William Katz: Urgent Agenda
SNIPPETS, our daily collection of short items and comments, is here.
---------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------
Bill Clinton speaks tonight at the Democratic convention. The Obama medical team has a straitjacket ready.
Joe Biden also speaks tonight. The speech is expected to extend through next week.
---------------------------------------------
McCAIN TAKES THE LEAD IN RASMUSSEN TRACKER!
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2008
11:20 p.m. ET: On balance, the Democrats had a good night. At least they got to some issues. However, one thing you couldn't help notice was that Barack Obama, presumably the star, looked awfully small compared with the others on the stage. We were told by Bill Clinton and Joe Biden that Obama should be president, but their arguments were unconvincing and vague. They couldn't point to one major accomplishment of Obama's that the public knew, or that was truly impressive or dramatic. This isn't, after all, a race for the presidency of the senior class.
The end of Biden's speech has already generated some negative heat among TV analysts. Going after John McCain on national security is like going after Michael Phelps on swimming. Reasonable criticism was fair, but Biden's attack was far too strong, and didn't inspire confidence in Biden's own instincts. You can't describe a man as a friend one minute, as Biden did of McCain, then attack him so viciously the next, while still calling him "John." Doesn't play well.
11:02 p.m. ET: What we're seeing on the screen right now is the traditional massing of the candidate's family - Biden's family - on the stage. Every cousin whose name was forgotten years ago is up there. I assume Biden knows some of them.
10:55 p.m. ET: Obama has now come down to the podium. Major applause, etc., etc.
10:53 p.m. ET: Biden has just attacked John McCain rather viciously on foreign- and defense policy. His comments were breathtakingly oversimplified, and I thought rather risky. McCain can take him on this one.
Biden has finished. Good political speech, and brief enough, for a change.
10:42 p.m. ET: Biden is now speaking. It's a good, personal speech, I think. His claims about Obama's accomplishments are way over the top, as the McCain forces will point out, but Biden does have a way of reflecting concerns of "ordinary" people.
The crawl under the Fox picture tells us that Obama will come down to the podium after the Biden speech. There is precedent for the top of the ticket making an appearance before his acceptance address. I believe Kennedy did it in 1960, and Obama is trying to present himself as the second JFK, which he is not.
10:27 p.m. ET: Biden will speak in minutes. The convention is watching a film about him now. Very personal, rather effective. But, ultimately, it's the top of the ticket that counts.
Joe Biden's son has just been introduced. He will introduce the nominee. The son, who is attorney general of Delaware, was introduced as "Captain," because he is a reservist. That is understandable, but somewhat inappropriate.
10:11 p.m. ET: The convention awaits Joe Biden, who will give his speech accepting the vice-presidential nomination. Based on his past speeches, I suggest ordering out for enough meals to last through the weekend.
9:42 p.m. ET: Michael Dukakis was just interviewed on Fox. I learned he is still alive.
9:26 p.m. ET: Clinton has just finished. I must say that he confirmed his status as one of the best political speakers of our time. A rousing speech. Hollow in substance, of course, with some ridiculous claims, but a rousing speech nonetheless. How effective? It may help Obama a bit, but speeches like this tend to be forgotten quickly.
9:15 p.m. ET: Bill Clinton speaks. He is, as Karl Rove predicted, giving a full endorsement of Barack Obama. Does he mean it? Of course not. But Clinton is a slick speaker, and he's doing what party loyalty and his wife's future demand.
Fascinating moment: Lots of cheering about what Obama will do for peace, health and other good things. But when Clinton said that Obama would stand up to our adversaries, the crowd gave only a tepid response. Pretty much tells the story of the Democratic Party over the last generation.
9:06 p.m. ET: Bubba has been introduced. He got a bigger reception than his wife did last night. I was surprised that he wasn't escorted into the hall by the Denver Bronco cheerleaders, but that's another story.
8:56 p.m. ET: Bubba is about to speak. Note the time. It's about 6 p.m. on the West Coast. A lot of people are still getting home or having dinner. They didn't give Bill the best slot, which would have been an hour later. Wonder why.
