William Katz: Urgent Agenda
SNIPPETS, our daily collection of short items and comments, is here.
---------------------------------------------
Answers to last week's "current question" are here. The new "current question" is here, in the right-hand column.
---------------------------------------------
BARACK OBAMA'S FIRST HUNDRED DAYS is on hiatus until after the conventions. We've gone through the first 50 days. The conventions and the launch of the fall campaign will provide new material, new absurdities, and allow us to finish the first 100 days just before the election.
An archive containing the first 50 days is here.
---------------------------------------------
Our next subscription drive will be in October. However, readers are invited to subscribe at any time. Subscriptions are voluntary, but are critical to keeping us going. Subscribe in the right-hand column.
--------------------------------------------
TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2008
A TIME TO YAWN
Posted at 8:12 p.m. ET
This is the big stuff. The Dems really mean it this year. They're rolling out the heavy artillery, as the AP tells us:
An Indiana railroader, an Iowa mother and a Michigan truck driver are getting a moment at the Democratic convention to help portray Barack Obama as the people's champion and counter GOP characterizations of him as an out-of-touch celebrity.
The idea is for these ''real people,'' as the campaign calls them, to share personal stories about why they are supporting the Democratic presidential candidate and how they think he will help folks like them and the more than 20 million expected to be watching the convention at home.
Question: What's an unreal person? Are there unreal persons running around? Should we arrest them? Study them?
Question: Have any leaders of the Democratic Party ever met a railroader, an Iowa mother or a truck driver? I mean, you don't find them at meetings in Aspen.
Question: Will the Dems know how to feed these people? You know, tofu and herbal tea might not make it.
The real people will, of course, speak directly from the heart, from the soul, from the depths of their rotten experiences under BUSH!
Well, not exactly...
Professional speechwriters are helping prepare their remarks, timed to about three minutes each. And just like any senator or other VIP speaker, an assigned staff member will oversee their schedules and logistical movements, including media interviews, speech coaching and on-stage rehearsals.
Just real, down-to-earth folk. With a staff of thousands.
Real people also will be featured at an event Tuesday alongside Michelle Obama and the nation's female Democratic governors to talk about the economic problems facing women.
What happens if one of the unreal people gets in and asks why we can't drill for more oil in our own country? Will she be put into the unreal persons detention center?
Finally...
Besides ''real people,'' Obama's campaign and the convention committee on Tuesday announced more names who will speak at the convention, including former President Carter; Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 presidential nominee; various Democratic senators and governors, and union leaders.
Now I know what they mean by unreal people. What a ratings bonanza.
August 19, 2008. Permalink 
INTERNAL MEMO
Posted at 7:12 p.m. ET
It's now widely acknowledged that John McCain won Saturday's Saddleback "faith" debate, moderated by Pastor Rick Warren. He won it handily, in part because McCain actually has a point of view, and actually knows things, two standards apparently not required of some other candidates.
Many cannot emotionally accept that McCain came out ahead of Obama, and so a rumor has spread that McCain cheated, that he knew Warren's questions in advance.
Rick Warren himself has responded to those stories in an internal church memo, sent to us here at Urgent Agenda by a private source. The memo says in part:
...it seems that somebody who didn't like the Forum is systematically
calling media to raise questions about McCain possibly hearing part of the
Forum. Of course McCain didn't hear anything. Both men agreed to the terms
of the Forum and I trust both of them. They are questioning the integrity of
McCain, the Secret Service, and our own security.
Actually, I'm afraid this rumor will hurt the Obama campaign, because if
someone asks me, I'll have to say that I told Barack in advance about one
of the questions, that I never got a chance to tell John McCain about because
he wasn't on campus yet.
I did an interview with Dan from Beliefnet which felt pretty antagonistic.
He charged "An anonymous source told me that John McCain was watching a
monitor in his green room." Flat out Impossible! But Dan had called Tim Farley
at XM radio and talked to Tim about this. Other media had been called too.
Whoever is spreading this, is going to look like a fool when the truth gets
out, and it may have repercussions. Of course, everyone is trying to force
me to take sides, which I steadfastly refuse to do. But pray for me because
this dishonest rumor angers me.
And the facts:
Here are some facts:
1. There were Secret service staff and Saddleback staff with McCain, and there was no way McCain could have listened to anything without being seen. There were cameras on him when he arrived.
