EVENING UPDATE:  APRIL 16, 2008

Posted at 7:20 p.m. ET

THE ITALIAN VOTE

Following up on the important Italian election, just held.  Not only was a pro-American government returned to power, but, as Michael Ledeen points out, some other history was made:

The big news is that the Communists are gone, for the first time since the end of the Second World War. Really gone. They didn't win a single seat in either chamber. A lot of famous faces will vanish from Parliament, and it is even possible, although unlikely, that some of the comrades will be forced to join the working class.

You know, we really should reflect on this.  How will these Reds feel, now that they've been shut out?  I think we know how they'll feel.  They'll feel bitter.  Why, they may turn to guns, or even to religion. 

In fact, I can report on perfect authority that this is why Pope Benedict came to America.  He had to get out of Rome because all the Italian Reds were trying to see him, to complete their turning to religion in their hour of bitterness.  I understand.  Don't you?

We have to feel their pain.  What do we do with all these suddenly unemployed followers of Karl and Josef and Nikolai, and even Jane Fonda?  Do we offer counseling?  Rehabilitation?  Do we throw them out of town?  Send them to San Francisco?

I'm at a loss, and I'm asking for your help.  If you have any ideas about what we should do with the Italian Communists, who are now, as they say, between revolutions, please send them to us at comments@urgentagenda.com.  If we get some good ones, I'll print them.

Help these people. 

April 16, 2008.      Permalink          

THE OBAMA WORLD VIEW

Dan Schnur, who used to be a major staffer for Senator McCain, examines the real problem Obama will face in the general election - the perception of his world view.   Most observers believe that Senator Obama will, barring a miracle, be the nominee, but that the things that didn't stop him in the primaries will become major headaches once he faces the general electorate, and its hefty supply of "values voters":

These voters — known as “the silent majority” in the 1970s, as “Reagan Democrats” in the ’80s, and as “values voters” during the last two election cycles — have long been one of the most sought-after prizes in national elections. But with the exception of the occasional Southerner on the ticket, Democratic presidential candidates and their advisers have been continually vexed by the unwillingness of blue-collar Americans to more reliably vote their economic interests.

In his book “What’s the Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America,” Thomas Frank articulates essentially the same case that Senator Obama has made in recent days. Mr. Frank complains that Republicans have deceived blue-collar Kansans — and their colleagues in other states — into voting against their own economic interests by distracting them into a conversation about traditional values and cultural concerns.

And...

The mistake that Senator Obama and Mr. Frank both make is that they assume that only the values of culturally conservative voters require justification. An environmentally conscious, pro-stem cell bond trader who votes Democratic is lauded for selflessness and open-mindedness. A gun-owning, church-going factory worker who supports Republican candidates, on the other hand, must be the victim of partisan deception. This double standard is at the heart of the Democratic challenge in national elections: rather than diminish these cultural beliefs as a byproduct of economic discomfort, a more experienced and open-minded candidate would recognize and respect the foundations on which these values are based.

Finally...

The current uproar is unlikely to prevent Senator Obama from winning his party’s nomination, although it certainly breathes new life into the Clinton campaign and probably extends the primary battle that much further into the summer. But like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. controversy that preceded it, Senator Obama’s tendency to erect cultural barriers between himself and this critical block of swing voters will become more of an obstacle in a general election campaign.

Well done.  There is, by the way, another article that makes these same points, but it's written by John Judis for the liberal magazine, The New Republic.  The fact that liberal writers are recognizing the same flaw in Obama's approach should wake up the Obama campaign.  That article is here.

April 16, 2008.      Permalink          

ANOTHER "MAY" STORY

Don't they drive you crazy, these "may" stories?  This "may" happen.  On the other hand it "may" not.