8:43 p.m. ET: Karl Rove, on Fox, predicts that Bill Clinton will give a full-throated endorsement of Barack Obama tonight. Rove is also saying, remarkably, that Joe Biden, the v.p. choice, must reassure Americans tonight about the qualifications of Barack Obama to serve as president. Imagine that, the v.p. guy must vouch for the top of the ticket. Amazing.
---------------------------------------
REAL-WORLD ALERT: From The Times of London: "A new Cold War between Russia and the West grew steadily closer today after the Kremlin gave a warning about 'direct confrontation' between American and Russian warships in the Black Sea. Dmitri Peskov, a spokesman for Vladimir Putin, the Prime Minister, declared that Russia was taking 'measures of precaution' against American and Nato naval ships. 'Let’s hope we do not see any direct confrontation in that,' he said."
And let's hope the-one-we're-been-waiting-for notes this crisis, potentially very critical, in his acceptance speech tomorrow night.
IN-THE-TANK HEADLINE FOR TODAY: From The New York Times, on Barack Obama: A Nominee of Mystery and Consistency. Did The Times say "consistency"? Did it actually say that? This man has changed more opinions than neckties. Can anyone figure out his stand on most of the major issues? Consistency? Well, the Information Minister will be pleased.
CIVILIZATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS
Posted at 6:20 p.m. ET
Ms. Hillary's speech did not pacify the most passionate of her loyalists. The term "kamikaze" comes to mind. The Washington Post reports that bitterness endures, and that travel plans are being made. Hard to know if this will last, but clearly the Obama camp will not have a complete "one land, one leader" moment. There's one land, leader to be decided:
They listened, rapt, to a 20-minute speech that many proclaimed the best she had ever delivered, hoping her words could somehow unwind a year of tension in the Democratic Party. But when Clinton stepped off the stage and the standing ovation faded into silence, many of her supporters were left with a sobering realization: Even a tremendous speech couldn't erase their frustrations.
Despite Clinton's plea for Democrats to unite, her delegates remained divided as to how they should proceed.
There was Jerry Straughan, a professor from California, who listened from his seat in the rafters and shook his head at what he considered the speech's predictability. "It's a tactic," he said. "Who knows what she really thinks? With all the missteps that have taken place, this is the only thing she could do. So, yes, I'm still bitter."
Truth be told, this happens fairly often at conventions. At the 1976 Republican convention, Ronald Reagan conceded defeat to President Gerald R. Ford, but, in his speech, barely noted Ford's existence. Jimmy Carter, unblessed memory, won the election. And at the 1980 Democratic convention, Edward R. Kennedy threw in the towel in his bid to take the nomination from Carter, but ice formed on his lips as he did it. Ronald Reagan won the election.
Divided parties suffer from the divisions, and often lose by narrow margins. In 1968, a bitterly divided Democratic Party nominated Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey for the top job, only to see him lose by a whisker to the never-popular Richard M. Nixon, by then a political retread. The Dems who stayed home on election day made the difference.
So unity can count - a lesson both parties might note.
Some Hillaristas aren't listening:
For Clinton's supporters, it was difficult to accept her speech as the public finale of her campaign, because this moment once held such tremendous potential. Shelby Leary, a delegate from West Virginia, stood to watch a video tribute to Clinton's success as a trailblazer and then chanted "Hillary" for 30 seconds with the rest of the crowd. Anne Price, from Washington state, wore a dozen Clinton buttons and wiped tears from her eyes.
It seemed a particularly resonant moment Tuesday night, which marked both Women's Equality Day and the 88th anniversary of women's suffrage.
Some will, as Cold War reporters liked to say about people who lived in dictatorships, vote with their feet:
"I hate Obama so much that I'm going to devote as much time to McCain as I did to Hillary," said Adita Blanco, a Democrat from Edward, Okla., who has never voted for a Republican. "Obama has nothing. He has no experience. The Democratic Party doesn't care about us. You couldn't treat [Clinton] any worse."
Perhaps the best example of the persistent divide in the Democratic Party came after Clinton's speech Tuesday night. The lights went down in the Pepsi Center, and some influential Democrats left downtown for good. They planned to head for the airport and fly home, long before Obama accepts the nomination in a speech at Invesco Field on Thursday night.
