EVENING UPDATE,  APRIL 7,  2008

Posted at 7:52 p.m. ET

GOOD MOVE

Hillary Clinton is calling on President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies of this year's China Olympics.  Her statement:

The violent clashes in Tibet and the failure of the Chinese government to use its full leverage with Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur are opportunities for Presidential leadership. These events underscore why I believe the Bush administration has been wrong to downplay human rights in its policy towards China. At this time, and in light of recent events, I believe President Bush should not plan on attending the opening ceremonies in Beijing, absent major changes by the Chinese government.

I encourage the Chinese to take advantage of this moment as an opportunity to live up to universal human aspirations of respect for human rights and unity, ideals that the Olympic games have come to represent.

Americans will stand strong in support of freedom of religious and political expression and human rights. Americans will also stand strong and root for the success of American athletes who have worked hard and earned the right to compete in the Olympic Games of 2008.

Smart, very smart.  Now the ball is in Obama's court.  What will he do with it?  Well, he could follow his own tradition and ignore the controversial issue altogether.  Or, he could join in Clinton's call, making it appear that he's playing catch-up.  Or, he could simply say that we should "engage" rather than boycott.  After all, Obama is willing to talk to the Devil himself.

Clinton should try to make this a significant moment in the campaign, hoping for a contrast between her views and Obama's, a contrast that could appeal to Pennsylvania's moderate Democrats.  Even Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco treat, is down on China these days. 

Watch for the ripple effects in the next few days.

April 7, 2008.      Permalink          

THE TORCH IS FLICKERING

The Olympic boycott issue is growing.  The Tibet question has become a flashpoint.  Many "sportsmen" are getting uncomfortable.  Today in Paris the running of the Olympic torch didn't go according to the script:

PARIS - What was supposed to be a majestic procession through the French capital for the Olympic torch turned into chaos Monday as thousands of people from around Europe, many with Tibetan flags, massed to protest the relay and deny China the promotional boost it hoped for in the runup to the games.

The torch went out several times, and police officers had to bring it onto a bus to try to protect it as demonstrators swarmed the security detail. In the end, organizers canceled the final leg of the procession, deciding to have the torch transported by bus.

Despite heavy security, at least one activist got within a meter of the pack of Rollerblading police officers crowding around the torchbearer. On several occasions, officers were seen tackling protesters. A police official quoted by The Associated Press said 28 people were arrested.

And...

An event that was supposed to burnish China’s image around the world has turned into a public relations nightmare — not only for China, but also for the nations along the torch’s route.

The Summer Games and the torch’s journey have served as rallying points for opponents of the Chinese government, most notably those supporting autonomy or freedom for Tibet.

I suspect this protest movement will become one of the big stories of the year, and inevitably will impact our presidential campaign.  Candidates will have to take a stand.

In 1980, to protest the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, President Carter boycotted the Moscow Olympics, essentially punishing American athletes for Soviet actions.  But boycotting the opening ceremonies in China would send the right message while allowing the games to continue.  President Bush should now announce that he will join the boycott.  For a man who's staked his administration on the advancement of democracy, it's the only right thing to do.

April 7, 2008.      Permalink          

UTTERLY VULGAR

Finally, there are some stories that just leave you dismayed.  We continue with the sports theme:

A major scandal has erupted in Europe over the behavior of one Max Mosley, the czar of grand prix motor racing.  He is president of the Federation Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA), the international governing body of motor sports.  It seems that the dashing executive was caught on video engaged in a bizarre orgy in London.  What's worse, the orgy had Nazi overtones.

If that weren't bad enough, Mosley is the son of Sir Oswald Mosley, Britain's 1930s fascist leader.  The elder Mosley and his wife, the former Diana Mitford, were married in a secret ceremony in Berlin in 1936, with Adolf Hitler as the guest of honor.

Question one:  With all the executives available, why give a high-profile post to one with that family background?  Okay, you don't blame the son for the parents, but did no one suspect anything?

From The New York Times:

The tabloid newspaper that broke the story of Mr. Mosley’s Chelsea session, The News of the World, described it as “a depraved Nazi sadomasochistic orgy,” and said Mr. Mosley had paid the equivalent of $5,000 in cash for the five-hour session.

