EVENING UPDATE,  FEBRUARY 29,  2008

WHY OBAMA?

There are so many theories going around as to why Barack Obama could come out of nowhere to challenge, and probably defeat, Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination.  Most center around his personal appeal, his speaking ability, which is considerable, and Hillary's lack of likability.

That's all correct, but I think there's something else.

We are talking here about the political left.  I wrote a few days ago that, on the left, race always trumps gender. It seems to me that this, more than any other factor, explains what we're seeing.  We can applaud the lifting of a racial barrier - and we should applaud it - but there is something very dangerous about this whole process.  We're electing a president of the United States, not a president of the senior class.  The obsession with Obama's identity, the endless appeals to "sensitivity" - we apparently aren't even allowed to say his middle name - can thoroughly warp the political process and the national debate.

That warping allows for the most ridiculous points to go unchallenged.  The idea that Obama will bring "unity" to America is absurd on its face.  It assumes that our divisions are artificial, caused only by atmospherics and a "tone" in Washington.  No, our divisions are based on real opinions.  They always have been.  Democracy assures division, and protects it.  A teacher once said to me that the democratic process is about one question:  "What do you think?"  When you ask it, you get division, no matter what the national situation.

There is something else about the "unity" myth that needs to be said.  Unity is an enticing goal.  It is also the siren song of the dictator and demagogue.  In our universities today there's a code word going around.  It's "collegiality."  Surely you students want a "collegial" atmosphere, don't you?  Surely you don't want to "offend," do you?  Surely we want to have mutual respect, don't we?  If you're 18, you know how to answer those questions.  The problem is, each "correct" answer erodes your freedom.  Instead of challenging someone, you shut up, especially if that someone is a member of an "oppressed" group.  Instead of debating, you withdraw, fearful of being accused of spreading "hate." 

I've always believed that Americans won't lose their freedoms.  They'll give them up to some noble-sounding appeal.  Now we are being sold "unity."  We're being sold it by a man who is hypnotizing many in our country, in part because of his identity.  Some feel better about themselves simply by listening to him.  But, when the time comes, will these same people rise to disagree with him, especially if he's endangering the nation?  That is the question.

When someone preaches "unity," watch out.  Unity comes at us on a coating of snake oil.

INTRIGUING POLL

Some poll results provide a solid road map for the McCain campaign.  They report what we've seen in the last few days, that Obama has a small lead in Texas, but that the race is close in Ohio.  The story, though, includes this:

Clinton's slight advantage in Ohio was built among some of her core constituencies, including women, older voters, Democrats, Catholics, union households and voters outside the state's three biggest cities.

Now, when you read that, what phrase comes to mind?  I'll tell you what came to my mind:  "Reagan Democrats."  Now let's start calling them "McCain Democrats."  These are the people who might well leave their party to vote for John McCain in November, just as they left Jimmy Carter's party to vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980.  They must be major targets of the McCain effort.  The pure-of-heart ideological conservatives have to understand that.  They must recongize that McCain needs these people to prevail, and that he's the ideal man to get them.

The McCain Democrats do not love Obama.  His is not the kind of change they can believe in.  They will love him even less as the GOP teaches them more about this guy, who is straight out of the Chicago machine.  They can provide McCain with the margin of victory.

DOES HILLARY GET IT?

Is this you, Hillary?  Byron York at National Review Online reports on some rather intriguing comments that Hillary Clinton made on our military situation:

Hillary Clinton put her views of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in pretty stark perspective during an appearance in Belpre, Ohio Wednesday night:

We're going to inherit so many challenges from President Bush. When you think about it, we have two wars, not one. We don't talk about Afghanistan enough. We've got two wars. We've got to end one, we've got to win the other.

Why not try to win both? There's simply no military solution in Iraq, she said. But when it came to Afghanistan, she sounded tougher than anybody:

We have a war against al Qaeda and the Taliban who attacked us. And the masterminds of that attack are still at large. And we're not winning, and I don't think we can let that situation continue. We have to put our best resources in against those who attacked the United States. No one can attack us with impunity. They have to be brought to justice, and that means wiping them out, because until we do, we will remain at risk.

Yeah, yeah, that is tough stuff.  It's also the kind of stuff you don't hear inside the Democratic Party, which thinks the entire problem was caused by BUSH, and regards Berkeley as the national capital.    

Why did Hillary say this?  Well, she might mean it.  Even Hillary occasionally says things she means.  But I suspect she realizes she has zero appeal to the left wing of the party, which has fallen at the feet of an anti-war person of color who went to the same schools they did.  So she's appealing to those Reagan Democrats in the center, hoping they'll come out and vote for her.

