EVENING UPDATE:  APRIL 24,  2008

Posted at 7:31 p.m. ET

HUFF HUFF

Arianna Huffington is a curious sort.  Smart Greek girl comes to America, becomes a Republican, marries rich guy of questionable sexuality, divorces same, gets lump sum, becomes a Democrat, goes into the blogging business.  There's got to be a movie in there somewhere.  Or a paperback novel.

But Huffington is a serious person, and, in my view, a dangerous one.  Increasingly, she demonstrates that the left has become, not a set of political views, but a religion, with its own dogma.  At its base is the First Commandment:  "We are the truth, and you shall have no other truth."

The latest thing that Huff is huffing about is the fact that the mainstream media - not the loathsome creatures of right-wing outlets, but the mainstream guys - have hired people she disagrees with, namely Karl Rove, Bill Kristol, and now the infamous Tony Snow.  Feel her pain:

Certainly other White House insiders, such as William Safire and George Stephanopoulos, have made the leap to TV and print news. But this current crop remains unabashed propagandists. By embracing them, the mainstream media have revealed a mile-wide streak of self-loathing.

Have they been so cowed by the Republicans' relentless branding of them as "liberal" that they feel compelled to sleep with the enemy? Make no mistake, Rove, Kristol and Snow are the enemies of honesty, truth, facts, reality and the public's right to know.

Rove's commitment to deception is legendary. His entire career as a GOP shot-caller was built on it. Kristol, Dan Quayle's chief of staff in the first Bush administration, is neoconservatism's crown prince. As editor of the Weekly Standard, he was a prime pusher of invading Iraq, and his claims about the war's progress have been discredited again and again. His reward: a column in Time magazine in 2006-07, and then this year a conservative slot on the Gray Lady's Op-Ed page. The New York Times might as well have given a weekly column to infamous fabricator Jayson Blair.

Now CNN, the self-anointed "most trusted name in news," has thrown its arms around Snow and handed him its international megaphone.

Oh my, oh my.  The mainstream media has thrown in its lot with the rightist enemy.  Even CNN has crumbled.  What comes next?  State of Mississippi lapel pins?  Israeli flags?  Rush Limbaugh taking over for Katie Couric...at gunpoint?

But read the piece, and read between the lines.  Then recall the 41 "journalists" who sent a petition to ABC News last week protesting the tough questions asked of Barack Obama.  What we're seeing here is a kind of intimidation, a belief that journalism must only present "acceptable" views, views that "serve society."  And those who aren't "acceptable"?  Why, they're dishonest.  They're crooks.  They have no place.  And must have no voice.

The sad fact is, this is just the kind of thinking you find on many college campuses:  "We celebrate free speech, but here's a list of things that aren't included."

We're going to get more of this.  Resist.

April 24, 2008.      Permalink          

OBAMA AND YOUTH

Ben Adler at The Politico has picked up a story others have missed - an apparent slippage in Barack Obama's appeal to youth:

The weakness in Barack Obama’s support among older white voters appears to have trickled down to younger ones, at least in Pennsylvania, according to exit polls from the state’s primary this week.

While Barack Obama carried voters under 30 years old on Tuesday by 20 points — 60 percent to Hillary Clinton’s 40 percent—he narrowly lost whites in the same age group by four points, 48 percent compared to Clinton’s 52 percent.

Young whites were the only white demographic that Obama carried in close primaries leading up to Pennsylvania’s, as he did in the Clinton stronghold of New York, and in states with racially polarized voting among older voters, such as South Carolina.

Normally Clinton only wins the white youth vote in states she totally dominates, such as Arkansas — not ones where she won by 10 points or less overall as she did in Pennsylvania.

The explanation?  Well, just ask a Dem activist:

“People thought the ‘bitter’ comment hurt — I don’t,” said Jane Fleming Kleeb, executive director of Young Voter PAC, an organization that works to engage Democratic candidates with young voters, via e-mail. She was referring to Obama’s remarks about lower-income voters in Pennsylvania being bitter and "cling[ing]" to guns and religion to assuage their concerns about economic promises never met.

“I think what hurt is that he couldn’t bowl over a 37,” Kleeb continued. “Middle-class young people who may not have gone the college route think to themselves, 'Who is this guy? He can’t even bowl.' ... and then images of elitism come in.”

Right, Jane Fleming Kleeb.  You just keep talking down to people that way.  Why, those uneducated honkies, they judge a presidential candidate by his bowling score.  Why, all the best people know that.

Maybe some young people just started to look a little more carefully, and didn't like what they were seeing.