Clinton will hold a private meeting with her top financial advisers Wednesday, and many donors plan to leave immediately afterward. Terence R. McAuliffe, Clinton's campaign chairman and the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, also plans to leave before Obama's speech. Many of the women from 18 Million Voices, Fiechter's pro-Clinton group, booked tickets for Wednesday and Thursday because "we really are taking a position of being indifferent to Obama," Fiechter said.
Didn't Aretha Franklin sing about R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Not too much respect for the nominee from many of the Hillary delegates. And,as noted below, Bill will be skipping the nominee's speech.
The key point, to be determined, is how much effect all this will have in November.
August 27, 2008. Permalink 
A MAJOR DIS. FROM FOX NEWS: "In another sign of lingering discord between the Clinton and Obama camps, FOX News confirmed Wednesday that former President Bill Clinton will not attend Barack Obama’s Democratic presidential nomination acceptance speech at Invesco Field in Denver Thursday night."
Why doesn't he just put on a McCain pin and get it over with?
GET OUT THE AIRSICKNESS BAG. FROM FRANCE'S AFP: "DENVER, Colorado (AFP) - Some of them aren't even old enough to vote yet, but impassioned by the message of hope preached by Barack Obama they have flocked here to help crown their idol, the Democratic standard-bearer. These students and high-school pupils are the youngest delegates to the Democratic Party convention, joining a flood of young people under the age of 30 who have swollen the packed convention center."
Go back to school and learn something.
TRACKERS
Posted at 1:35 p.m. ET
Both trackers are now out. As reported here earlier, McCain has taken the lead, although only a one-point lead, in the Rasmussen survey.
However, Gallup, which had McCain two points ahead yesterday, today has him one point behind.
Averaging both polls today, it's a tie.
A distinguished scholar cautioned me that it takes about a week to identify trends in tracking polls, and I agree. We report them every day here with that understanding. Also, polls results will vary from day to day due to the margin of error and ordinary statistical noise.
Bottom line, it's an incredibly tight race. There is no sign yet that Obama has benefited in the least from his naming of Joe Biden as his vice-presidential pick, or from the start of his convention. Poll results tomorrow should start to reflect any impact that Hillary Clinton's appearance had.
McCain names his v.p. choice at the end of the week. His convention begins Monday.
August 27, 2008. Permalink
BULLETIN AT 9:30 A.M. ET: First tracker of the day is out. Rasmussen, which had Obama up three points two days ago, and had the race tied yesterday, now shows McCain up by one. Cautionary note: This does not take into account last night's speech by Hillary Clinton, which was shown on all networks. We might see any impact from that tomorrow morning.
LAST NIGHT
Posted at 7:04 a.m.
Thanks to Hillary Clinton, the Democrats had a good night last night. Her speech, carried by all the networks, did what it had to do. The tracking polls probably won't pick up any effect until results are published tomorrow. Today's results will reflect polling taken a bit too early.
But, on reflection, I still think there's a disconnect between today's Democratic Party and the country. I had the feeling that the party continues to talk down to the American people. Americans realize there are real threats out there, but you'd never know it from the Democratic convention. National security is lumped in with every other issue, as if survival was on the same priority level as building better bridges. There is, as there has been in the party for a generation, a lack of maturity. We're told that tonight will be "national-security night" in Denver. But what will they say? The base of the party is indifferent to national security. Having a national-security night is like giving a dinner for some local politician who's been ignored for years. There'll be nice speeches, and everything will be forgotten tomorrow morning.
The key is how this is playing with the American people. Well, first off, Hillary proved herself a better campaigner last night than either Obama or Biden, which was clearly her intent. Biden is an okay, although somewhat abrasive speaker. We'll hear him tonight, but he's speaking on the same night as Bill Clinton. The matchup reminds me of a comment that Bing Crosby once made about Frank Sinatra. A talent like that, Crosby said, comes along once in a lifetime. "But why did it have to be my lifetime?" I'd imagine that Biden will have that same view of Clinton tonight.
There are reports that Obama's handlers want him to tone down his soaring rhetoric when he makes his acceptance speech tomorrow night. More nuts 'n bolts. Prove to the people you understand the issues. Don't sound like a Sunday pastor. Well, okay, but that assumes there's some beef there. We'll have to see. It's perfectly clear from the polls that Obama has worn out part of his welcome. We may soon find out if there's a "new Obama," like the "new Nixon." The new Nixon was elected in 1968, but things eventually didn't work out.
