EVENING UPDATE:  APRIL 29,  2008

Posted at 7:32 p.m. ET

THE REVEREND'S INTEGRITY

Tom Bevan, at Real Clear Politics, goes beyond the large-enough issue of the Rev. Wright's screwball politics, and dissects his integrity, which seems a mite lacking:

Asked yesterday how he felt about being "uninvited" to give the public invocation at Barack Obama's announcement for president back on February 10 of 2007, Reverend Wright responded:

Oh, I was not invited because that was a political event. Let me say again: I'm his pastor. As a political event, who started it off? Senator Dick Durbin. I started it off downstairs with him, his wife, and children in prayer. That's what pastors do.

So I started it off in prayer. When he went out into the public, that wasn't about prayer. That wasn't about pastor-member. Pastor- member took place downstairs. What took place upstairs was political.

To the contrary, we know, thanks to an interview Wright gave to Jodi Kantor of the New York Times in March 2007, that Wright fully planned on giving the invocation in Springfield before Obama rescinded the offer just hours before the event:

After all, back in January, Mr. Obama had asked Mr. Wright if he would begin the event by delivering a public invocation.

But Mr. Wright said Mr. Obama called him the night before the Feb. 10 announcement and rescinded the invitation to give the invocation.

"Fifteen minutes before Shabbos I get a call from Barack," Mr. Wright said in an interview on Monday, recalling that he was at an interfaith conference at the time. "One of his members had talked him into uninviting me," Mr. Wright said, referring to Mr. Obama's campaign advisers.

Read the whole thing.  There's a whole lotta lyin' goin' around.

April 29, 2008.      Permalink          

REVENUE ENHANCEMENT

There are many uplifting aspects to running for office, but making contributions to the nation - financial contributions - is among the most noble.  Al Franken, the semi-comedian, running for the U.S. Senate in Minnesota, is finding that out:

DFL U.S. Senate candidate Al Franken, frontrunner in the race to unseat Republican U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman, owes $70,000 in back taxes in 17 states, where he earned income going back to 2003.

Franken on Tuesday told the Associated Press that he never intended to avoid paying taxes and that on the advice of his accountant, had paid taxes to the city and state where he lived.

Franken has been under fire since early March, when a Republican operative revealed that Franken had failed to pay workers' compensation and disability premiums for employees of his New York-based corporation, Alan Franken, Inc., between 2002 and 2005.

New York state officials had tried to collect the back premiums for four years, resorting to a collection agency and even filing a summary judgment against Franken in state Supreme Court last May for $25,000.

Franken said he was unaware of the state's numerous attempts to contact him and finally was forced to acknowledge his error and make restitution earlier this month.

Last week, Franken was found to owe the state of California $4,740 for his failure to file corporate tax returns between 2003 and 2007.

Please note that Franken is referred to as the frontrunner.  I wonder what it would take to push him back to number two.  A murder?  A conviction for treason?  Probably an admission that he once voted for Reagan would do it.

Oh, here's a late-breaking update:

ST. PAUL, Minn. - Senate candidate Al Franken, dogged by accusations that he failed to file tax returns in California, said Tuesday he will pay about $70,000 in back income taxes in 17 states going back to 2003.

Most of the income at issue was from speeches and other paid appearances by the comedian-turned candidate, who said he got bad advice from his accountant but takes responsibility for the errors.

That's nice.  I'm sure these were just little accounting errors, mistakes we all make.

Has anyone looked into his spiritual adviser?

April 29, 2008.      Permalink          

OUR PROTECTORS AT WORK

Finally, I give you this, presented straight:

Some federal air marshals have been denied entry to flights they are assigned to protect when their names matched those on the terrorist no-fly list, and the agency says it's now taking steps to make sure their agents are allowed to board in the future.

The problem with federal air marshals (FAM) names matching those of suspected terrorists on the no-fly list has persisted for years, say air marshals familiar with the situation.

One air marshal said it has been “a major problem, where guys are denied boarding by the airline.”

“In some cases, planes have departed without any coverage because the airline employees were adamant they would not fly,” the air marshal said. “I've seen guys actually being denied boarding.”

A second air marshal says one agent “has been getting harassed for six years because his exact name is on the no-fly list.”

Six years.  The government is sure working on this.  Studying the problem.  Evaluating solutions.  Crunching the numbers.  Weighing options.  Consulting with experts. 

Feel safer now?