In a video the paper posted on the Internet but later removed, two of the women wore black-and-white striped robes in the style of prisoners’ uniforms. The video showed Mr. Mosley counting in German — “Eins! Zwei! Drei! Vier! Funf!” — as he used a leather strap to lash one of the women.

“She needs more of ze punishment!” he cried in German-accented English. One woman appeared to search his hair for lice while another called off items on an inspection list. Mr. Mosley, naked, was bound face-down and lashed more than 20 times.

Mr. Mosley has acknowledged participating in the session. But he has denied that the role-playing had a Nazi motif, and announced Friday that he had filed a lawsuit against the newspaper, claiming “unlimited damages” for invasion of privacy.

Nazis?  What Nazis?  Where are there Nazis?  Why, just because my parents...whoops.

There's more:

He has refused to resign his F.I.A. post, appealing to the federation’s global network of motoring organizations for support. But denunciations have cascaded from much of the racing world, from Jewish groups, and from F.I.A.-affiliated motoring organizations around the world, including the American Automobile Association, which said in a statement on Saturday that Mr. Mosley, as F.I.A. chief, needed to set “the highest standards of ethical behavior” if he was to represent millions of motorists worldwide. It added: “It would be in the best interest of all concerned if he were to step down.”

Perhaps more significantly, calls for his resignation have come from four major car companies, each of which owns or substantially controls grand prix racing teams: BMW, Daimler Benz, Honda and Toyota.

Yeah, I think they've got it right.  But Mosley appears to be a fighter:

The Times of London reported Friday that Mr. Mosley would argue in his lawsuit that he spoke German during the sex-and-bondage session because two of the women involved were Germans, not to engage in Nazi role playing. He learned the language when his parents, interned by Winston Churchill during World War II as security threats and self-exiled in Paris after the war, sent him to an exclusive private school in Bavaria for two years.

You can't make this stuff up.

Yuch.

But the decency of the reaction in the motor-sport world gives us grounds for optimism.  We'll cheer for the good.

And I'll be back tomorrow, sooner if events warrant.

April 7, 2008.       Permalink          

LATE AFTERNOON POSTING,  APRIL 7,  2008

Posted at 5:48 p.m. ET

WEIRD

There's strange, and there's very strange.  And sometimes the strange things are written by someone named Strange.

USA Today runs this frightening piece by Mary Zeiss Strange, professor of, natch, Women's Studies and Religion (I can't believe it) at Skidmore College in upstate New York.  It's about the quasi-religious appeal of Barack Obama.

Look at the picture accompanying the piece.  Look at the picture within the picture - the Stalinist imagery of the strong maximum leader, with the right side of the picture in red.  This is chilling enough.  Then there's the article:

I am a child of the '60s. Bobby Kennedy was assassinated a week before my high-school graduation, and the Rev. Martin Luther King two months before that. My political consciousness was shaped by the anti-Vietnam War movement, under the leadership of two Roman Catholic priests, Daniel and Philip Berrigan, and by the 1968 Chicago Democratic convention, when anti-war activists, objecting to politics as usual, chanted, "The whole world is watching."

The world is watching once again. And, for the first time in their young lives, the so-called millennial generation is riding the wave generated by a genuinely inspiring leader, sensing the incipience of a movement.

This isn't to suggest that Obama is a messiah or a God-like figure, of course. Nor does the magnitude of this movement ensure that revolutionary change will necessarily follow what his critics call mere words. But it does suggest that there is something transcendent about any man, or woman, who can move a people to believe for the first time — or once again. You see it in churches on Sundays, and we're seeing it in Obama's rallies today.

Call it enthusiasm, if you will, call it wildly optimistic, exuberantly hopeful. But it is not irrational any more than religion itself is irrational. And his followers are not just carried away by lofty rhetoric. They are actually, increasingly well-informed on the issues. They know what kind of world my boomer generation is bequeathing them. They have every reason not to hope, yet they're audacious enough to try.

If it takes a little bit of what Tillich would have recognized as that good old-time religion to mobilize a generation that up until now has been largely indifferent to politics, I say Amen.

Yikes.  Maybe the kids are going nuts because they're being taught by professors like this.  We are seeing an outgrowth of the sixties mentality, with its immaturity and simplistic sloganeering, and its remarkably low standards.