Stay tuned. And watch the action in the trackers to see the effect on public opinion.
August 27, 2008. Permalink
BLANKLEY
Posted at 7:01 a.m. ET
One of the subtexts of this campaign is the role of the mainstream media, which once again goes to extremes to embarrass itself. Tony Blankley, British born and an astute observer of American politics, has some thoughts about the institution that one English press lord called "the froth estate." Consider:
The mainstream, moron media. It's odd, but I find their predictable nonsense quite comforting.
There is so much change in the world. I don't know whether Michelle Obama thinks America is "downright mean" and not a country of which she is ever proud (except as it loves her husband) or whether, as Monday night, her heart is all aflutter at the flapping of Old Glory when she is not being a sister to her brother, a daughter to her mother, a mother to her daughters, a wife to her husband, and, oh yes (though not mentioned Monday night ) a $300,000-a-year employee of a Chicago hospital so closely connected to Mr. Obama and his public relation's firm that it would need their finest surgeons to separate them at their shared pockets.
Such warmth from Tony.
I'm all in favor of trying to make change my friend - although it's not likely to be a lasting relationship. But I confess that a little stability can be a comfort also. And that is why last Saturday morning was such a comfortable moment for me. When I turned the TV on, the political cable shows were filled with liberal pundits, liberal anchors, liberal guest historians, liberal weather gals and guys, liberal news you can use chicks, liberal political "strategists" (i.e. out of work former Democratic National Committee gofers.) What a relief - nothing had changed.
And the predictable crowd did its predictable thing:
And, of course, all of the above immediately went about their predictable chore of transforming Sen. Joe Biden from what he is to what Mr. Obama needs him to appear to be...
...So every liberal "expert" on television Saturday morning spontaneously asserted that Mr. Biden is no Washington insider - because he commutes an hour by train home most nights. His heart is "back home in Delaware." This is a most preposterous, risible, farce of a lie - so naturally each and every one of the liberal media repeated it straight faced and very earnestly.
And they couldn't contain themselves.
The next endearingly obvious lie was that Mr. Biden was not really from Delaware (a small, reliable Democratic state), but rather from Scranton, Pa. (a big, swing state) - even though Mr. Biden left Scranton as a young child at about the same age that Mr. Obama left Indonesia. So why is Mr. Obama from Chicago and Mr. Biden from Scranton? But, because Mr. Biden had his nappies changed in Scranton (also the mythical home of Hillary Clinton during the primary season, I seem to recall), the moron media tells us he is real popular in Pennsylvania and will help carry the state for Mr. Obama. Except he never registered more than a few single digits in the Pennsylvania poll when he was running in the primary this season.
I hope Biden didn't accidentally read this. The man has pride.
Nothing against old Joe, but if Mr. Obama had selected a ham sandwich as his running mate, our old friends the mainstream moron media would be just as gushing and enthusiastic ("by picking a ham sandwich, Mr. Obama, in a master stroke, has sent a dog whistle message that he is not a Muslim - as Muslims abhor ham...")
Blankley is right, of course. Americans are learning what the term "in the tank" means, and the in-the-tank media continues its downward spiral in public esteem. MSNBC, for example, has essentially taken itself off the list of serious media outlets by becoming a subdivision of the Obama campaign, a situation so awkward and unprofessional that some of their "talent" had an on-the-air spat about it yesterday.
But now Americans have alternative media. The First Amendment may save the nation yet.
August 27, 2008. Permalink
TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2008
11:52 p.m. ET: The Democrats had a much better night tonight than they had last night. They were spirited and political, and this is a political convention, something they seemed to forget last night. It will take a few days before the tracking polls show any impact from tonight's events. I wouldn't be shocked to see a bump for Obama, the kind of bump that's eluded him up to now. If Obama, though, flatlines or falls behind, he's in real trouble. That result would show that he can't make the case, even at a convention he controls. He must come out of this meeting with at least some bounce. Otherwise, he's likely to lose support, and certainly enthusiasm, even within his own party.