Be back tomorrow, or later tonight if events warrant.  Happy flying.

April 29, 2008.      Permalink          

LATE AFTERNOON POSTING:  APRIL 29,  2008

Posted at 5:33 p.m. ET

POLLS

For the Democratic nomination, there's virtually no change since yesterday.  Rasmussen has Obama up eight over Clinton, but Gallup has Clinton up one over Obama.  Gallup reports:

This marks the fifth consecutive Gallup Poll Daily tracking report in which the two Democratic candidates have been within a point of one another, as well as one of the few times in recent months in which the race has stabilized at the break-even point for more than a day or two. From a broad perspective, this situation marks a loss for Obama, who has generally been in the lead over Clinton for the last month. At the same time, Clinton -- coming off of her victory in the Pennsylvania primary, and almost certainly benefiting from the news media focus on controversies surrounding Obama -- has been unable to move into a significant lead.

A late PPP poll has Clinton up eight in Indiana.  Another poll yesterday had her up nine.  She seems to have a solid lead in the state.  A knowledgeable Indianan e-mailed me that, based on history, she'll probably do better in the vote than in the polling.

As reported earlier, a new North Carolina poll has Obama up only five.  If accurate, and that's a big "if," it is trouble for him.  Survey USA reports:

In North Carolina, Clinton Closes To Within 5 Of Obama: In a Democratic Primary in North Carolina today, 04/29/08, one week till votes are counted, the 10-point lead that Barack Obama has had for two months is halved, to now 5 points, Obama 49%, Clinton 44%, according to SurveyUSA's 7th tracking poll, conducted exclusively for WTVD-TV Raleigh. In SurveyUSA last four polls, over the past two months, Obama has led by 10, 8, 10, and 9 points. Today: 5. White voters are key. Since January, Clinton had led among Carolina whites by 14, 19, 17, 22 and 23 points. But today, suddenly: 31. In the Research Triangle, Clinton is up 9 points, week-on-week; Obama is down 3; a net swing of 12 points to Clinton. Among unaffiliated voters, Clinton has overtaken Obama for the first time in 2008, though the difference is small and within the sub-group's margin of sampling error. The two tie among Moderates. Obama leads slightly among Liberals. Clinton leads slightly among Conservatives.

In national trackers, Rasmussen has Obama up two over McCain.  For some reason, the Gallup tracker has not yet been posted.  Rasmussen has Clinton one up over McCain, but Gallup has Clinton ahead by two. 

This next week will be remarkable politically.  North Carolina and Indiana vote a week from today.  Unless there's a surprise, Indiana should go to Clinton.  North Carolina, presumed safe for Obama, may - I stress, may - suddenly be in play.  A Clinton upset, or even a close loss, could be traumatic for the Obama campaign. 

April 29, 2008.      Permalink          

MID-AFTERNOON POSTING:  APRIL 29, 2008

Posted at 3:31 p.m. ET

OBAMA CRITICAL CARE

Obama has begun major damage control over the Wright controversy, as a new poll shows him losing support in North Carolina, which votes a week from today:

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. (AP) - Democrat Barack Obama said Tuesday he was outraged and appalled by the latest comments from his former pastor, who asserted that criticism of his fiery sermons is an attack on the black church and the U.S. government was responsible for the creation of the AIDS virus.

The presidential candidate is seeking to tamp down the growing fury over Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his incendiary remarks that threaten to undermine his campaign.

"I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday," Obama told reporters at a news conference.

Well, okay, but how outraged could he be when similar Wright comments have been around for a long time?  And then there's this:

Obama told reporters Tuesday that Wright's comments do not accurately portray the perspective of the black church.

"The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago," Obama said of the man who married him.

Oh come on.  It's now known that Obama refused to have Wright join him when he announced for the presidency because he knew how incendiary Wright was.  What is Obama saying now?  "Jeremiah, I hardly knew ye..." 

This may or may not fly.  Obama also said this:

Obama said he didn't vet his pastor before deciding to seek the presidency. He said he was particularly distressed that the furor has been a distraction to the purpose of a campaign.

But he did vet his pastor.  That's why he wouldn't let him close to the campaign. 

And Obama still doesn't get it.  This isn't a distraction.  It goes to Obama's judgment, his beliefs, and how he's chosen to conduct himself.  Americans vote for the person, not only the policies.  Many voters who disagreed with Ronald Reagan's policies voted for him because they liked and trusted him. 

