EVENING UPDATE:  APRIL 21,  2008

Posted at 7:28 p.m. ET

A DIFFERENT KIND OF POLL

Speaking of polls, here's a new one that ought to concern you.  Maybe we should all send copies to Jimmah Carter, who could use material like this:

The number of Palestinians who support attacks against Israelis continues to rise and more than half of them favor suicide bombings, according to a poll published this weekend.

The survey also showed that Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh is still more popular than Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

The percentage of Palestinians who support "resistance operations" against Israeli targets rose from 43.1 percent in September 2006 to 49.5% at present. Support for this option was highest in the Gaza Strip, at 58.1%, with 24.5% in the West Bank agreeing.

Palestinians who support bombing attacks against Israeli civilians rose from 44.8% in June 2006 to 48% in September 2006 and to 50.7% now.

Again, more Gazans support these operations (65.1%), compared with 42.3% of Palestinians in the West Bank.

The Palestinian public is divided on the rocket attacks on Israel: 39.3% said the firing of these rockets was "useful" to Palestinian national interests, while 35.7% said they were harmful.

And get this...

The poll, conducted by the Jerusalem Media & Communications Center, covered 1,190 Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip and has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

I wonder how they determine the margin of error when many of the respondents are ruled by Hamas, and are probably afraid for their lives to say something wrong.

As for the results:  The Palestinians have messed up everything for 60 years, and seem determined to carry on the tradition.

April 21, 2008.      Permalink          

THE SEETHING ISSUE

I think I've heard "gas prices" more than any other phrase in the last two weeks. The problem is getting worse and worse, and we can wonder when it will engulf the presidential candidates, and what they'll propose.  Here are the basics:

Oil jumped to a record on Monday, and gasoline prices rose above $3.50 a gallon for the first time across the nation, according to AAA, the automotive group, as fears about energy supplies and a falling dollar drove prices to new records.

Gasoline has risen 22 percent in the last year, and some analysts expect prices close to $4 a gallon this summer, typically the time of the year when demand is at a peak.

Diesel prices reached $4.20 a gallon on Monday, on average, compared with $2.93 a gallon last year, according to AAA.

Despite a slackening global economy, the bull market in energy prices is showing no signs of slowing. Oil futures closed at $117.48 a barrel on Monday, up 88 cents, a record on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Oil prices have more than quadrupled in five years.

Some analysts expect oil prices to reach $125 a barrel this year.

This is one of those issues that can disrupt the entire fall campaign.  If I were John McCain, I'd be developing an emergency plan that brings relief quickly, and then try to get it through the Democratic Congress.  Nothing like nailing them.

April 21, 2008.      Permalink          

SUMMING UP PENNSYLVANIA

John McIntyre, co-founder and president of Real Clear Politics, an indispensable website for the politically smitten, has an excellent, quick summary of the meaning of tomorrow's Pennsylvania vote to the Democratic race:

--Obama wins: Race is totally over.

--Clinton wins by 5 or less: Race is effectively over.

--Clinton wins by 6-9: Status quo, which favors the front runner Obama, particularly as the clock winds down.

--Clinton wins by 10-13: Clinton remains the underdog, but her odds of being the nominee will be considerably higher than the conventional wisdom in the media.

--Clinton wins by 14+: Totally different race, as Clinton will be on a path to claim a popular vote win that will give her every bit as much of an argument as the legitimate "winner". In this scenario anything could ultimately happen, including neither Clinton nor Obama becoming the eventual nominee.

I'm inclined to agree with that sharp assessment, although I really don't think the nomination will fall to anyone other than Obama or Clinton. 

And yet...Carter is in the news.

Just kidding.  Stay calm.

I'll be back tomorrow for a big political day, but I may post something later tonight if there's a late story.

April 21, 2008.      Permalink          

MID-AFTERNOON POSTINGS:  APRIL 21,  2008

Posted at 4:49 p.m. ET

THE LATEST NUMBERS

The Clinton campaign is now denying that it has an internal poll showing her 11 points ahead.  Maybe they do, maybe they don't.  I can understand why they'd want to deny it. Why let people become overconfident?

We're emphasizing polls today, not because they're necessarily predictive, but because they're fun.  The campaigns in Pennsylvania are wrapping up.  Nothing shocking is being said. 

There are a variety of reports that the Clinton side is running low on money, which is undoubtedly true.  One of the phenomenal things in this campaign is the money gusher flowing toward Barack Obama, an untested, inexperienced and contradictory man.  Yet, I have not seen a single good story tracing the origins of this cash.  I'd love to see it. I suspect that now that Obama has revealed himself to be a snob who looks down on people who go to church or own guns, the money flow will only increase.  It's the march of the "good people," the ones who truly understand how other people should live their lives.  They're the ones they've been waiting for.  And they've got the bank accounts to back up their dreams.