2. "When I said 'cone of silence' I was obviously being silly - the crowd
laughed at the obvious metaphor reference to Get Smart. But Senator McCain
was put in a green room in a DIFFERENT BUILDING without any contact.
3. Chuck Taylor, Saddleback staff member DISCONNECTED the TV from the source as part of creating a silent green room. If anyone had even tried to turn the TV in that room all they would have got was static!
Some of these "McCain cheated" stories are taking on a familiar tone. They remind me of the "Bush lied, thousands died" line that accompanied opposition to the Iraq War. There are people who simply cannot believe it when someone they disagree with appears intelligent and well-informed. They live their lives convinced that anyone whom they oppose must inherently be "stupid." And so they generate conspiracy stories whenever anything shakes their juvenile world. That, I'm afraid, is what we are seeing here.
August 19, 2008. Permalink
POLLS
Posted at 1:48 p.m. ET
Both trackers are out for today. As we reported earlier at SNIPPETS, Rasmussen has Obama up two, compared to one yesterday.
But Gallup has Obama up one, compared to three yesterday.
Averaging the two, Obama has a 1.5-percent lead in the trackers.
A general poll, Quinnipiac, released today, has Obama up five. However, it was conducted earlier than today's trackers.
Obama goes into his convention with the narrowest of leads, and no realistic vice presidential choice, except outside-shot Hillary, can create much excitement. Not the place he wanted to be.
UPDATE AT 5:41 p.m. ET - A new L.A.Times/Bloomberg poll just released shows Obama up only two points over McCain. The same poll showed him up by 12 in June.
August 19, 2008. Permalink
GEORGIA STILL ON OUR MIND
Posted at 8:25 a.m. ET
The 24-hour news cycle sometimes makes us forget stories as soon as they're out of the headlines for a few hours. But we must constantly keep Georgia on our minds. The Russian invasion of that country has produced the greatest crisis in West-Russian relations since the end of the Cold War, although the usual suspects are out in force trying to minimize the problem. It's the same crowd that fainted out loud when Ronald Reagan demanded that Gorbachev "tear down this wall." No one is suggesting we send over the missiles or level the Kremlin, and we should certainly take into account the historic complications of Russia's relations with Georgia and other surrounding nations. But our response must be firm, and the Russians must understand that actions have consequences. From the AP:
NATO was set to send a strong signal of support for Georgia, as the United States urged allies Tuesday to boost military ties with the former Soviet republic on Russia's southern border.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was backing the setting up of a permanent NATO-Georgia Commission to solidify ties between the Western alliance and Georgia. Diplomats said Washington also supports increasing training for the Georgian military.
At the same time, NATO foreign ministers were discussing possibly scaling back high-level meetings and military cooperation with Russia if it does not abandon crucial positions across Georgia.
Douglas MacArthur once said that all military disasters begin with two words: Too late. Georgia had been proposed for NATO membership, but Germany blocked entrance last year. I'm sensitive to those who honestly believe that expanding NATO membership provokes Russia. However, if Georgia had been a member of NATO three weeks ago, it's unlikely that Russia would have invaded. It's hard to conceive of Moscow invading a NATO nation. Denying membership to Georgia was a blunder.
NATO is awaiting Russia's promised military pullout after a brief war with the ex-Soviet republic -- a conflict that has exacerbated tensions between Moscow and the West.
But as the NATO meeting began on Tuesday, Russia's military held onto crucial positions across Georgia.
NATO was expected to restate its commitment to eventually offer alliance membership to Georgia -- despite Russia's fierce opposition.
''We said (Georgia) would eventually become a member of NATO alongside Ukraine, and that's certainly the position that we will be advocating today,'' British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said.
Good. Now let's see what actually is done.
August 19, 2008. Permalink
PRESS BIAS - HERE?
Posted at 7:45 a.m. ET
You mean, some people are saying that the press is biased? How can anyone think that? Why, our journalists are serious, professional people with a neutral...oh, forget it.
Even the ombudsman, or ombudsperson, or whatever it is, of the Washington Post has now thrown in the environmentally safe towelette, and admitted that "it doesn't look good."