April 24, 2008.      Permalink          

NONE DARE CALL IT BERRYGATE

The latest crimestopper bulletin from Washington:

Whether he was up to no good or simply desperate to play BrickBreaker, a Mexican press attaché was caught on camera pocketing several White House BlackBerries during a recent meeting in New Orleans and has since been fired, FOX News has learned.

Sources with knowledge of the incident said the official, Rafael Quintero Curiel, served as the lead press advance person for the Mexican Delegation and was responsible for handling logistics and guiding the Mexican media around at the conference.

Mexican Embassy spokesman Ricardo Alday said Thursday he was asked to tender his resignation once he arrived back in Mexico City.

"Mr. Quintero will be responsible for explaining his actions to the American authorities conducting an investigation. The Mexican Government deeply regrets this incident," he said.

Quintero Curiel took six or seven of the handheld devices from a table outside a special room in the hotel where the Mexican delegation was meeting with President Bush earlier this week.

The three presidential candidates immediately issued statements reacting to the heinous crime:

HILLARY CLINTON:  "I'd be ready to take on a crisis like this from day one.  No speeches, just action.  Recover the BlackBerries.  Period."

BARACK OBAMA:  "That's the old politics.  I'd sit down with the man, brother to brother.  I'd tell him I understand his resentment over what we stole from Mexico.  He'd give back the little toys, and there'd be no war."

JOHN McCAIN:  "Secure the border, put the Nimitz off their coast with 85 planes, watch the BlackBerries come back FedEx, priority service." 

April 24, 2008.      Permalink          

LATE AFTERNOON POSTING:  APRIL 24,  2008

Posted at 5:41 p.m. ET

THE REVEREND SPEAKS

Bill Moyers has interviewed the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., now famous for being Barack Obama's pastor.  Wright's the one Obama listened to for 20 years, but didn't, apparently, quite understand.  So Ben Smith at The Politico gives us Wright's view of God and politics, as told to Moyers:

Mr. Wright, who has acted as Mr. Obama’s spiritual mentor and retired in February as pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, said that he has never heard Mr. Obama repeat any of his controversial statements.

“Absolutely not,” Mr. Wright said. “I don’t talk to him about politics. And so he had a political event, he goes out as a politician and says what he has to say as a politician. I continue to be a pastor who speaks to the people of God about the things of God.”

Mr. Obama publicly denounced Mr. Wright’s remarks, a reaction Mr. Wright said “went down very simply.”

“He’s a politician, I’m a pastor,” he said. “We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor. But they’re two different worlds.”

Boy, is that reassuring:  "And he says what he has to say as a politician." 

That's what a lot of us are afraid of.

April 24, 2008.      Permalink          

ANOTHER OBAMA PROBLEM?

Patrick Poole has written extensively about terrorism for American Thinker and other outlets.  Now he explores a curious page on Barack Obama's website:

Two years ago, Hatem El-Hady was the chairman of the Toledo, Ohio-based Islamic charity, Kindhearts, which was closed by the US government in February 2006 for terrorist fundraising and all its assets frozen. Today, El-Hady has redirected his fundraising efforts for his newest cause - Barack Obama for President.

El-Hady has his own dedicated page on Barack Obama's official website, chronicling his fundraising on behalf of the Democratic Party presidential candidate (his Obama profile established on February 19, 2008 - two years to the day after Kindhearts was raided by the feds). Not only that, but he has none other than Barack Obama's wife, Michelle Obama, listed as one of his friends (one of her 224 listed friends).

You can examine the whole piece and decide for yourself.  It's troubling, another brick on the load.  Is Obama aware of this man's background?  If so, does it bother him? 

We don't know yet if a reporter will ask questions or if talk radio will bring up the issue.  But, without judging in advance, I certainly am curious.

April 24, 2008.      Permalink           

EARLY AFTERNOON POSTING: APRIL 24,  2008

Posted at 1:59 p.m. ET

TRACKERS

The tracking polls won't pick up significant fallout from Pennsylvania for another day or two, but the latest polls are still intriguing.

For the Democratic nomination, Rasmussen has Obama up seven, Gallup has him up five, an average of six.  That is a respectable, but not overwhelming lead.  When you factor in the tremendous, and understandable, support Obama has among African-Americans, you do get the sense that a breakdown by race would be useful.  It's sad that we have to think that way, but it's a political reality.

In the general, Rasmussen now has Obama up by two over McCain, whereas Gallup shows a tie.  The Ras result is probably statistical noise, as he had McCain up by a bit a few days ago.  Rasmussen has McCain up two over Clinton, whereas Gallup again has a tie. 

We must comment once more on Senator Clinton's resiliency.  The margin of error eliminates any real differences in the national trackers, and Obama's inability to close the deal or go the distance without problems is showing. 

There are no late polls in Indiana, Clinton's next "must-win," voting a week from Tuesday. 

