets the bomb:

WASHINGTON — Saudi Arabia most likely would develop nuclear weapons if Iran acquires them, according to a report to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

High-level American diplomats in Riyadh with excellent access to Saudi decision-makers said an Iranian nuclear weapon frightens the Saudis "to their core" and would compel the Saudis to seek nuclear weapons, the report said. The American diplomats were not identified.

Turkey also would come under pressure to follow suit if Iran builds nuclear weapons in the next decade, said the report prepared by a committee staff member after interviewing hundreds of individuals in Washington and the Middle East last July through December.

While Turkey and Iran do not see themselves as adversaries, Turkey believes a power balance between them is the primary reason for a peaceful relationship, the report said.

Pay no attention.  Pay absolutely no attention.  There is no threat.  This is merely the work of the neocon crowd, the Israel lobby, and the evangelicals.  You see, they control...

No, that won't work this time.  The threat is real.  The centrifuges in Iran are spinning.  And we hear nothing about it from the Democratic candidates for president.

Two of the great dangers of nukes in bad hands is that they could get loose, or sold on the black market.  Or, they simply could be used. 

But pay no attention.

April 3, 2008.      Permalink          

U.S. VIEWS OF ISRAEL

Despite the efforts of Christiane Amanpour and other "observers" of the Middle East, American support for Israel remains very strong, according to a new poll done for the Israel Project:

 "The militant actions by Hamas and disarray among the Palestinians have moved Americans to side with Israel even more strongly than in the past," concluded Stanley Greenberg, Ph.D., of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research.
 
Among U.S. likely voters, 60 percent support Israel, while support for the Palestinians has fallen to 8 percent. Majorities voting for McCain (85 percent), Obama (62 percent) and Clinton (58 percent) all support America standing with Israel in the conflict. Additionally, 76 percent of U.S. likely voters consider Israel a vital ally of the United States, and more than two-thirds think U.S. foreign aid to Israel is a good investment.  

And...

According to 89 percent of Americans, Palestinian leaders must end the culture of hate that encourages children to become suicide bombers. In contrast, a strong majority of Americans believes Israel respects freedoms of religion, speech and press, as well as the rights of women and minorities.

It has become very fashionable in recent years for members of the "intellectual" classes to be anti-Israel.  You get to hang with the prominent lefties.  You get invited to the right parties in Georgetown and Cambridge.  The problem is far worse in Europe than here, but it's present here as well, especially in universities.

The good news in the poll is that Americans see through the pseudo-intellectual fluff, and the importance of this extends well beyond Israel.  Israel, with its flaws, has often been an indicator of how seriously Americans take foreign policy, and what values they attach to that policy.  I see the result of this poll showing that Americans want their values expressed in foreign policy, want to stand by our true allies, and want to remain engaged.  Democratic platform writers please take note, if MoveOn will allow you.

April 3, 2008.      Permalink          

LEST WE FORGET

The Medal of Honor is the highest tribute an American can receive.

The Iraq War has now produced a third Medal of Honor recipient:

WASHINGTON - Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael Monsoor fought dozens of battles in the streets of Ramadi, shouldering his MK48 machine gun without complaint in the 130-degree heat of Iraq's violent Anbar Province.

In May 2006, only a month into his first deployment to Iraq, the Navy SEAL from Garden Grove, Calif., ran under fire into a street to drag to safety a wounded comrade who was shot in the leg, earning a Silver Star for his courage.

On Sept. 29, 2006, another act of valor would cost Mr. Monsoor his life – and save the lives of three comrades. For that act, he will posthumously be awarded a Medal of Honor on April 8, the White House said Monday.

Monsoor "distinguished himself through conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life," said an official summary of action. He is the first sailor and the third service member overall to receive a Medal of Honor for actions in the war in Iraq.

Read the whole story.  We have men like that, and, because of them, this country survives.

Be back later.

April 3, 2008.      Permalink