Democrat Barack Obama has had about a 3 to 1 advantage over Republican John McCain in Post Page 1 stories since Obama became his party's presumptive nominee June 4. Obama has generated a lot of news by being the first African American nominee, and he is less well known than McCain -- and therefore there's more to report on. But the disparity is so wide that it doesn't look good.
No it doesn't. And I would dispute that Obama "is less well known" than McCain. At this point in the campaign he's actually far better known to the general public because of the massive press coverage.
This is not just a Post phenomenon. The Project for Excellence in Journalism has been monitoring campaign coverage at an assortment of large and medium-circulation newspapers, broadcast evening and morning news shows, five news Web sites, three major cable news networks, and public radio and other radio outlets. Its latest report, for the week of Aug. 4-10, shows that for the eighth time in nine weeks, Obama received significantly more coverage than McCain.
All in the interest, no doubt, of serving the public's right to know. Not.
When Obama traveled to the Middle East and Europe, the coverage dwarfed that of McCain -- six Page 1 stories from July 19 to July 27, plus an earlier front-page story announcing the trip. McCain managed one Page 1 story and one Page 1 reference; the July 25 story said he might pick a vice presidential candidate soon, but that didn't happen.
The evidence builds. But here comes the inevitable pomposity:
Bill Hamilton, assistant managing editor for politics, thinks that I'm wrong to put weight on numbers. "We make our own decisions about what we consider newsworthy. We are not garment workers measuring our product every day to fulfill somebody's quota. That means as editors we decide what we think is important, because that's what our readers look for us to do -- not to adhere to some arbitrary standard.
Don't you just love the elitist comment about garment workers? I wonder who Hamilton thinks makes his suits? Journalism students?
The Post's ombudsman rightly concludes:
Numbers aren't everything in political coverage, but readers deserve comparable coverage of the candidates.
Yes they do. But when you've got a bunch of sixties-influenced editors and writers who went into journalism to "make a difference," that's not what you'll get. And that is a tragedy that can profoundly influence the future of this country.
August 19, 2008. Permalink
THE CHOICE
Posted at 7:06 a.m. ET
Just about everyone, probably including the Weekly Reader, is reporting that Senator Obama will announce his vice presidential choice in the next few days. We await breathlessly for the saint to speak the name of the newly chosen assistant saint. Speculation surrounds the following worthies, each and every one known for purity, goodness, and even virginity:
1. Senator Even Bayh of Indiana. Pros: A nice guy with a clean history, known as a moderate Democrat. He would assure moderates in the party that they count for something, if only the vice presidency. Could help Obama carry Indiana, which may be in play this year. Cons: Bland, no great accomplishments, a boring orator, a "marshmallow," as Dick Morris called him last night.
2. Senator Joe Biden of Delaware. Pros: Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he brings the appearance of gravitas, and real expertise on foreign relations; a reasonably moderate Democrat; coming from Delaware, he doesn't bring large electoral votes, so the choice would seem to be a serious "best man" choice; compelling personal story of how he carried on after his wife and child were killed in an accident following his election to the Senate. Cons: Ran for president and never caught on; very talkative, with the risks that brings of a gaffe; no excitement factor.
3. Governor Kathleen Sibelius of Kansas. Pros: A woman; a governor with executive experience; allows Obama to emphasize that he was partially brought up with "Kansas values," as his white grandparents come from that state; reasonably good speaker. Cons: A woman, but not Hillary, and her choice is likely to enrage many Hillary supporters; unknown to the public outside Kansas; somewhat controversial inside the state; zero foreign-policy experience.
4. Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia. Pros: A nice guy with working-class values; could help carry Virginia, a critical state; a governor. Cons: Absolutely no foreign-policy experience; a mediocre record as governor, whose previous experience was as mayor of a city of fewer than 200,000 residents.
5. Hillary. A long shot. Nothing more need be said.
It isn't, to put it mildly, a group whose names scream "obvious choice." There is, of course, one obvious choice, and it's Hillary. Naming her would unite the party, and probably give Obama a brief bump in the polls as it would show his "daring" and "graciousness." But naming her could also bring all kinds of problems, including the sense that Obama isn't running things. Also, Hillary might not wear well in a general election. Her popularity among the public at large is less than overwhelming.
Of the others, Biden would be the best "government" choice. Sibelius, as noted, would enrage the Hillary crowd.