The time factor:  The Democratic primaries will be over the first week in June.  That sounds like a long way off, but May starts a week from today.  Heavy politics coming up.

And don't forget that Puerto Rico primary on June 1st.  If things tighten in the Dem race, or if Obama has some new Reverend Wright moment, then gets swamped in a Hispanic primary, there could be some rethinking in a party where thinking is not usually the norm.

April 24, 2008.      Permalink          

THURSDAY:  APRIL 24,  2008

Posted at 6:58 a.m. ET

QUESTIONS ABOUT OBAMA

Several themes emerge from the Pennsylvania primary.  The most critical, from what I've seen, is doubt over the viability of Barack Obama's candidacy.  The doubt doesn't extend to whether he'll get the nomination.  The overwhelming majority of informed observers believe it will be extremely hard for Senator Clinton to grab it from him.  The doubt involves his ability to compete against John McCain in November.

Karl Rove, one of the most astute political operatives of our time, explores the Obama problem for The Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Obama was routed despite outspending Hillary Clinton on television by almost 3-1. While polls in the final days showed a possible 4% or 5% Clinton win, she apparently took late-deciders by a big margin to clinch the landslide.

Where she cobbled together her victory should cause concern in the Obama HQ. She did better – and he worse – than expected in Philadelphia's suburbs. Mrs. Clinton won two of these four affluent suburban counties, home of the white-wine crowd Mr. Obama has depended on for victories before.

In the small town and rural "bitter" precincts, she clobbered him. Mr. Obama's state chair was Sen. Bob Casey, who hails from Lackawanna County in northeast Pennsylvania. She carried that county 74%-25%. In the state's 61 less-populous counties, she won 63% – and by 278,266 votes. Her margin of victory statewide was 208,024 votes.

And...

Mr. Obama has not been a leader on big causes in Congress. He has been manifestly unwilling to expend his political capital on urgent issues. He has been only an observer, watching the action from a distance, thinking wry and sardonic and cynical thoughts to himself about his colleagues, mildly amused at their too-ing and fro-ing. He has held his energy and talent in reserve for the more important task of advancing his own political career, which means running for president.

But something happened along the way. Voters saw in the Philadelphia debate the responses of a vitamin-deficient Stevenson act-a-like. And in the closing days of the Pennsylvania primary, they saw him alternate between whining about his treatment by Mrs. Clinton and the press, and attacking Sen. John McCain by exaggerating and twisting his words. No one likes a whiner, and his old-style attacks undermine his appeals for postpartisanship.

Mr. Obama is near victory in the Democratic contest, but it is time for him to reset, freshen his message and say something new. His conduct in the last several weeks raises questions about whether, for all his talents, he is ready to be president.

Amen.  The Stevenson reference, of course, is to Adlai Stevenson, the anointed darling of Democratic intellectuals of the 1950s.  How, these anguished souls asked, could America turn its back on such a man, defeated by Eisenhower in both the 1952 and 1956 elections?  How could it choose the dull, plodding Ike instead?

But, in the fullness of time, Stevenson emerges as a shallow man who could turn a good phrase and sound oh so civilized.  Eisenhower emerges as far more effective, the organizer of victory in Europe in World War II, the quiet student of history, who understood things in ways Stevenson never could.

Stevenson and Eisenhower.  Obama and McCain.  It is not a perfect comparison.  But it is close enough to give thoughtful Democrats - and there are a few - some real worry.

April 24, 2008.      Permalink          

MORE DOUBTS

Robert Novak is a journalist I often dislike, for various reasons, but, when he's at his best, his reporting is sharp and effective.  He continues the theme of Obama's viability:

Obama hit a low in Pennsylvania, despite clouds over Clinton's credibility and her husband's dysfunctional campaigning. Popular freshman Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, a pro-life and pro-gun Catholic, was Obama's faithful surrogate but proved no help. Exit polls showed Obama losing 70 percent of Catholics, 58 percent of white Protestants and 62 percent of gun owners. Clinton carried union members, wage-earners between $15,000 and $75,000 annually, and people with less than a college degree. Obama was saved from total disaster in Pennsylvania by 92 percent of the African-American vote, but the reverse of the racial divide was Clinton's support from whites, especially white working women.

And...

Democratic politicians today see no viable alternative to Barack Obama as their nominee. Their hard assessment is that Hillary Clinton clawing her way to the nomination could mean 25 percent McCain support from a radically depleted African-American turnout -- a prescription for disaster.

On the other hand, Pennsylvania exit polls project a massive defection by Clinton voters (with 32 percent of them "satisfied" only if she is the nominee). Many of these disaffected Democrats surely will be reconciled to Obama. Indeed, McCain privately warns key supporters to be prepared for a massive if temporary falloff in the polls once these unhappy Democrats return after Obama is nominated. But not all will return, and that is Pennsylvania's warning to the Democratic Party.