I've written before in this space that Barack Obama is the sixties dream.  Read this professor's entire article, and see if you don't agree.

Posted on April 7, 2008.      Permalink          

AFTERNOON POSTINGS,  APRIL 7,  2008

Posted at 3:27 p.m. ET

POLLING

A new American Research Group poll has Obama and Clinton tied in Pennsylvania, which votes two weeks from tomorrow.  If the poll is accurate, Clinton is in serious trouble.  Even if the poll is off, and the truth is outside the traditional margin of error, Clinton's lead has dwindled.  We'll have other polls from Pennsylvania in coming days.

The same poll has Clinton up nine over Obama in Indiana, and has Obama up 13 in North Carolina.  Both states vote May 6th.

What accounts for Obama's surge in Pennsylvania?  This is purely informed speculation, but Clinton has run a terrible campaign in the last three weeks.  Her Bosnia lie reminded voters of Clintons past.  The removal of her chief strategist, Mark Penn, flashed "instability."  At the same time, Obama appears to have gotten past his Rev. Wright troubles, at least for now.  He is strong with African-Americans and the young.  He has outspent Clinton five to one in Pennsylvania. 

In the national trackers, Rasmussen has McCain up only one over Obama, Gallup has them tied.  Rasmussen has McCain up three over Clinton, Gallup two.

There is no question but that trends, although small, seem to be going in Obama's direction.  John McCain just finished a national biographical tour of places that had meaning in his life.  It had no measurable impact.  In fact, Obama picked up points against McCain during the tour.

None of this necessarily means a thing.  The general-election campaign won't begin seriously until September.  I'll make this one observation, though:  McCain and his staff clearly worry that he has too much of a tough-guy image, and have sought to soften it.  They run the risk of going too far.  A "softer" image, in a man of 71, can easily become "old and tired."  McCain goes out of his way to be fair to Obama.  He plays the statesman.  Please notice that the compliment isn't being returned.  The sad fact is that he with the greatest punch usually wins.  Obama, although wrapped in a pretty package, is a puncher.  His attacks on McCain are sharp, and rather dishonest.  But with a swooning press, who'll notice?

April 7, 2008.    Permalink          

MONDAY,  APRIL 7,  2008

Posted at 6:57 a.m. ET

SOLVING THE MYSTERY

This slipped in under the radar in the last few days, as we focused on our election campaign:  The United States, according to an Israeli newspaper, will soon reveal details of that Israeli raid on Syria last September.  The general belief in journalism circles is that Israel hit some kind of nuclear installation:

Israel and the United States are coordinating the release of details on the air force strike in Syria last September, which foreign reports claim targeted a nuclear installation Syria was constructing with North Korean assistance. American officials may reveal details of the strike later this month during congressional hearings.

Even though the defense establishment in Israel is opposed to any publication of details of the attack, the Prime Minister's Bureau and U.S. President George W. Bush's administration are of the opinion that it is now possible to reveal details because there is little chance of a conflagration as a result of a Syrian decision to avenge the attack.

Details of the attack are likely to be revealed by senior Bush administration officials during hearings before Congress.

And...

The view in Washington and in Jerusalem is that publishing details of the attack will bolster Israel's deterrence and may even lead Syria to cool its close ties with Iran and North Korea.

According to the American assessments, the revelations about the attack will also bolster its hand in negotiations with North Korea on dismantling its nuclear arms.

Aside from the clear international implications, release of the details - if they bear out the conventional wisdom - could affect our election.  If in fact nuclear technology is being exported by North Korea or Iran, or both, it underlines the need for a president with broad national-security credentials.  And his name isn't Obama. 

A key question is how the media will play this.  By definition, it will be a major story.  It isn't every day that a nation strikes at a nuclear installation.  But if you see the story on page 36 of The Washington Post, right under the Buick ad, you 'll know that the fix is in, and that the media will minimize the revelations.  Why?   Come on, you can figure that out.

April 7, 2008.      Permalink          

FASTEST GUN IN CHICAGO

Did I read this right?  Barack Obama is going after the pro-gun vote?  Yes, I read it right.  Apparently, the guy thinks he can convince gun owners that he's on their side:

Barack Obama did not hunt or fish as a child. He lives in a big city. And as an Illinois state legislator and a U.S. senator, he consistently backed gun control legislation.