It's especially outrageous when science is involved.  So today we have still one more "may" story and it mentions, naturally, global warming.   Must get the sexiness in there:

ScienceDaily (Apr. 16, 2008) — The Earth's jet streams, the high-altitude bands of fast winds that strongly influence the paths of storms and other weather systems, are shifting--possibly in response to global warming. Scientists at the Carnegie Institution determined that over a 23-year span from 1979 to 2001 the jet streams in both hemispheres have risen in altitude and shifted toward the poles. The jet stream in the northern hemisphere has also weakened. These changes fit the predictions of global warming models and have implications for the frequency and intensity of future storms, including hurricanes.

And...

Storm paths in North America are likely to shift northward as a result of the jet stream changes. Hurricanes, whose development tends to be inhibited by jet streams, may become more powerful and more frequent as the jet streams move away from the sub-tropical zones where hurricanes are born.

Yes, they "may" become more powerful.  Or they may not. 

Problem is, just three days ago we ran this story:

One of the most influential scientists behind the theory that global warming has intensified recent hurricane activity says he will reconsider his stand.

The hurricane expert, Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, unveiled a novel technique for predicting future hurricane activity this week. The new work suggests that, even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries.

The research, appearing in the March issue of Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, is all the more remarkable coming from Emanuel, a highly visible leader in his field and long an ardent proponent of a link between global warming and much stronger hurricanes.

His changing views could influence other scientists.

"The results surprised me," Emanuel said of his work, adding that global warming may still play a role in raising the intensity of hurricanes. What that role is, however, remains far from certain.

So "hurricane frequency and intensity 'may' not substantially rise during the next two centuries."

In the immortal words of James Durante, "everybody wants to get into the act."

But remember, Al Gore says you must not dissent, you must not question.  You must leave it to the scientists.

Okay, Al, which scientists?

Be back tomorrow, or later tonight if events warrant or a hurricane strikes.

April 16, 2008.      Permalink          

AFTERNOON POSTINGS:  APRIL 16,  2008

Posted at 3:48 p.m. ET

TRACKERS

The latest national trackers still show the split between Rasmussen and Gallup.  Ras has McCain up five over Obama, whereas Gallup has Obama up three.  An ABC News/Washington Post poll has Obama up five, whereas a Reuters/Zogby survey shows a tie.  Take your choice.

Rasmussen has McCain up a substantial 10 over Clinton, but Gallup has Clinton up two.  ABC/Wash Post has McCain up three.  Reuters/Zogby has him up five.

If there's any trend here, it's that Clinton is weakening against McCain, and Obama is not.  Once again, Obama seems to have weathered a storm, the latest surrounding his San Francisco comments.  It's also true, of course, that the Dems are getting most of the publicity right now.  McCain campaigns, but he's not fighting anyone in his party.

A late PPP tracker, which included yesterday, has Obama up three in Pennsylvania.  However, there are issues of accuracy there.  All other polls, including three that ended the day before, have Clinton in a lead varying from five to 14 points.

Clinton and Obama debate tonight in Pennsylvania.  The vote is Tuesday.   Clinton must win this primary to stay alive. 

A note about national preference polls among Democrats:  All of them show Obama ahead by an average of about nine points or so.  However, one factor that sadly must be considered here is race.  The African-American preference is united around Obama, and that constitutes as much as twenty percent of the overall Democratic vote.  That is going to skew the final result.  A breakdown by race might prove revealing.  In past primaries the African-American vote was more divided. 

Be back later.

April 16, 2008.      Permalink          

WEDNESDAY:  APRIL 16, 2008

Posted at 6:58 a.m. ET

LATEST POLL!

Wait, let me explain. This isn't the latest American poll.  It's the latest poll taken in the Arab world.  Who's up?  Who's down?  Who's Mr. Popularity?  Read on:

Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah is the most popular figure in the Arab world, says a new survey conducted by the University of Maryland and Zogby International.

Syrian President Bashar Assad ranked the second most beloved personality, with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a close third.

According to the study, quoted by the Al-Arab news site, 67% of participants believe that the Iranian nuclear program is "the most positive" development in the Middle East, and it is not seen as a threat.