And, if we want really to be little schemers, maybe she's doing something else.  Maybe she's positioning herself for the future.  If Obama loses, she can say that he was too far to the left, not tough enough, and that she is.  If he wins and wrecks our foreign policy, she's there to repair it, with support across party lines.  Don't count her out.

THERE IS AGONY, THERE IS PAIN

More from the terrific Byron York.  Michelle Obama has, once again, opened her considerable mouth.  Oh her problems!  Oh her life!  What is a mother to do?

You see, Michelle was in Ohio, unloading on some local women.  If they could only understand the trouble she's seen:

So how does she keep it all together? “I’m fine, because I have a strong informal support network,” Obama says. “I have a mother who lives five minutes from me. I don’t know what I would do, even if we weren’t running, I don’t know what I would do as a professional without having that kind of support system. So that keeps me sane.”

But not everyone has a close relative living nearby. And not everyone can afford to keep it all together, especially here in Muskingum County, where, according to the census, the median household income in 2004 was $37,192, below both the Ohio and national average. Out of that, there’s the mortgage. And child care. Health care. Education. Lessons. “I know we’re spending — I added it up for the first time — we spend between the two kids, on extracurriculars outside the classroom, we’re spending about $10,000 a year on piano and dance and sports supplements and so on and so forth,” Mrs. Obama tells the women. “And summer programs. That’s the other huge cost. Barack is saying, ‘Whyyyyyy are we spending that?’ And I’m saying, ‘Do you know what summer camp costs?’”

With all those concerns, one might wonder whether the women should be comforting Mrs. Obama, but she assures them that she’s really O.K. “We don’t complain because we’ve got resources because of our education. We’ve got family structure,” she says. “So I tell people don’t cry for me.”

Why do I think they didn't have the handkerchiefs out?  Am I being cold, insensitive?  Please advise me.

Yuch.

MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR BIG JOHN

Mr. Obama, late of the Illinois State Senate and other international institutions, has apparently created his first foreign-policy flap, providing an opportunity for John McCain to show how the pros do it.  Thomas Lifson at American Thinker describes:

After suggesting that he would invade our ally Pakistan and talk to our enemy Iran, Barack Obama has moved on to potentially damage our relations with Canada, our friendly neighbor and number one foreign oil supplier.

Under the terms of NAFTA, Canada is prohibited from cutting off oil exports to the US if there is a worldwide shortage or supply disruption unless supplies are also rationed to Canadian consumers by the same amount.

After the Hillary/Obama debate, Canada's trade minister pointed out that if NAFTA is re-opened, Canada might want to opt out of this clause, which would then leave Canada free to sell its oil to any other country for whatever price it could get.

But, hey, don't worry.  By that time, under President Obama, we'll have cars powered by peanut butter.  And are we going to allow some silly little white boys up north to push us around?

McCain should pounce on this.  Demand that Obama explain himself.  Demand that he apologize for complicating our relations with our northern neighbor.  And McCain should ask:  If he can't handle Canada, how is going to handle the Taliban? 

That will stick.

ALERT

We close with a news alert. Watch carefully what is happening on the Israel-Gaza border.  On Monday Hamas tried to mount a huge demonstration against Israel at the border, and it fizzled.  But Hamas, possibly to show its power, is increasing its rocket attacks into Israel.  Something has to give here.  Israel's no-nonsense defense minister, and former prime minister, Ehud Barak, is speaking bluntly:

Defense Minster Ehud Barak on Friday blamed Hamas for the escalating violence in the south, and said the Islamic movement would bear the consequences of it.

"Hamas is directly responsible for the current situation and will be the one to bear the cost of our response", Barak said during a visit to Ashkelon, adding that "an Israeli response is necessary and will be carried out."

Anthing unclear about that?  Israel apparently is planning a major ground operation, possibly with the intent of destroying Hamas, which took over Gaza by force.  Note the silence out of Washington.  President Bush said recently that he intended to end his term strongly, that he had no intention of being a lame duck.  Giving Israel the okay to take on an Iranian- and Hezbollah-backed movement could be just the ticket.  It might also force Iran to make a move that could expose it to retaliatory fire.  This is speculation, but I think it's informed speculation.  Palestinian President Abbas has called on Hamas to stop its rocket fire, which extended this week to the Israeli city of Ashkelon, but Hamas doesn't take its orders from Abbas. 

Major action in the Middle East could also have a profound effect on our political campaign at home.  In times of crisis, Americans turn to men of military and foreign-policy experience.  That sure doesn't describe a certain senator from Illinois.

And I'll be back tomorrow.

Posted on February 29, 2008.