SECOND EVENING UPDATE:  JULY 17,  2008

Posted at 11:02 p.m. ET

NAME GAME

Here's a chance for our side to turn the tables.  The New York Times reports that the nut brigade has a new media scheme.  Before you shout "unfair" or "censorship," let's see what we can do with this:

It may be the blogosphere’s equivalent of the scarlet letter, and the organizers of Netroots Nation, a gathering of liberal bloggers that is taking place this week, say they will be more than happy to pin it on Fox News.

Planners of the conference want to force representatives of the cable news network to wear credentials identifying them as opinion media rather than providing them with the regular press passes other news outlets will receive.

“Fox News calls itself fair and balanced, but it’s not,” Josh Orton, political director for Netroots said in an interview. He accused the network, which is popular among conservatives, of misrepresenting itself.

The Netroots, however, may not get their way.

A spokeswoman for Fox News called the policy a “predictable stunt and a moot point” since the network would not be sending anyone to cover the four-day conference that kicked off in Austin, Texas, on Thursday.

But if anyone from the network were to show up, Mr. Orton said they would have to wear a press pass with the words “Opinion Media” printed on it. The credential would not restrict Fox’s ability to cover the conference..

I accept.  I think it's a great idea!  Imagine, labels that actually describe a news organization accurately, instead of the bland PRESS.

But, of course, and I'm sure you agree, the new standards should be applied fairly.  Don't you think?

All right, we'll go along with OPINION MEDIA for Fox, true or not.  But how about IN THE TANK FOR OBAMA for The New York Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, and, God knows, Newsweek.  What about BANKRUPT BUT LIBERAL for The Los Angeles Times.  And certainly AMERICA-HATING HACKS for the BBC.

Now we're getting somewhere.

MSNBC would, of course, be LOUD LIBS.  Now, for CNN, what would be appropriate?  LEFT OUT, BUT ALWAYS LEFT.  Or maybe, TED TURNER'S KIDS.

Ideas from readers, please?  I'll publish the ones that aren't obscene.

July 17, 2008.      Permalink          

FIRST EVENING UPDATE:  JULY 17,  2008

Posted at 7:22 p.m. ET

LOFTY

Commentators are starting to speak out against a tone that's coming from the Obama side - namely, that you must not criticize Mr. Obama.  I monitor talk radio and TV, as background for Urgent Agenda, and heard Sean Hannity today replying to Senator Obama.  Obama had apparently criticized conservative commentators, singling out Hannity, and had remarked that what they said on the air they'd never say to his face.  Hannity properly invited Obama to come on any of his shows, and promised to say to his face anything he's said on the air.  Don't hold your breath waiting for Obama to accept the invitation. 

Now Bill Maxwell of the St. Petersburg Times continues on that theme, the notion that one must not criticize he who has come to save us:

You had better mind your manners with regard to Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

You can't disagree with him. You can't question the legitimacy of his many platitudes and promises. And you had better watch it when you offer a litany of his flip-flops or point out his crass opportunism.

Be forewarned: If you say, sing, write, draw, paint or sculpt anything unflattering about Obama, expect the Spanish Inquisition. The salvational fervor and unfiltered euphoria surrounding the man have cast a halo around his head. A halo, as you know, suggests something otherworldly.

Very much so.  He is not of us.

The inquisitors showed up again after the New Yorker's July 21 cover came to light. The cartoon, Barry Blitt's creation, depicts Obama, wearing a turban, and his wife, Michelle, sporting an Afro hairdo, as terrorists bumping fists in the Oval Office. A U.S. flag burns in the fireplace, and the image of Osama bin Laden peers over the fireplace at his handiwork.

In an e-mail message to the media, the New Yorker's editor, David Remnick, explained the meaning of the cover: "The cover takes a lot of distortions, lies, and misconceptions about the Obamas and puts a mirror up to them to show them for what they are. It's a lot like the spirit of what Stephen Colbert does — by exaggerating and mocking something, he shows its absurdity, and that is what satire is all about."

That's what satire used to be about. In the Obama era, however, satire may be satire only if it pokes fun at anyone except the Haloed One. If it pokes fun at Obama or subjects related to the Obamas, it's described as being "crude," "tasteless and offensive," "insensitive," "racist" and so on.

Finally...

If Obama's swooning, humorless supporters continue to force critics to whisper, to shut up or to explain their artistic renderings, our precious gift and right of free expression will diminish if Obama is elected in November.

These people need to know that some of us cherish free expression. They also need to know that if Obama needs to be protected from the satirist's rapier, he doesn't deserve to be the president of the United States of America.