But remember that the GOP conclave will start Monday, giving the Dems no time to build momentum. McCain names his v.p. choice later this week. He would do himself a world of good if he tried for an exciting, original choice, something Republicans have not exactly excelled at over the years. He'd be wise to consider a woman. My guess is that his choice will be solid, but conventional, and will have little impact on the race. I want to be proved wrong, completely wrong.
11:37 p.m. ET: The CNN analysts were more kindly disposed toward Hillary Clinton than were the Fox pundits. Gloria Borger, in particular, thought Hillary was actually generous to Obama. The words "Hillary" and "generous" are usually not found in the same sentence. Oh, we were reminded that the big event tomorrow night is Bill Clinton, whose appearance will overshadow that of Joe Biden, who I think is running for vice president or something.
11:20 p.m. ET: Was just watching the Fox analysts, some of whom feel that Hillary's endorsement of Obama was kind of minimal. Well, maybe, but she did deliver the necessary words. We didn't expect much warmth toward Obama, because there isn't any.
11:08 p.m. ET: Hillary has finished. Strong speech. I thought the first half was better, the second a bit over the top. But she did what she needed to do, and there's no way around that. Will it affect the race? I have no idea. She's not on the ticket. She endorsed Obama strongly, although there didn't seem to be any visceral enthusiasm, and of course there isn't.
But the moment has passed without a revolt by her supporters.
10:58 p.m. ET: So far, Hillary is giving a good speech. Of course, there are no details, and, if examined, many of her points can be demolished. But it's a good, strong speech. She's doing what she has to do. And she's doing, from her point of view, the most important thing: She's getting the delegates to ask, "Why isn't she the candidate?"
10:47 p.m. ET: Hillary began with a strong endorsement of Barack Obama. Now she's talking a bit about herself. Didn't take long. The camera cuts to Michelle Obama, who looks like she's had better days. But Clinton is saying all the right things that a "unifier" must say. Remember, she wants a future in this party.
10:45 p.m. ET: Chelsea Clinton, with fine style, has just introduced Hillary Clinton to the convention. Now the fun begins. We listen.
10:27 p.m. ET: Hillary is scheduled to appear in about four minutes. There are reports that she has arrived, and has parked the broomstick. Stay tuned.
10:16 p.m. ET: Bill Kristol, speaking on Fox, just revealed a bit of fascinating information. It turns out that Mark Warner, the Dem keynote speaker, was actually scheduled to speak now, in the best of prime time. At the last minute he was moved into an earlier slot, apparently, according to Kristol, because he would not strongly attack John McCain. Those speaking now are doing the attacking. Warner is running for the Senate in Virginia, a relatively conservative state with a strong Navy presence in Norfolk. Attacking a Navy hero, as Bush 41 liked to say, wouldn't be prudent.
But Kristol said that the last-minute shuffle revealed some real concern in Obama's camp, and that concern is justified. When you're sinking in the polls at your own convention, you have a problem. Obama has just that.
9:43 p.m. ET: Former Virginia governor Mark Warner has begun his keynote address. Oh, we didn't mention earlier that the keynote address is tonight. No one cares. This is like a commencement address at school. Who remembers? Everyone waits for Hillary.
9:21 p.m. ET: Dick Morris, on Fox, has just given what, to my mind, is the best pre-game analysis of tonight's Hillary show. Her objective, he argued, is to outshine Joe Biden, to make it clear that Obama should have chosen her as his vice-presidential candidate. The better she does, Morris said, the worse it is for Obama. I agree with that. Hillary is out to prove something tonight, and it isn't that Barack Obama is a great guy.
8:59 p.m. ET: We await the main event at the Dem convention tonight - the appearance by Hillary Clinton. She will say the right things, speak the fine words, and smile at the proper times. And nothing will be sincere. The key is whether her supporters buy the words or the reality.
It's a perfect setup for Hillary: As she speaks, Obama is declining in the polls; the nomination of Joe Biden has gone nowhere. There's a sense of buyer's remorse among many Democrats. Hillary has to believe this is Divine intervention. And even she might respect that.
DEM DILEMMA
Posted at 7:29 p.m. ET
Who thought we'd be calling anything "Dem Dilemma" this week? This was supposed to be a coronation, the start of a new Democratic era. We on the other side had thoughts of being exiled to Devil's Island.