Obama seems to have rebounded a bit in national trackers matching him against Clinton for the Democratic nomination.  Gallup has Obama up seven, Rasmussen has him up five.

Since midday, more Pennsylvania polls have been posted, boosting Clinton's  RCP (Real Clear Politics) average to about six points.  That is not spectacular, but if she can add a few points through turnout and the effectiveness of Governor Ed Rendell's political operation, she should be able to go on - if money comes in.

National matchups have McCain beating Obama by five in the Rasmussen poll.  Gallup has a tie.

Rasmussen has McCain defeating Clinton by five, but Gallup has McCain up one.  What impresses here is Clinton's resilience in national general-election polls.  If she hadn't run such an awful campaign, her numbers would probably have been higher.

April 21, 2008.      Permalink          

EARLY AFTERNOON POSTING:  APRIL 21,  2008

Posted at 12:46 p.m. ET

HILLARY INTERNAL POLL

Take it for what it's worth:  Drudge is reporting that Clinton's internal polling points to an 11-point victory in Pennsylvania tomorrow:

Controlled excitement is building inside of Clinton's inner circle as closely guarded internal polling shows the former first lady with an 11-point lead in Pennsylvania!

Clinton is polling near to nearly 2 to 1 over Obama in many regions of the state, a top insider explained to the DRUDGE REPORT.

A strong coalition of middle-class and religious voters has all but secured a Clinton victory Tuesday, with headline-making margins, the campaign believes.

"It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of how much," a senior campaign source said Monday morning.

When pressed if the dramatic internal polling numbers could somehow be flawed in a state as demographically complex as Pennsylvania, and with new voter registration surging to unseen levels, the campaign insider held firm.

"Senator Obama would be wise not to unpack his bags quite yet."

I'm simply passing it on.  The reliability of this poll will be confirmed or denied in 24 hours by actual voters.

April 21, 2008.      Permalink          

ADDITIONAL MORNING POSTING:  APRIL 21,  2008

Posted at 11:03 a.m. ET

NEW LATE POLLS

Several new Pennsylvania polls have now been posted, all of them taken through yesterday. They show, according to Real Clear Politics, an average Clinton lead of 5.3 percent.  That's enough to win, obviously, but not enough to impress greatly.  However, if there's a last-minute trend toward Clinton, she should pick up a few more points today.  That's theoretical, of course.  The poll we reported in the next story down has Clinton with the largest lead, ten points.  But another poll has her at three. 

So everyone is predicting a Clinton win, with the averages pointing to a respectable, but not remarkable victory.  Tomorrow night, this will all be history, and we'll see if the Democratic Party is in any better shape.

April 21, 2008.      Permalink          

MONDAY:  APRIL 21,  2008

Posted at 6:58 a.m. ET

LATE POLL

A last-minute poll shows a break toward Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is pulling away from her rival Sen. Barack Obama in a poll of likely voters in Tuesday's Pennsylvania Democratic presidential primary, a latest poll completed late Sunday shows.

Mrs. Clinton of New York leads Mr. Obama of Illinois by 10 percentage points - the largest lead between the two candidates in any poll in Pennsylvania in the past week. The poll was conducted by David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center.

When asked whom they would vote for in November if their candidate - Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama - isn't the Democratic nominee, 20 percent of likely Pennsylvania Democratic primary voters in the poll said they would vote for Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee. Four percent said they would vote for third party candidate Ralph Nader, the poll shows.

Fascinating, but we'll know the truth Tuesday night.  If this poll is accurate, it mirrors what we've seen in earlier primaries in industrial states.

April 21, 2008.      Permalink          

THE SUPERS

The role of the superdelegates will be critical in the Democratic Party in the weeks to come.  Theoretically, superdelegates - public officials, party elders, bigwigs and wise men - are there to prevent the party from driving over a cliff, which it's done regularly since choosing George McGovern as its nominee in 1972.  But some, especially in the Obama camp, argue that the supers should just follow the will of the voters in their regions. 

Question:  If that's all they do, why have them?  A messenger service can do that.

Now The New York Sun reports, based on AP research, that many of the supers are starting to assert themselves.

WASHINGTON — Many of the Democratic superdelegates who are still undecided say the most important factor in their decision is simple, they just want a winner in November.

Problem is, after nearly four months of primaries and caucuses in 46 states, territories, and the District of Columbia, they still aren’t sure who that is, don’t seem be in any hurry to make up their minds, and aren’t interested in any artificial process that might force them to choose between senators Obama and Clinton.

Most of the more than 100 undecided superdelegates who discussed their decision-making with the Associated Press in the past two weeks agreed that the primaries and caucuses do matter, whether it’s who has the most national delegates or the candidate who won their state or congressional district. But few said the primaries will be the biggest factor in their decision.

“I think it’s really important that we keep our eye on the prize, and the prize is the win in November,” an undecided superdelegate from Oregon, Gail Rasmussen, said.