But the worst choice, from a governing viewpoint, would be Kaine of Virginia. For a presidential candidate of minimal accomplishment to choose a veep with the same problem would insult the public. Kaine's lack of foreign-policy experience would send a signal that either 1) Obama doesn't really care about foreign policy at a time of great challenge to the nation or, 2) that he doesn't want anyone interfering with his foreign policy, a frightening thought considering his gaffes and his often childish views.
Prediction? I don't make predictions here. I will occasionally speculate. Unless the choice is out of the blue, the Dems would probably be best off with Biden, who at least brings some seriousness. This is Obama's first major decision as a presidential candidate. It will at least hint at how seriously he takes his new role.
August 19, 2008. Permalink
MONDAY, AUGUST 18, 2008
THE McCAIN PERFORMANCE
Posted at 7:56 p.m. ET
Reader Ray Caldwell, who spent his career serving the United States, refers us to a Michael Gerson column in today's Washington Post, assessing Senator McCain's superb performance in the "faith debate" Saturday night. It's clear from the rumblings we hear that the Obamans believe their guy got badly beaten, and that Obama really doesn't do well without a written script in front of him. The debates this fall can be very interesting:
It is now clear why Barack Obama has refused John McCain's offer of joint town hall appearances during the fall campaign. McCain is obviously better at them.
Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency -- two hours on Saturday night evenly divided between the relaxed, tieless candidates -- was expected to be a sideshow......What took place instead under Warren's precise and revealing questioning was the most important event so far of the 2008 campaign -- a performance every voter should seek out on the Internet and watch.
They won't, and the mainstream media will bury that debate as quickly as a plot can be purchased.
Obama was fluent, cool and cerebral -- the qualities that made Adlai Stevenson interesting but did not make him president. Obama took care to point out that he had once been a professor at the University of Chicago, but that bit of biography was unnecessary. His whole manner smacks of chalkboards and campus ivy.
And McCain?
The candidate who once seemed incapable of the confessional style of politics talked at length of Vietnam experiences and his adopted daughter from Bangladesh. Asked by Warren about his greatest moral failure, McCain's response -- "the failure of my first marriage" -- had an abrupt and disarming authenticity. The account of his hardest decision -- refusing release from captivity during the Vietnam War ahead of others who had been imprisoned longer -- remains shocking in its valor.
Obama:
Obama's response on abortion -- the issue that remains his largest obstacle to evangelical support -- bordered on a gaffe. Asked by Warren at what point in its development a baby gains "human rights," Obama said that such determinations were "above my pay grade" -- a silly answer to a sophisticated question. If Obama is genuinely unsure about this matter, he (and the law) should err in favor of protecting innocent life. If Obama believes that a baby in the womb lacks human rights, he should say so -- pro-choice men and women must affirm (as many sincerely do) that developing life has a lesser status. Here the professor failed the test of logic.
And the key point:
Obama is one of those rare political figures who seems to grow smaller the closer we approach him. "I want people to know me well," Obama said at the forum. Among religious conservatives, that may not be an advantage.
Finally, McCain's performance at the Warren forum helps change the political psychology going into the conventions. Republicans have spent the past few weeks pleasantly surprised at the closeness of the presidential race. But they have generally chalked this up to Obama's weakness, not McCain's strength. After Saturday night, even Republicans most skeptical of McCain must conclude: "Perhaps we aren't doomed after all."
Of such small hopes are large upsets made.
Yippee! It is so nice to read that on a Monday night. It will, though, be a very tough fight. And the press will do handstands to have its sixties moment. The disgraceful attempt by some journalists to hint that McCain had improper advance knowledge of Saturday's questions - offering not a shred of evidence - is only an example of what McCain can expect in news coverage this fall. More on that later or tomorrow morning.
August 18, 2008. Permalink
OHIO - AGAIN
Posted at 7:35 p.m. ET
Ohio was critical in 2004, and is likely to be again. A new poll shows the state dead even, despite the fact that Democrats hold the edge in party registration.
A new poll shows Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama tied in the key battleground state of Ohio.
The survey by Public Policy Polling (PPP), which includes several Democrats as clients, shows both presidential candidates with 45 percent. Ten percent remain undecided, according to the poll.
PPP noted that Obama (D-Ill.) led the Arizona Republican in Ohio polls it conducted in June and July. It suggested that Obama’s support among Democrats is softer than McCain’s support among Republicans.