We shouldn't be too shocked by the tone coming from the Obama campaign.  It's chillingly similar to what we see on many college campuses, especially those that have adopted "speech codes" to regulate expression, the better to advance radical causes. Obama and his troops come from that milieu.

But, eventually, Obama's self-righteousness, and his lecturing of critics, will start to wear thin.  While he'll still be protected by the usual suspects in the media, ordinary Americans will resent the touch of royalty.  They always do.  Instinctively, they know that the presidency belongs to them, not to the bearer of the title.

During the 1932 campaign, Will Rogers, the country's favorite humorist, spoke at a large gathering, attended by Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt of New York, the Democratic candidate for president.  Rogers, in front of microphones, referred to Roosevelt as "Franklin."  He then said, "I can call you Franklin.  You're only a candidate."

That's exactly right.  Barack, fella, you're only a candidate.

July 17, 2008.      Permalink          

EARLY AFTERNOON POST:  JULY 17,  2008

Posted at 2:03 p.m. ET

TRACKERS

Both our standard trackers are out for today.  Rasmussen has the campaign a dead heat, whereas Gallup shows Obama up two.

Yesterday, both polls had Obama up three.

I stress that this is meaningless thus far.  Has Obama dropped further?  We won't know until we see a trend.  That trend will inevitably be affected by his foreign tour next week.

McCain must be on guard during these next ten days.  The media will be flooded with Obamamania, as the new rock star greets adoring fans in Europe.  He must counter, perhaps reminding Americans that Americans select the president, not others, not Brian Williams. 

July 17, 2008.      Permalink          

THURSDAY:  JULY 17,  2008

Posted at 7:16 a.m. ET

OBAMA VERSUS NUKES

Barack Obama has solemnly announced that he wishes to free the world of nuclear weapons.

That's nice.

Is there some kind of program he has in mind for accomplishing this?  Some vision?  Some set of steps?  Well, as they say in the TV ad, "not really."  The senator:

"It's time to send a clear message to the world: America seeks a world with no nuclear weapons," the White House hopeful said.

"As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong deterrent. But we'll make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy."

The remarks, delivered at Purdue University in Indiana before a roundtable discussion with foreign policy experts, come as the senator from Illinois is preparing for a trip abroad. Obama also is seeking to gain traction on national security issues.

In a fact sheet distributed to reporters, Obama's campaign said he will work to eliminate all nuclear weapons, but will not commit the United States to giving them up while other states retain them.

This is change we can believe in?  Where's the change?  That's been American policy for decades.

As teacher said, this is what happens when you try to write fast.  But there's more:

"It's time to look ahead -- at the dangers of today and tomorrow rather than those of yesterday. America cannot afford another president who doesn't understand the threats that confront us now and in the future," he said.

Obama, who plans to visit Europe and the Middle East this month, said nuclear terrorism is "the gravest danger we face," and said he would seek to rally international support to place increased pressure on Iran and North Korea over their apparent nuclear ambitions.

Really?  Was this what he had in mind last year when he opposed a measure declaring Iran's Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization?  Take that, Iran!  Barack Obama is on your case!  Oh, by the way, now he says he's for that measure.  He was against it before he's for it.

And there are brave promises:

The presidential candidate also pledged to protect the country from the threat of biological and cyber attacks.

"We know that the successful deployment of a biological weapon -- whether it is sprayed into our cities or spread through our food supply -- could kill tens of thousands of Americans and deal a crushing blow to our economy," he said.

Senator Obama, preventing that kind of catastrophe requires intelligence gathering, and that includes wiretapping.  True, you're supporting the current FISA bill, as an act of political convenience, but for years you fought effective intelligence gathering tooth and nail, and your base is furious with you for giving in on the current FISA draft.  What are your credentials for stopping a biological attack?

The McCain campaign released a letter signed by ten retired admirals and generals, that states a more realistic case:

"This country has learned the peril of treating terrorists and their state sponsors as little more than a law enforcement problem," the letter said. "We are unanimous in our view that the failures of the past should not be repeated, and we believe that John McCain's long record of national service, and his demonstrated judgment on matters of national security, make clear who can best defend this country abroad, and assure peace and prosperity at home."

And he's actually had the same views for more than two weeks.

July 17, 2008.       Permalink          

OBAMA VERSUS THE WORLD

Karen Tumulty of TIME, a solid reporter, solidly reports on Obama's upcoming excursion to Europe and the Mideast.  Clearly, this is an audition for the home folks, as people with no connection to the U.S. can't vote here, except in parts of Chicago.