That’s good news for Ms. Clinton, who cannot catch Mr. Obama in delegates won in the few remaining primaries and caucuses.

They key, though, is Senator Clinton's performance tomorrow in Pennsylvania.  If she can make a convincing case, the assertive supers can turn this into a real race, maybe even one that will go to the convention.  If she can't, it's done.

I'd love to see a good fight, right on the convention floor.  I mean, who wants to go to one of those summer teenage movies?

April 21, 2008.      Permalink          

MORE FROM BARONE

Michael Barone, who probably knows more about American politics than almost anyone, examines the political role of the state of Pennsylvania, which votes tomorrow.  It turns out it's rarely been in the spotlight:

The truth is that Pennsylvania, long the second most populous state and still number six, has been punching below its weight in presidential politics for a long time. Its only president, James Buchanan, presided over the breakup of the Union. He is widely regarded – outside precincts heavily afflicted by Bush Derangement Syndrome – as our worst president.

And...

Politically, Pennsylvanians over the past 40 years have tended to be liberal on economic issues (favoring big government) and conservative on cultural issues. That leaves it closely divided between the two parties but at odds with the national trend, and the trend of the Democratic Party (at least in Bill Clinton's years as president) toward more conservative economics and liberal culture.

And...

Mrs. Clinton will claim that her primary victory (if it turns out to be that) in the nation's sixth largest state shows that she is the choice of the people – especially the white working class which has been the bedrock constituency of the Democratic Party since the 1930s. But the white working class is steadily declining as a Democratic constituency.

The demographic composition of the Pennsylvania electorate, which makes it more typical of the America of the 1950s than the America of today, means that its precedential value is limited to its 21 electoral votes (down from its peak of 38 in 1912-1928).

Pennsylvanians have kept quiet during most of our history. But they will make some noise when they vote tomorrow – and may make more difference than they have since the days of James Buchanan and Benjamin Franklin.

It's a treat to get this kind of thorough, informed background report.  The whole piece is well worth it, especially if you plan to follow the vote in Pennsylvania closely.

April 21, 2008.      Permalink          

PROBING IRAN

Although we're engaged in our election campaign, let's not take our eye off the international ball.  A high-ranking inspector is back in Iran, and the Iranians are objecting rather loudly:

The UN nuclear agency's deputy chief arrived in Teheran on Monday for talks with Iranian officials about persistent allegations that the Islamic republic is running a covert nuclear weapons program, the official IRNA news agency reported.

IAEA Deputy Director-General Olli Heinonen's discussions Monday with Iranian officials are expected to focus on allegations that Iran is testing powerful explosives and seeking to design a missile re-entry vehicle,two features which could have use for nuclear weapons.

Iran dismisses as "fabricated" the allegations raised by US intelligence agencies and insists its nuclear program is purely peaceful and geared solely toward producing electricity. The United States and some of its allies contend that Teheran has been trying to gain nuclear weapons capability.

A prominent Iranian hard-liner and aide to Iran's top spiritual leader denounced his government for hosting Heinonen, saying the trip was part of a "joint US-Israeli trick" aimed at strengthening allegations that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.

Not to worry.  Saint Barack will lay on hands and end the Iranian nuclear program.  It's that easy.

Not.

April 21, 2008.      Permalink          

MERELY SELF DEFENSE

Finally, a legal story.  It's called the Milkshake Murder Case, and it's going on in Hong Kong.  Just read this. It makes us realize that some marriages just weren't meant to be.  Counseling was needed here.  Just some counseling:

HONG KONG (AP) -- An American woman who gave her husband a strawberry milkshake spiked with drugs before beating him to death was only trying to defend herself from the baseball bat-wielding man in their luxury flat in Hong Kong, a defense attorney said Monday.

The defendant, Nancy Kissel, has spent the past week trying to appeal the 2005 verdict that got her sentenced to life for what's widely known in Hong Kong as the ''milkshake murder.'' The case has made headlines here because it provided a glimpse into a wealthy expatriate world of summer houses, sexual affairs and alleged drug and alcohol abuse.

Kissel has said she struck her investment banker husband, Robert, with a metal ornament when he was attacking her with a baseball bat in 2003. Her lawyer, Gerard McCoy, said Monday evidence of the bat was left on the metal ornament, which had been ''distorted and damaged by a cylindrical shape object.''

McCoy argued the judge in the original trial failed to fully address the self-defense argument when he summed up the case for the jury.

''The jury had to hear the defense case coherently and comprehensively put by the judge,'' McCoy said on the sixth day of the appeal.

Now wait.  She was defending herself, but earlier gave her husband a milkshake spiked with drugs?  You mean, she knew he was about to attack?  She just knew this?

I have an idea.  Sentence her to probation and make her head of the CIA.  We can use predictions like that.

Not really.

There's a lot going on politically.  I'll be back later.

April 21, 2008.      Permalink