But a funny thing happened to the Democrats on the way to the ceremony. Charles Krauthammer explains that the candidate himself, Barack Obama, has kind of messed things up:
He has an interesting history, but in no way dramatic or heroic. Nor has he done anything of any significance in his 47 years other than write two rather favorable histories of himself. His greatest achievement in life is, of course, winning the Democratic nomination for the presidency. But as a reason to elect him president, that has the same kind of circularity as does his “we are the ones we've been waiting for" refrain.
Obama’s problem is that he has compounded it with a detached imperiousness and unnerving grandiosity so completely disproportionate to his own accomplishments. Grandiosity in a de Gaulle is one thing, though even with him it often reached the point of the ridiculous. But Obama?
Obama would probably consider deGaulle small change. Did deGaulle carry Santa Monica?
The beginning of Obama’s decline in the polls was the Berlin speech. It took a while for the absurdity of that event to sink in, and for the McCain campaign to take perfect advantage of it in parody. Not only did Berlin (as a stand-in for a host of grand Obama gestures) prove a liability in and of itself. But, additionally, it accentuated the basic thinness of Obama’s history and experience.
And...
The point of the Democratic National Convention is to pad the biography and to make it look dramatic and heroic. And, on the other hand, to try to control the Obama acceptance speech, which he scheduled as a mass cult-of-personality event in front of 80,000 screaming fans at Invesco Field. Obama’s task is to make it sober and measured. Success is possible.
But the fact, bitter for Democrats, is that Obama tends to lose support the more people get to know him. His poll numbers have actually declined this week, at least so far. That is the Democratic dilemma.
August 26, 2008. Permalink
BILL - AGAIN
Posted at 5:02 p.m. ET
It appears that Bill Clinton cannot help himself. Appearing in Denver, where he's come to praise Obama, rather than bury him, the former president still seemed to have the latter choice on his mind. The Hill reports:
Bill Clinton appeared to undermine Sen. Barack Obama again Tuesday.
The former president, speaking in Denver, posed a hypothetical question in which he seemed to suggest that that the Democratic Party was making a mistake in choosing Obama as its presidential nominee.He said: "Suppose you're a voter, and you've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that candidate can deliver on anything at all. Candidate Y you agree with on about half the issues, but he can deliver. Which candidate are you going to vote for?"
Then, perhaps mindful of how his off-the-cuff remarks might be taken, Clinton added after a pause: "This has nothing to do with what's going on now."
The comments are unlikely to be taken as an innocent mistake by those Democrats who continue to be angry with the former president for, they say, not supporting the Illinois senator wholeheartedly, if not implicitly undercutting him.
The controversial comments came just hours before Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the former first lady and principal rival to Obama, was due to speak from the convention podium.
But there were those who saw nothing, absolutely nothing.
Former Clinton aide and Democratic strategist Paul Begala, however, told The Hill that the former president is solidly behind Obama's candidacy.
"He's totally for Barack," Begala said Tuesday. "He's totally for Barack."
Of course he is. And he's been faithful to his wife, too.
August 26, 2008. Permalink
TRACKERS
Posted at 1:50 p.m. ET
Both trackers have now been published. While we always caution about reports on a single day, the news is unexpected and potentially significant.
As reported earlier, Rasmussen, which had Obama up three yesterday, now calls the race a tie.
But Gallup, which had the race tied yesterday, now has McCain two points ahead.
In other words, if the figures accurately reflect public opinion, the race is defying traditional expectations. So far, there is no bounce for the Democrats from the selection of Joe Biden. Indeed, it didn't seem to go down all that well. And the convention excitement apparently hasn't spread to the voters.
A cautionary note: Some of this "reverse bounce" might be coming from Hillary Clinton voters who were angered that she wasn't chosen as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. That anger can dissipate over time, or Hillary herself can reverse it with her speech tonight.
But, whatever the cause, this isn't where the Democrats wanted to be, or needed to be. Their situation can, of course, change during the remaining three nights of their convention. But there can be no joy in Denver. Mighty Barack is striking out.
August 26, 2008. Permalink
---------------------------
BULLETIN, AT 9:45 A.M. ET: The first tracker for the day is out, and it's a stunner. Rasmussen, which had Obama up three points yesterday now reports a tie, despite the naming of Biden and the start of the Democratic convention. Obviously, this is a one-day snapshot, but Ras notes that Obama's support has declined for the past three individual nights of polling. We await the Gallup tracker this afternoon. Hillary Clinton must be in ecstasy.