A familiar pattern - a gradual loss of support for Senator Obama. But there's another familiar pattern here, the inability of Senator McCain to forge ahead into a clear lead.
While McCain gets the backing of nearly nine in 10 Republican voters, Obama gets the support of only three-quarters of Democrats. Obama leads among independents.
Obama's results with Democratic voters could be linked to lingering resistance among supporters of his former rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.).
Many of the Democrats who aren't supporting Obama “are disproportionately white, female, and middle-aged, an indication that it could be former supporters of Hillary Clinton who are holding out,” according to the pollster's analysis.
Problem is, enough of them will probably come around to give Obama the state in November, unless McCain really rallies. And Ohio's heavily Democratic cities are prone to the kind of voter fraud often found in big-city machines. I'm glad Senator McCain is gaining. Much more needs to be done.
August 18, 2008. Permalink
TRACKERS
Posted at 2:39 p. m. ET
Both trackers are now out. Gallup gives Obama a one-day bounce of three points, rather unusual in recent weeks. Gallup had the race tied yesterday. By contrast, Rasmussen has Obama with a one-point lead, down from two yesterday. Averaging, Obama has, at least in these trackers, a two-point lead.
The one-day bounce for Obama in the Gallup survey may just be statistical noise and a normal variation. We'll know as we examine the trends of this week. I would not, however, be shocked to see a slight gain for Obama this week, as he will be getting most of the attention. The Democratic convention starts next Monday, and he will probably name his vice-presidential choice sometime in the next five days.
A key point: McCain keeps the race close, but doesn't seem to be able to pull ahead. Close means nothing on election day. There is no silver medal in politics.
August 18, 2008. Permalink
ALL-AMERICAN GUY
Posted at 8:03 a.m. ET
This is almost too much. Get out the insulin. You'll need it.
The New York Times reports on the Obama camp's goal of projecting an all-American image during the Dem convention next week. Of course, that doesn't include encouraging an American victory in Iraq, but you can't have everything.
Democrats face a number of imperatives at their convention, none trickier than making more voters comfortable with the prospect of putting a candidate with a most unusual background — the son of a black Kenyan father and a white Kansan mother, who grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia — and his family in the White House. No one, his advisers believe, makes the case better for Senator Barack Obama of Illinois than his wife, who will expand her profile by delivering one of the marquee speeches carried by television networks.
Michelle? Really? Isn't she the one who said America is mean-spirited? Isn't she the one who said this is the first time she's been proud of her country? Didn't she say she couldn't find money for piano lessons despite making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year? This is ideal casting?
At the convention beginning next Monday in Denver, there will be appearances by lesser known “Americans from all walks of life, from across the country” speaking about their support for Mr. Obama. Combined with a film featuring the candidate in all-American scenes by Davis Guggenheim — the director of “An Inconvenient Truth” whose father produced a similar biographical film for Robert F. Kennedy — aides to Mr. Obama are using the convention to tackle what members of both parties see as his greatest vulnerability with undecided voters: his “otherness.”
So to combat his "otherness" they get the guy who directed Al Gore's film? Why is this not a fit?
With Republicans pressing questions about his religious background, party planners will inaugurate the convention with an “interfaith gathering” of clergy.
When have Republicans pressed questions about Obama's religious background? That's not what the Wright controversy was about? Don't they realize that?
When he delivers his speech on the last night of the convention, Mr. Obama will not be addressing the crowd from a lone lectern at the edge of the field; he will be standing at the 50-yard line, surrounded by a diverse set of people he has met throughout the campaign, whose presence is intended to signal to viewers at home that people like them are O.K. with Mr. Obama. Ten people selected by the campaign from all corners of the country will meet backstage with Mr. Obama and be shown to the television audience, also intended to convey their comfort level with the senator.
Do you get the feeling that this will all look like a massive talking down to the American people? Will Americans buy this stuff?
“There are two overriding strategic imperatives for the convention: One is to make people comfortable with Barack Obama,” said Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster who served as a top strategist for Senator John Kerry’s presidential race in 2004. “The other is to define the race clearly and define Barack Obama as change and McCain as a continuation of Bush’s policies at home and abroad.”