The audience that matters most will be the voters back home, where many Americans have yet to be convinced that this young man of relatively little experience is the right person to fill the role of their commander-in-chief. "This," says Ken Duberstein, who was Ronald Reagan's White House Chief of Staff, "is an absolute opportunity to get over the acceptability threshold."

Polling suggests that Obama still has a way to go in that regard. In the latest Washington Post/ABC News survey, only 48% of registered voters said Obama would make a good commander in chief, with an equal percentage saying he wouldn't. By comparison, 72% said John McCain would be a good one.

The public is correct. 

All indications are that Obama can expect an exuberant welcome wherever he goes, but that can be a double-edged sword. It didn't help John Kerry that Europeans seemed so eager to embrace him. In a famous put-down, then-Commerce Secretary Don Evans declared that Kerry "looks French." For his part, Obama has already been portrayed by opponents as an out-of-touch elitist (see "Bittergate"), and recently surrogates such as Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have suggested that the Democrat has more of a European world view than McCain.

Presumably, part of Obama's appeal is that he can "regain" American prestige, although anti-Americanism has been a staple in Europe and the Mideast since this country was founded.

Regaining some of that international respect (and admiration) is one thing. But just as crucial for Obama is whether all the diplomatic theater can persuade American voters that he is capable of taking the helm of a superpower. That depends, to some degree, on how comfortable Obama seems standing shoulder to shoulder among those he would be dealing with as this country's President. "It's not a knowledge quiz. It's more visceral than that," says Council of Foreign Relations President Richard Haass, who was director of policy planning at the State Department during the early years of George W. Bush's presidency, and also served as a top official on his father's National Security Council staff. "Americans need to have a sense that this person can hold his own."

And that's a fairly minimal standard.  John F. Kennedy, vastly more experienced than Obama, got beaten up pretty badly by the Russians in his first year in office.  At least he had the sense to admit it, and came back to handle the Cuban Missile Crisis well.

Obama must appear to more than hold his own.  He has to be, at once, the man in charge and the man with the velvet glove.  And he has to do it before millions of people who don't even speak his language.

Finally...

What will be far harder to discern will be what Obama himself is getting out of his trip. As Haass notes, "The real question is what he learns and ultimately incorporates into his thinking."

Well, maybe.  The more real question is whether the trip helps him win the election.  If he doesn't win, only his next-door neighbors will care about his thinking.

I have to say, it will be intriguing to get a taste of Obama abroad.  As noted here yesterday, Michelle is staying home, so the Obama staff will have one less mouth to feed, and to shut.

July 17, 2008.       Permalink               

OUR ALLIES

A new report paints a depressing picture of what's still being taught in Saudi schools, almost seven years after 9-11.  It is issued by the Center for Religious Freedom of Hudson Institute, in consultation with the Institute for Gulf Affairs. 

The report compares current textbooks with those analyzed two years ago.  According to a Hudson statement, the comparison "shows that the same violent and intolerant teachings against other religious believers noted in 2006 remain in the current texts."

They assert that unbelievers, such as Christians, Jews, and Muslims who do not share Wahhabi beliefs and practices, are hated “enemies.” Global jihad as an “effort to wage war against the unbelievers” is also promoted in the Ministry’s textbooks: “In its general usage, ‘jihad’ is divided into the following categories: …Wrestling with the infidels by calling them to the faith and battling against them.” No argument is made here that such references to jihad mean only spiritual and defensive struggles.

Lessons remain that Jews and Christians are apes and swine, Jews conspire to “gain sole control over the world,” the Christian Crusades never ended, the American universities of Cairo and Beirut are part of the continuing Crusades, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are historical fact, and on Judgment Day “the rocks or the trees” will call out to Muslims to kill the Jews.

Gee, and we only teach colorless stories like Washington cutting down the cherry tree.  Where's our imagination?

More:

A lesson from a tenth grade text now posted on the Saudi Ministry’s website sanctions the killing of homosexuals and discusses methods for doing so.

Why is it that those who get all hot and bothered over "don't ask, don't tell" never show the slightest interest in what's taught in the schools of some of our "allies"?

Finally...

Saudi King Abdullah is taking a leading role in interfaith dialogue initiatives, including convening a conference in Madrid later this week. The report notes that the Saudi Education Ministry’s continued teaching of hatred and violence against other religious believers raises concerns about whether the Saudi government has a genuine desire to find common ground with other religions.

Look, they have oil.  It's amazing what we're prepared to overlook for a barrel of oil.

The trouble is, these oil men can kill us.  And the children they teach can kill even more of us.

July 17, 2008.       Permalink