In contrast, the United States scored low in the survey - 80% of respondents expressed a lack of trust in the country, and US President George Bush scored the most hated person in the Arab world.

Only third, Ahmadinejad?  Only third?  There's image work to be done.

President Bush's opponents will cite polls like this to prove that he has "failed," but think what a poll taken in Nazi Germany in 1944 might have shown about the popularity of President Roosevelt.

Arab civilization is in terrible trouble.  But, as this is being written, college students all over America are going to classes where they're taught that we must not judge, we must not impose our values, and that all cultures are equal.

If they believe that, then we'll be in trouble.  Big trouble.

April 16, 2008.       Permalink          

HILLARY AND THE L-WORD

Continuing with numbers:  The Washington Post has a frank story about the biggest problem facing Hillary Clinton - the perception that she's a liar.  It must be stated as bluntly as that, and it is being bluntly stated by voters:

PHILADELPHIA, April 15 -- Lost in the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign's aggressive attacks on Barack Obama in recent days is a deep and enduring problem that threatens to undercut any inroads Clinton has made in her struggle to overtake him in the Democratic presidential race: She has lost trust among voters, a majority of whom now view her as dishonest.

Her advisers' efforts to deal with the problem -- by having her acknowledge her mistakes and crack self-deprecating jokes -- do not seem to have succeeded. Privately, the aides admit that the recent controversy over her claim to have ducked sniper fire on a trip to Bosnia probably made things worse.

Clinton is viewed as "honest and trustworthy" by just 39 percent of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy. And now, compared with Obama, Clinton has a deep trust deficit among Democrats, trailing him by 23 points as the more honest, an area on which she once led both Obama and John Edwards.

One of the saddest aspects of this campaign is that the deceptive, inadequate Barack Obama has such a damaged opponent.  If he had an opponent of real stature and respect, he would not be on his way to the nomination.  The Democratic primary votes are clearly as much anti-Clinton as pro-Obama.  Maybe that fact will lead to a McCain victory in November.  I certainly hope so.  In the meantime, it's a sad comment on the once-great Democratic Party.

April 16, 2008.       Permalink          

OBAMA'S PEOPLE

Some of the finest reporting on the real Barack Obama is done by Ed Lasky at The American Thinker.  Originally ridiculed for raising questions about the sainted candidate, Ed's concerns have now been fully vindicated.  He refers me to a column at The Weekly Standard that raises even greater concerns, especially about some of the people supporting Barack Obama, and some of those financing him.  A "bundler," by the way, is someone who puts together a number of contributions to send to a candidate.  This is not pleasant:

Cynthia Moy points out that one of Obama's big "bundlers" is Jodie Evans, a radical left co-founder of Code Pink, as well as the Rainforest Action Network, one of whose members is the number-one domestic terrorist organization (as ranked by the FBI), the Earth Liberation Front.  She's also a supporter of Hugo Chavez, and a vocal advocate of the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Apart from that impressive resume, Ms. Evans is also an apologist for Saddam Hussein's regime, who accused the U.S. of running a 'dictatorship' in Iraq, and of targeting Iraqi civilians.

RW: Thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties have been reported. Going up to and during the war, the U.S. claimed to be using all these "smart bombs."

JE: Then why did they hit people's houses? Certainly, you can see that they hit what they wanted to hit....

The American soldiers are like sitting ducks on these turrets with their guns in their hands that some of them even tell you they don't know how to use.  They were in the National Guard and they got one day of training a year--and they're sent off to Baghdad.  They're sitting there shaking, and somebody moves and they start shooting.  So innocent Iraqis are getting shot.  But they didn't even sign up to be in the army.

In that same square where that American soldier was shot buying a soda, three days earlier Americans shot women and children.  The Americans scream these orders in English, and the Iraqis don't understand it, so they start running because they're afraid--and they get shot.  So you're not getting the whole story in the U.S. newspapers.