But he is nevertheless making a play for pro-gun voters in rural Pennsylvania.

By highlighting his background in constitutional law and downplaying his voting record, Obama is engaging in a quiet but targeted drive to win over an important constituency that on the surface might seem hostile to his views.

On the surface?  Are we serious here?  I love that line, "By highlighting his background in constitutional law and downplayng his voting record..."

Pay no attention, officer, to the fact that I robbed the bank.  Consider only my expertise in monetary policy.

It goes on:

Obama has long backed gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic weapons and concealed weapons, and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month. He has declined to take a stance on the legality of the handgun prohibition in Washington, D.C., which the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing, although Obama has voiced support for the right of state and local governments to regulate guns.

You know, sometimes it's best just to skip an issue:

Melody Zullinger, the executive director of the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs who received the Obama campaign e-mail on his gun record, said Obama sounds like he is “speaking out of both sides of his mouth.”

“I was at one of our county meetings last night and I mentioned this to [federation members],” Zullinger said Friday of the Obama outreach. “Everyone basically blew it off and weren’t buying it.”

I wonder why. 

I don't happen to own a firearm, but I think the Second Amendment should be taken seriously.  What enrages me is just that notion that Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth.  I was listening to the wonderful John Batchelor last night on ABC Radio, and he made the point that we really don't know much about this man, what he thinks, what he believes.  And as the campaign progresses, I really can't say that I've learned a great deal that is new.  I feel I know as much about Obama now as I knew six months ago.  Not right, not right.

April 7, 2008.     Permalink          

ANTI-McCAIN CAMPAIGN FIZZLES

Maybe they couldn't find enough haters.  An attempt by hard-left hobbyists to run an early anti-McCain attack has fizzled.  They couldn't raise enough cash:

Democratic talk of an early, hard-hitting campaign to "define" and tar Arizona Sen. John McCain appears to have fizzled for lack of money, leading to a quiet round of finger-pointing among Democratic operatives and donors as McCain assembles a campaign and a public image relatively unmolested.

Despite the millions of dollars pooling around Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, anti-McCain funds have fallen far short of the hopes set in November, when a key organizer, Tom Matzzie, reportedly told The Washington Post that the "Fund for America" would raise more than $100 million to support the activities of a range of allied groups.

The Democratic National Committee, too, is organizing an anti-McCain campaign, but a spokeswoman, Karen Finney, said fundraising to support that effort has met "mixed" results.

You know, maybe people are sending a message:  It's awfully hard to smear a national hero.  Maybe it's best to run a positive campaign.

Get this paragraph:

"Many of the people who would normally be involved in such an effort are overly focused on the primary, which is a mistake," said Michael Vachon, a spokesman for George Soros, who is the largest individual donor to the Fund for America, which in turn has passed on at least $1.4 million to what was expected to be the main attack group, an organization called the Campaign to Defend America.

Leftist international financier George Soros is funding an attack group aimed at a man who served his country so well.  There's something the Democrats can be proud of. 

I wonder if Senator Obama has any comment on this.  Senator?  Senator?  I think his line is busy.  He's talking to the gun people.

April 7, 2008.      Permalink          

SOME THINGS GET TO YOU

When I was at The New York Times, many years ago, I edited a story on the execution of Private Eddie Slovik during World War II.  I wrote a picture caption stating that Slovik was the only American soldier executed during the war.  The caption was wrong.  Slovik was the only American soldier during that war to be executed for a military offense.  I was roundly condemned for the error by my seniors, most of whom had covered World War II.  I learned something about attention to detail, and checking facts.

I thought of that incident when reading two stories in The Times this past weekend, both of which sent me up a wall.  The first dealt with John McCain and his family.  It's a reasonable story.  But attached is a picture of a young John McCain, a midshipman at Annapolis, and his father.  The caption identifies his father as "John S. McCain Jr., a Navy admiral."  Problem is, his father is wearing the four stripes of a Navy captain.  True, he later became an admiral, but he wasn't one in that picture.  The Times should have added a phrase like, "pictured here when he was a captain."