How about defining what this change is all about? How about explaining how Barack Obama will deal with the vast foreign and security challenges we face? How about presenting a potential president, not a new brand name, cellophane-wrapped?
But that would require respect for the voters. Not much of that in this crowd.
August 18, 2008. Permalink
NOT OUR FAULT?
Posted at 7:16 a.m. ET
Wait, wait, wait. What's going on here? Do I see correctly? Someone writing for the Washington Post isn't blaming the United States, and BUSH, for the Russian invasion of Georgia?
Does this qualify as heresy? Do we put on masks and parade this guy in front of a TV camera, and, you know...
But there it is. Fred Hiatt pretty much demolishes the refrain of the usual suspects, who argue that the Georgia crisis is all our fault, and that if only we showed the proper level of love and affection for Russia, these little mishaps wouldn't happen:
As Russian forces loot and occupy a neighboring state, conscripting Georgian civilians at gunpoint to sweep their city streets, it's not uncommon, in Moscow or in Washington, to find America at fault.
Ain't it the truth?
This narrative of American provocation cites a long list of grievances, but the principal and original sin is NATO expansion...
...But was this really something that was done to, or even against, Russia? The vision behind NATO expansion under both President Bill Clinton and President Bush was a Europe whole and free. The carrot of NATO membership was dangled, first of all, to ease the dangers of transition. Applicant countries had to promise civilian control of their militaries, fair treatment of ethnic minorities and respect for international borders. Given the terrible things that might have accompanied the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact and Czechoslovakia -- Yugoslavia on a far greater scale -- the policy was amazingly successful.
Am I seeing things? A policy of President Bush was successful? Is this redemption, or what?
But Vladimir Putin, who came to power in 2000, had a different vision of Russia's place in the world. Russia "has tended to feel absolutely secure only when everybody else, particularly those around its borders, feels absolutely insecure," Russia hand Strobe Talbott noted last week, and Putin fell squarely in that tradition. At home, he quashed political opposition and independent media. He brought Russia's mineral riches back under state control and then began using them -- oil and natural gas in particular -- to enforce obeisance abroad.
And so...
So NATO expansion is an affront only to the kind of Russia that the West would find unacceptable in any case. But, even if America has not sought to encircle or strangle Russia, should it not have been more sensitive to Russia's wounded pride? Might Russia have evolved more democratically if Washington had been more deferential?
You can hear the liberals coming out of the environmentally safe woodwork to answer.
Maybe so, but there's not much evidence to support such a theory. The West spent a good part of the past 17 years worrying about Russia's dignity -- expanding the Group of Seven industrial nations to the G-8, for example -- and it's not clear such therapy had any effect.
Finally...
What does all this mean for the next president? By all means he should cooperate with Russia when possible, and he should remain open to the idea that Russia might one day join NATO and other international arrangements on terms of mutual respect.
But if the hope is that greater understanding of and deference to Russia's imperial ambitions would tame those ambitions, the historical analogies are not encouraging.
I'm so glad someone finally said that, after all the leftist whining of the past few weeks. We cannot be responsible for every action every foreign nation takes. And the "blame America" or "blame Bush" syndromes are becoming big bores.
The blame for the invasion of Georgia falls on the shoulders of Russian leaders. I wish more journalists would have the clarity of thought to realize that, and truly become the eyes and ears of their readers, not megaphones for discredited college-classroom theories.
August 18, 2008. Permalink
WEIRDNESS
Posted at 6:24 a.m. ET
Obama and McCain are running dead even, and Obama is starting to show signs of the same stress that dogged him during the final month of his Biblical struggle against Hillary. I know he's in a tough spot, not able to close the deal in a Democratic year, but someone should tell the Illinois senator that weirdness will not help him. He seems stuck in a kind of time warp - repeating lines over and over that are now obsolete, or have been overtaken by events.
Consider:
A confident Barack Obama raised an extraordinary $7.8 million Sunday at three California fundraisers.
“I will win. Don’t worry about that,” he said to the crowd of about 1,300 at his third event of the evening, according to the pool report.
He was warmly received by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called him "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."
Add Nancy to the "weirdness" list. You know, every time they emphasize this Obamamessiah stuff, they drive voters further away.