American soldiers tremble in fear before shooting women and children, and the military uses smart bombs to target civilians.  Is Obama aware of Evans's radical and genuinely anti-American views?  Will he denounce her and her views, and return the money the has raised on his behalf?  Not likely.

But why does Obama seem to attract so many people who think so poorly of the United States?

The McCain camp should make a major issue of Obama's accepting money from people like this.  McCain should demand that Obama return it.  Obama's response would be very interesting.  He either returns it, or he doesn't.  If he doesn't, Americans might just react at the polls.

By the way, I'm fascinated by Jodi Evans's comment that National Guardsmen "didn't even sign up to be in the army."  Their uniforms plainly say "U.S. Army."  This is another example of the utter contempt in which these leftist elitists hold "the little people."  Apparently, Ms. Evans doesn't even think our soldiers can read. 

April 16, 2008.       Permalink          

GERSON ON OBAMA

Michael Gerson was President Bush's chief speech writer, and is one of the most perceptive observers of American politics.  He has a penetrating take on Senator Obama's latest troubles, and he finds them, well, troubling:

He was supposed to be the post-racial candidate. But he has associated himself for decades with a tradition of black liberation that views all of American life through the prism of pigment. His response to criticism on this count has been, in essence: The bitterness of my church is historically understandable but misdirected. You know me. I'm better than that.

Obama was also supposed to be the Democrat who finally "gets" religion, after a series of Democratic presidential candidates who seemed to suffer from a theological disability. But now, in the suddenly indispensable Huffington Post, we learn of Obama's unguarded reflection on Middle American economic anxiety: "It's not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

As for Obama's attempts to explain away his statement:

This is the downside of eloquence and intellect -- a belief that anything can be explained and thus explained away -- a temptation to substitute cleverness for remorse.

And...

Obama's political approach is wearing poorly. Obamaism seems to consist of the belief that the candidate transcends the understandable but confused anger of black and white Americans. And so Obamaism requires an unfavorable comparison of the American people to Obama himself.

This message is inherently prideful: I understand your bitterness and confusion, but I don't reflect it. You know me. I'm better than that.

The problem is: We really don't know Obama very well.

And the more we find out, the more troubling it is.  It is now up to Senator McCain to define Barack Obama.  Thus far, McCain has tried to play the gentleman.  That's fine, up to a point.  We're hovering near that point.

April 16, 2008.       Permalink          

A CRISIS AVOIDED

Finally - and maybe this should have been first because of its importance - a major crisis involving the youth of America is being avoided by quick, intelligent action by astute educators.  You know what I'm talking about.  People have whispered about it for years.  I'm referring, of course, to the permanent damage done by the disgusting, brutal, uncivilized game of tag.

There.  I said it and I'm glad.  Here's the bulletin:

A playground pastime is getting a timeout this spring at a McLean elementary school.

Robyn Hooker, principal of Kent Gardens Elementary School, has told students they may no longer play tag during recess after determining that the game of chasing, dodging and yelling "You're it!" had gotten out of hand. Hooker explained to parents in a letter this month that tag had become a game "of intense aggression."

"You're it!"  How I remember how those words burned.  For years I felt so inadequate because I had so often been "it." 

Can you understand me?  Can you feel my pain?

Naturally, the cruel people are having their say:

The decision has touched off a debate among parents. Some call the restriction an example of overzealous rulemaking that fails to address root problems and undermines children's development; others say it's best to err on the side of caution.

"We are regulating the fun out of normal childhood activity," said Jan van Tol, father of a Kent Gardens sixth-grader. "In our effort to be so overprotective, we are not letting children be children."

But there are the modern, kind-hearted types:

Gerri Swarm, secretary of the school's Parent-Teacher Association, said she was glad the principal was taking seriously student concerns about being pushed or shoved. "In this day and age, you can't dismiss this as something not to worry about," she said.

Like nuclear proliferation.

Feeling very safe, I'll be back later.  I'm no longer "it."

April 16, 2008.       Permalink