The second story, about the political prospects of generals, has a picture showing Matthew Ridgway.  The caption spells his name wrong.  It's Ridgway, not Ridgeway.  It calls him Gen. Ridgeway, but in the photo he plainly is wearing the three stars of a lieutenant general, not a general.  He should have been called Lieut. Gen. Matthew B. Ridgway, not Gen. Matthew Ridgeway.   The caption also says that he "did not gain a victory in the Korean War for the United States but managed to stabilize the situation..."  There's an implication that he failed.  He did not.  His job was to stabilize the situation and secure the line protecting South Korea.  He succeeded, which is why there's a South Korea today.  That's three mistakes in one caption.

Are these things important, or am I being trivial?  They're important.  They're very important.  Accuracy sends a message to knowledgeable readers that the newspaper is careful, that it has a staff with a solid body of knowledge, and that it checks its facts.  What's pathetic here is that The Times, like most news outlets today, has so few people who possess a familiarity with the military, or military history.  It is the reader who is shortchanged.

April 7, 2008.    Permalink          

SOUTH PACIFIC

Some of you who've read my work at Power Line know that I have a bit of a history in film, TV, and music.  I've not done much on those subjects at Urgent Agenda, but I'll try to do more.  However, I do want to report a delightful occurrence.  A new production of "South Pacific," the great Rodgers and Hammerstein musical play, opened in New York this past week to rave reviews.  It is completely sold out.

It's wonderful to have this classic, originally staged in 1949, brought back so well.  Consider this, from critic Ben Brantley:

For this “South Pacific” recreates the unabashed, unquestioning romance that American theatergoers had with the American book musical in the mid-20th century, before the genre got all self-conscious about itself. There’s not an ounce of we-know-better-now irony in Mr. Sher’s staging. Yet the show feels too vital to be a museum piece, too sensually fluid to be square.

I could feel the people around me leaning in toward the stage, as if it were a source of warmth on a raw, damp day. And that warmth isn’t the synthetic fire of can-do cheer and wholesomeness associated (not always correctly) with Rodgers and Hammerstein. It’s the fire of daily life, with all its crosscurrents and ambiguities, underscored and clarified by music.

We have a culture, and a good part of it is marvelous, and should be a source of American pride.  For most of the 20th century we had composers like Rodgers and Kern and Berlin and Gershwin and Cole Porter, and they wrote beautiful music that enriched this country and the world.  They are gone, but we have their creations, and we must pass them on to the next generation.  I recall when Richard Rodgers visited The Times to have lunch with the editor for whom I worked.  The elevator doors opened on the 14th floor, and there he was.  I was one of those people Brantley wrote about, the kind who had a romance with the American musical.  Here was the dean of the musical theater, the man who wrote the music to "South Pacific," "Oklahoma!," "Carousel" and "The King and I."  All I could do was stare, and wonder how so many lilting melodies came out of that one brain.  I never did find out.

We call this new production of "South Pacific" a revival.  It's an odd term.  Do the British call a new production of "Hamlet" a revival?  I don't think so.  "Revival" is condescending.  It sounds like something was dying and had to be brought back to life.  "South Pacific" was never dying.  It was just away, waiting for the right moment.

April 7, 2008.     Permalink             

NOW WE KNOW

Finally, we turn to scientific research. It has been discovered that ruthlessness may be genetic:

Selfish dictators may owe their behaviour partly to their genes, according to a study that claims to have found a genetic link to ruthlessness. The study might help to explain the money-grabbing tendencies of those with a Machiavellian streak — from national dictators down to 'little Hitlers' found in workplaces the world over.

And...

The researchers don't know the mechanism by which the gene influences behaviour. It may mean that for some, the old adage that "it is better to give than to receive" simply isn't true, says team leader Richard Ebstein. The reward centres in those brains may derive less pleasure from altruistic acts, he suggests, perhaps causing them to behave more selfishly.

I'm very relieved.  And I want to take this opportunity to apologize to the agents, lawyers and producers I've known over the years.  Guys, I didn't know it was a medical problem.  Otherwise, I wouldn't have said the things I did.  Maybe, someday, medicine will come up with a cure.

And I'll be back later. 

April 7, 2008.     Permalink