Obama spoke, and rambled. This is not good:
"Now, you want to win. And saying it doesn’t make it so," he told the crowd. "It would be nice to think that after eight years of economic disaster, after eight years of bungled foreign policy, of being engaged in a war that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged, that cost us a trillion dollars and thousands of lives, that people would say, let’s toss the bums out. Toss the bums out, we’re starting from scratch, we’re starting over. This is not working.
“So I understand why a lot of folks are saying, this should just happen. Why are we having to run all these television commercials? Why do we have to raise all this money? Just read the papers. These are the knuckleheads who have been in charge. Throw ‘em out. But American politics aren’t that simple," he said.
Just read it over. Does that sound like a presidential candidate to you, or does it sound like a Chicago ward heeler?
Things could get ugly in the coming weeks, he warned.
“They’ve got a whole machinery that they’re cranking out,” Obama continued. “They’ve got a book about me, that just kind of sprung full bore out of this guy’s head.”
“John McCain, all he wants to do is talk about me. They know they can’t win on the issues. So what they’ll do is they’ll try to scare people. He’s risky. He’s risky. We’re not sure.”
Do we see in this any specific ideas for governing on the part of Senator Obama? Is there an idea here? A program? Maybe that's what accounts for his drop in the polls. You can just take so much of this stuff.
It’s an old playbook, he continued, but Obama said, it’s not going to work this time. “Not only do you have a candidate who doesn’t take any guff. Not only do you have a candidate who will hit back swiftly and forcefully and truthfully. But you’ve also got American people who are rising up all over the country and saying, enough is enough.”
What country is this man living in? He's seen too many of those old Eisenstein Russian-revolution movies. Rising up? Do you see rising up? Are the masses in the streets yet? Is the proletariat all hot and bothered?
You just get the feeling of a certain bankruptcy in the Obama campaign. The rhetoric, free of the inconvenience of thought, just repeats over and over.
The man is leading by one point. Maybe he's just worn out the sparkle.
August 18, 2008. Permalink
"What you see is news. What you know is background. What you feel is opinion."
- Lester Markel, late Sunday editor
of The New York Times.
SUBSCRIPTIONS:
Subscriptions to URGENT AGENDA are voluntary. Why subscribe to something you're getting free? To help guarantee that you'll continue to get it at all. Subscriptions sustain us. Payments are through PayPal and are secure, but you do not have to sign up for a PayPal account. Credit cards are fine.
FOR A ONE-YEAR ($48) SUBSCRIPTION, CLICK:
FOR A SIX-MONTH ($26) SUBSCRIPTION, CLICK:
IF YOU DON'T WISH A SET SUBSCRIPTION, BUT PREFER TO DONATE ANY OTHER AMOUNT TO SUSTAIN URGENT AGENDA, CLICK:
SEARCH URGENT AGENDA:
POWER LINE:
It's a privilege for me to post periodic pieces at Power Line. To go to Power Line, click here.
To link to my Power Line pieces, go here.
THE CURRENT QUESTION
This space will regularly raise questions that relate to the news, but transcend daily headlines. The idea is to stimulate talk about basic issues. Our last question asked:
Last week we asked, "Who is Barack Obama?" This week we will ask you to define the Republican candidate. In your view, who is John McCain?
You can view the answers here.
What do you think will be the single greatest crisis facing the new president in his first month in office?
If you'd like to send us your thoughts, click:
response@urgentagenda.com
(Please stay within two or three paragraphs. We try to print every reply, if space allows. Place your name at the end of the message if you wish your name published. This question will stay up through Sunday.)
CONTACT:
YOU CAN E-MAIL US, AS FOLLOWS:
If you have wonderful things to say about this site, if it makes you a better person, please click:
applause@urgentagenda.com
If you have a general comment on anything you see here, or on anything else that's topical, please click:
comments@urgentagenda.com
If you must say something obnoxious, something that will embarrass you and disgrace your loving family, click:
despicable@urgentagenda.com
If you required subscription service, please click:
service@urgentagenda.com
FAVORITE SITES (List will grow)
Power Line
Faster Please (Michael Ledeen)
OpinionJournal.com
Hudson Institute
Bookworm Room
Bill Bennett
Red State
Pajamas Media
Michelle Malkin
Diana West
The Weekly Standard
The New York Sun
Real Clear Politics
The Corner
City Journal
Gateway Pundit
American Thinker