WEDNESDAY,  JANUARY 30,  2008

•   Rudy Giuliani took a beating in the Florida primary, and is expected to withdraw and endorse John McCain, as early as today.  The New York Times reports:

Republican officials said after Mr. Giuliani’s distant third-place finish that he was likely to endorse Mr. McCain, possibly as early as Wednesday in California. They said the two candidates’ staffs were discussing the logistics of an endorsement.

"Gracious" is not a word usually assigned to the mayor, but it applies to his withdrawal and endorsement.  He goes out with style, and doesn't hang around humiliating himself.  Maybe he could sent a note of advice to John Edwards, or John Edwards's valet.

Rudy's future:  Attorney-general?  Secretary of Defense?  Here's my own idea:  Ambassador to Terrorist Groups, Entities, and Cave-Site Condos.  One meeting with Rudy, and these guys may change their minds and go into designer burkas.  Beautiful styles.  Red, green, yellow.  Rudy can make some connections for the boys in New York's garment center, if they can deal with the name Goldberg.

•   Ben Smith, in The Politico, writes a thoughtful piece suggesting that Rudy's defeat marks the end of 9-11 politics.  Americans, the piece notes, have moved on.  It's well worth reading.

I'm not sure, though, that I buy it.  It will depend entirely on the actions of our enemies.  Another attack, even a large one in a foreign country, will bring 9-11 roaring back, and Rudy, even as a defeated candidate, will be back in the news and on the interview shows.  Terror will shoot to the top of the "most important issue" list.

And that brings up an intriguing question:  What will our enemies do?  Will they lie low, hoping that will encourage us to elect a "peace" candidate?  Or, will they see a "peace" candidate as someone who takes the spotlight off them, if there are spotlights in the Afghan mountains.  The most important political thought going on this minute is in the head of Osama bin Laden. 

•   Hillary just can't catch a break.  First the Kennedys dump on her - I mean, we went sailing on real water with those fancy people - and now her substantial victory in the Democratic Florida primary is ridiculed in the religiously liberal Washington Post, which suggests it really wasn't a real victory at all.  The pain-inducing words:

Yes, Clinton, as expected, beat Barack Obama by a wide margin in the Florida primary. But all the Democratic candidates had agreed months ago to boycott the contest after the Democratic National Committee stripped Florida of its delegates to punish the state for moving up its primary date. The result was a primary without purpose, a show about nothing.

But in a political stunt worthy of the late Evel Knievel, the Clinton campaign decided to put on an ersatz victory party that, it hoped, would erase memories of Obama's actual victory Saturday night in South Carolina's Democratic primary. "Thank you, Florida Democrats!" Clinton shouted to the cheering throng. "I am thrilled to have this vote of confidence."

Oh the suffering, the knives.  But look, let's be fair about this.  Some of these writers who are now stomping on Clinton campaign posters, Middle-East style, were the same ones who were hailing her months ago as, potentially, America's first female president.  Remember?  What they won't admit to us is that, on the left, race trumps gender every time.  The ladies will be asked to wait once more.

Speculation is already starting:  If Hillary does lose the nomination, what will she do?  Will she return to the Senate, facing a bunch of senators who wrecked her candidacy?  Or will she resign, disgusted by the failure of her dear, close friends to shout, "Hail to the queen"?  My guess is that she'll remain in the Senate, pray to the God of her choice for Obama to be swamped, and run in 2012.  She'll be 64.  President McCain will be in his mid-70s. 

•   To turn her current situation around, Clinton must win decisively, and nationally, next week, on Super Tuesday.  Don't underestimate her.  She's far from dumb.  She was ridiculed, even resented, when she ran for the Senate here in New York while still serving as first lady, certain personal problems with her husband still fresh in mind.  She turned the ridicule into a brilliant campaign, and won.

•   This just in:  Jimmy Carter is quoted as being wild about Barack Obama.  If I were Mr. Obama, I'd advise Mr. Carter to devote his time to silent meditation.  Real silent.  If Obama must acknowledge the compliments, he should simply make a brief, gracious statement at 3 a.m. in his kitchen, and put the embarrassment behind him.  Some on the left may still respect Carter, but his constant interference in foreign policy since leaving office, a breach of a revered tradition, has turned off most Americans.  He is also a human-rights hypocrite.  When he denounces Saudi Arabia, and stops taking Saudi money for the Carter center, I might give him a partial pass, but it's unlikely.

If I were John McCain, I'd play up Carter's Obama comments.  McCain's first mission, if he's nominated, will be to portray Obama, correctly, as a man of the past, a throwback to former failures.  Carter and Obama, that's McCain's dream team. 

•   The worn-out word for today is "inspiring."  I think the pundits should give the word a rest when referring to Mr. Obama's speeches.  Inspiring to whom?  Well, apparently they're inspiring to young people.  How about the rest of us, who actually listen to what he says?  Not so inspiring, methinks.

Inspiration is overrated.  There were some pretty bad eggs in the last century who were "inspiring" to their followers, and millions of deaths came from the inspiration.  Substance, my friends, substance. 

•   A story from Dallas brings us back to the stark world we confront every day.  DNA tests have cleared a man who'd been convicted of a 1982 rape.  That's the beginning of the story.  Steven Charles Phillips is one of 15 men cleared by DNA testing in Dallas County since 2001.  That's the real story.

I'm a hard-liner on crime, a very hard-liner.  But those of us who believe in strict law enforcement have an obligation to insist on the highest standards for prosecutors.  We saw, in the Duke University case, what happens when those standards collapse.  Wrong people get accused, and the public loses faith in the law.  There is something wrong in Dallas County, and the people of Dallas must demand that it be fixed. 

•   A correction.  In a comment on the death of Margaret Truman yesterday, I noted that she'd been an aspiring opera singer.  I recalled the famous incident in which President Truman wrote a scathing letter to a Washington Post music critic, Paul Hume, after Mr. Hume gave Ms. Truman a harsh review.  I said that the letter was never mailed because Mr. Truman was discouraged by his staff from sending it, which is how the story was related to me by an eminent historian.  I went on to say that the contents leaked out.  I'm now convinced by reader Gregory Koster, and some further research, that I was partly wrong.  The letter was mailed, despite staff objections, but The Post never published it.  The contents were, in fact, leaked out.  Who leaked them?  Ah, that is the mystery.  The New York Times's obituary for Ms. Truman, published today, says this:

Incensed, President Truman dispatched a combative note to Mr. Hume, who released it to the press.

But The Times's obituary for Mr. Hume, who died in 2001, says this:

The Post did not print Truman's letter, but the rival Washington News made it public.

I have no idea which is correct, but I regret my error in saying that the thing was never mailed.

Be back later.

Posted at 7:05 a.m. EST, January 30, 2008.