---------------------------
THE FIRST NIGHT
Posted at 7:41 a.m. ET
Whenever there is "emotion" at a political event, most journalists and analysts go directly into the tank and hide there. The better ones, while showing respect for legitimate feelings, try to keep something of a distance, a journalistic detachment.
Something went wrong at the Democratic convention last night. There was plenty of emotion - Ted Kennedy's sad appearance, a speech by Caroline Kennedy that recalled our image of her as a toddler in the White House, and Michelle Obama's dignified tribute to her family. These things were all fine, but something still went wrong, even though too many journalists gushed at the gushing that took place on the podium.
Americans have a sense of time. They understand that a political meeting doesn't occur in a vacuum, but at a time in history. The convention last night gave us the feeling that, for the people in that hall, time stopped decades ago.
But in the post-9/11 world, it has not stopped for Americans.
Karl Rove was correct in saying that Americans have questions about Barack Obama, and that the Democrats missed the chance to address those questions at the starting gate. What went wrong was that the convention lacked a sense of danger, a mature understanding of where this country is in August of 2008.
Iran's nuclear program is on the horizon.
Russian tanks have roared into Georgia.
Terror groups continue their plotting, their suicide bombings, and their attempts to obtain weapons of mass destruction.
We just saw much of the world fall to its knees as China, a complete dictatorship, pulled off one of the most propagandistic Olympics since Hitler's production in Berlin in 1936.
Yet, you would never know that any of this was happening if you tuned in to the Democrats.
Wait, you say, they have four more days. But that's just the point. A mood is set on the first day, and, once again, the new Democratic Party showed it just does not share the sense of danger that most Americans feel, and that is keeping this race so close. The faithful Democrats simply shrug off this time in history as "the politics of fear."
The only "politics of fear" I'm feeling right now is the fear that these people might get elected.
We'll blog through the next three nights and see if there's some growing up in Denver, some sense of danger that is the mark of a responsible political party.
August 26, 2008 Permalink
BIDEN'S IRAN PROBLEM
Posted at 7:38 a.m. ET
Joe Biden has been presented to us as the great sage on foreign policy. Well, like the guy who gets the gold watch, he's put in the years. But people who've actually taken the time to look at his record are finding disturbing issues of judgment. Iran stands out.
Ed Lasky of The American Thinker alerts us to a devastating piece in today's Washington Post by Michael Rubin, dissecting Biden's bizarre record on Iran. If the McCain people play this right, it can become a major issue, and discredit Obama's selection of Biden as his vice-presidential candidate:
Biden is well versed in policy debates and carefully choreographed trips. But his record on the Islamic Republic of Iran -- perhaps the chief national security threat facing the next president -- suggests a persistent and dangerous judgment deficit. Biden's unyielding pursuit of "engagement" with Iran for more than a decade has made it easier for Tehran to pursue its nuclear program, while his partisan obsession with thwarting the Bush administration has led him to oppose tough sanctions against hard-liners in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
Nice to see that someone has noticed.
Not long after President Bush declared Iran part of an "axis of evil," Biden headlined a March 13, 2002, dinner at the American Iranian Council, an organization underwritten at the time by a dozen oil companies and dedicated to ending sanctions on Iran.
Not good, not good. But it gets worse:
An August 2007 National Intelligence Estimate found that "Iran has been intensifying aspects of its lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants" and that "Explosively formed penetrator (EFP) attacks have risen dramatically." The next month, the Senate considered a bipartisan amendment to designate the Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, an important step to aid nonviolent efforts to deny it funds and financing. Biden was one of only 22 senators to vote against it. "I voted against the amendment to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization because I don't trust this administration," he said. Distrust of the U.S. president is the nature of politics, but skepticism about foreign dictators and their Brown Shirts is the backbone of judgment.
Are you getting a sense of anxiety about Joe Biden? If not, read the next sentence:
Biden's political games have made him Tehran's favorite senator.
Smart McCain staffers should package that sentence and send it flying in a political artillery shell.