Novak also notes the "Bradley effect," the tendency of some white voters to tell pollsters they'll vote for an African-American, even though they won't.  It's named for Tom Bradley, the black mayor of Los Angeles, who did far better in polling when he ran for governor of California than he did in the actual vote.  He lost. 

April 24, 2008.      Permalink          

OBAMA AND FEAR

I've sometimes quoted Froma Harrop here.   A columnist for the Providence Journal, she's not as well known as she should be, considering the quality of her work.  Her columns are picked up at Real Clear Politics all the time.  Here is her take on the questions surrounding Obama, stemming from his loss in Pennsylvania, especially the Obama camp's odd indifference to the threat of terrorism:

If Obama's supporters want to argue that their candidate can better handle these challenges than Clinton, then fine, they should do so. But for some unfathomable reason, they insist on drumming Osama bin Laden out of polite Democratic conversation, such as there is any these days.

The day after Pennsylvania, The New York Times ran a nutty editorial, "The Low Road to Victory," that bashed Clinton for waving "the bloody shirt of 9-11." Oh, is referring to the event that obliterated the World Trade Center -- still a blank in Lower Manhattan -- an irrational demagogic appeal to old grievances? (One suspects that the Times regrets its endorsement of Clinton in the New York primary, especially since she became unfashionable in fancy circles.)

An enduring fear of terrorism may help explain a remarkable SurveyUSA poll that shows Obama virtually tied with McCain in Massachusetts. In super-liberal Massachusetts! The same poll has Clinton leading McCain in that state by a comfortable 55 percent to 42 percent.

And...

Liberals who blast allusions to terrorism as scaredy-cat politics really aren't listening. They're certainly not helping Obama's prospects should he become the Democratic nominee. Bin Laden and friends remain on the loose, and the public has a right to fear them.

That is correct.  And I loved Harrop's vivid description of the psychology of The New York Times, which derives its wisdom from Manhattan's better dinner tables.  Soon after the 9-11 attacks, Molly Haskell, the film critic, reported that she'd tried to toast an American victory in the war on terror while sitting at one of those tables, and was ridiculed by the "intellectuals" in her presence.  It's not surprising.  I know the members of that club well.  If they disappeared tomorrow, the productive part of America wouldn't know they were gone.

April 24, 2008.      Permalink          

THE SYRIA MYSTERY

There's a major story brewing, and it will provide another test of how the Democratic candidates handle foreign and defense policy. Administration officials, at a congressional hearing today, will reveal details of that secretive Israeli strike on Syria last September 6th.  According to The Washington Post:

A video taken inside a secret Syrian facility last summer convinced the Israeli government and the Bush administration that North Korea was helping to construct a reactor similar to one that produces plutonium for North Korea's nuclear arsenal, according to senior U.S. officials who said it would be shared with lawmakers today.

The officials said the video of the remote site, code-named Al Kibar by the Syrians, shows North Koreans inside. It played a pivotal role in Israel's decision to bomb the facility late at night last Sept. 6, a move that was publicly denounced by Damascus but not by Washington.

Sources familiar with the video say it also shows that the Syrian reactor core's design is the same as that of the North Korean reactor at Yongbyon, including a virtually identical configuration and number of holes for fuel rods. It shows "remarkable resemblances inside and out to Yongbyon," a U.S. intelligence official said. A nuclear weapons specialist called the video "very, very damning."

There is an attempt in the piece to play down the importance of the Syrian reactor.  After all, the story is by Robin Wright.  But no amount of hedging can hide the fact that North Korea remains a dangerous and suspicious player, and that more rogue states will likely try to join the nuclear club.

Of course, it's easy stuff for President Obama.  He'll just sit down with any North Korean bureaucrat he can find, mention the audacity of hope, and say, "Yes we can."  That should do it.

April 24, 2008.      Permalink          

YUCH

Finally, I like to point out the times - too numerous to mention - when journalism sinks well below street level.  We now have a major event.  Simon Jenkins, of Britain's reliably leftist paper, The Guardian, read in all the best circles, has written what is perhaps the worst piece about the United States that I've read recently.  He essentially declares us a war-loving nation.  I prefer not to quote this great act of scholarship.  If you want to read it, I've linked it.  There's an e-mail address at the end where you can tell the presumptuous Jenkins just what you think.  You might begin by noting that if it were not for this nation of "war lovers," Mr. Jenkins would be speaking German, or maybe Russian.  I suspect the Russian part wouldn't bother him.

Be back during the day.

April 24, 2008.      Permalink