Biden's attack-dog statements about U.S. policy failures emboldened Iranian hard-liners to defy diplomacy. In the Dec. 7, 2007, official sermon, Ayatollah Mohammad Kashani speaking on behalf of Iran's supreme leader, declared, "This Senator [Biden] correctly says Israel could not suppress Hizbullah in Lebanon, so how can the U.S. stand face-to-face with a nation of 70 million? This is the blessing of the Guardianship of the Jurists [the theocracy] . . . which plants such thoughts in the hearts of U.S. senators and forces them to make such confessions." The crowd met his statement with refrains of "Death to America."
Finally...
Obama picked Biden for experience, but he might also have considered judgment. When it comes to Iran, Biden could stare down dictators; too bad he blinks.
Well, I guess Michael Rubin won't be wearing an Obama/Biden pin anytime soon.
I haven't seen much about Biden's Iran problem in the writings of the usual journalistic suspects. The New York Times has expressed no anguish. But Biden's record is disturbing, and questioning it - very loudly - is entirely appropriate. Let's see some ads with a couple of choice Biden quotes.
August 26, 2008. Permalink
RUBBISH
Posted at 7:35 a.m. ET
I have no problem at all with thoughtful discussions of race in America. I said thoughtful discussions. But a panel just held at the Democratic convention in Denver was so off the wall that I had to report it to you. Naturally, one of the participants was Jesse Jackson, Jr., who apparently learned well from his father. The Politico reports:
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) told convention-goers Monday that Barack Obama is like baseball pioneer Jackie Robinson — enduring jeers without the ability to hit back.
“Barack Obama has the capacity to hit,” Jackson said a breakfast panel just before the opening of the Democratic National Convention. “But he is in the situation where he can’t hit back, which Jackie Robinson could not do. … He had to be able to run the bases, even though the crowd was jeering the first African-American on the field.”
Jackson, son of the civil rights leader, said Obama is in the same situation: “He has to keep smiling, because no one wants an angry African-American man in the White House.”
That is absolutely disgraceful. I'm an old Brooklyn Dodger fanatic. Jackie Robinson was a hero of mine. I once interviewed Roger Kahn, author of the classic history of the Dodgers, "The Boys of Summer," and we spent most of our time talking about Jackie and the great old teams.
Jackie Robinson came to the majors in 1947 - some 61 years ago. He was advised by Dodger executive Branch Rickey not to respond to racist taunts because it would only encourage the jerks. It was a strategy, and a successful one.
To suggest that Barack Obama, candidate for president of the United States, is in the same position, is absurd. Obama can't hit back? Is that a serious statement? He hits back every day, and he often doesn't care if he gets his facts right.
He has to keep smiling? Really? I've seen him angry and stern. What year is Jackson Jr. living in?
Despite Jackson’s prediction that the Clintons would help Obama this week, though, former Virginia Gov. Douglas Wilder, who endorsed Obama during the primaries, expressed frustration with some foot-dragging by the Clintons and their supporters.
“What does Barack Obama have to do to convince Clinton supporters that he’s capable of being president of the United States?” Wilder asked.
Now mayor of Richmond, Wilder drew laughter by adding: “You want to speak? Fine. You want to speak, Bill? Fine. You want to be vice president? No. Beyond that, what else can I do? What do you want me to do?”
Wilder also raised the possibility that some voters were turned off by Obama’s race.
“I think you’re going to have a number of people who give you an excuse for not voting for a person,” Wilder said. “I’m not at all suggesting race. But I’m not eliminating race.”
No, we can't eliminate race. I've written here many times that some people won't vote for Obama because of prejudice. Others, however, will vote for him to advance a person of color.
But how about talking about Obama as a candidate for president, not a minority candidate for president? If the members of this panel were serious, they'd recognize that Obama is in trouble not because of his color, but because of his deficiencies, and he's done little to ease the concerns of many voters.
He is not Jackie Robinson. Robbie was in the game. He proved he could play with the best of them every day. So far, Obama has proved only that he can talk about playing. The empty suit has got to be filled. Panels like the one described here are not helpful.
August 26, 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,
What do you think will be the single greatest crisis facing the new president in his first month in office?
You can view the answers here.
What would you like to see President Bush accomplish in his last five months 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