This controversy will not go away.

BULLETIN:  A new Survey USA poll shows Obama's lead in North Carolina cut to five points.  The governor endorsed Clinton this morning, and the governor knows his state.  More on this later.

April 29, 2008.      Permalink          

EARLY AFTERNOON POSTING:  APRIL 29,  2008

Posted at 1:14 p.m. ET

NORTH CAROLINA

A new Rasmussen poll, just up, has Obama leading in North Carolina by 14 points.    Another poll, published yesterday, had him up 12.  This is blowout territory, made possible by two factors:  First, the African-American vote in the state is reported to be more than a third of the total Democratic vote.  Second, there are large academic centers in the state where voting for Obama is the equivalent of a communion with God. 

However, the popular governor of North Carolina has just endorsed Senator Clinton.  The Politico has an analysis of what it could mean:

North Carolina Governor Mike Easley's scheduled endorsement of Senator Hillary Clinton today offers her a potent symbolic and electoral boost in the biggest state left to vote.

Easley is a meaningful ally in the culture war she's waging against Senator Barack Obama, as she seeks to cast him as a hopelessly unelectable liberal elitist and to persuade the Democratic Party leaders who will decide the nomination – the "superdelegates" – to choose her instead.

"It’s an incredibly strong endorsement because Easley is popular among the blue collar 'Bubba' voters who are Democrats," said David "Mudcat" Saunders, a Democratic consultant who advised former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner on winning rural voters.

And...

Huge deal," Clinton's North Carolina director, Ace Smith, told Politico.

Smith, sticking with the campaign’s official line, said that if Clinton could keep the margin within 15 percentage points — she currently trails Obama by 12 percent in an average of polls – she'd have won a victory.

But other Clinton backers were more optimistic, saying Clinton had a shot at the definition of victory she set for Obama in Pennsylvania: Victory.

"The governor clearly feels she can now pull this out," said a prominent Clinton supporter. "He's not doing it to be embarrassed in his own state. Governors don't endorse for number two."

Easley doesn't bring the kind of field organization or financial base that Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell gave Clinton's Pennsylvania campaign, but he does carry a popular name and a symbolic validation of her central argument: That she, better than Obama, connects with the working-class white people who are traditional swing voters.

Well, we'll see.  It's been pointed out that Easley originally supported John Edwards for the Democratic nomination, and that clearly didn't work out. 

April 29, 2008.      Permalink          

TUESDAY:  APRIL 29, 2008

Posted at 6:58 a.m ET

OBAMA'S MESS

When I was a student at the University of Chicago I took a course in "pressure groups," what today are more politely called "special-interest groups."  The instructor, Kermit Eby, was an ordained minister who'd spent serious time in labor politics.  He used to quote the religious invocation, "Protect me O Lord from those who would protect me."  I don't recall the origin of that line.  Readers, please help. 

I thought of Kermit Eby while watching the latest Barack Obama derailment, caused by the renewed presence of super-ego Reverend Jeremiah Wright Jr.  This man was Obama's mentor.  Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope," came from a Wright sermon.  We now know that Obama prayed with Wright when Obama announced for the presidency, although Wright was not permitted to participate in that ceremony because, even then, Obama knew he was too hot.  Wright, as spiritual mentor, was Obama's protector.

Now Wright is Obama's worst nightmare, and Obama needs protection from his protector.  He will not get it.  Every time Wright opens his mouth, the press will be there.  Well, part of it will.  Talk radio will. 

Wright is not necessarily fatal to Obama, but he's no plus.  Democratic professionals know that he'll come up again in the fall campaign.  What Obama must do is finally separate himself from Wright, resign from his church, and make clear his mistake in staying too long.  Will he do it?  I doubt it, because there might be a severe backlash from elements of the black community.  Isn't it remarkable that the man who ran for president to transcend race now becomes a prisoner of race?  Further, there are important blocs on the political left who have no problem at all with Wright, and believe his anti-American sermons are just fine.

Obama is hoping to run out the clock in the race for the Democratic nomination, and probably will succeed.  The party is horribly split, but enough Democrats want to nominate Obama to have their sixties dream, and enough others are intimidated by threats of black defections, to probably give him the nomination.  He will emerge, though, not as the unity candidate, but as a wounded, polarizing figure - exactly what he wanted to avoid.

April 29, 2008.      Permalink          

AP/IPSOS

The latest AP/Ipsos poll, just out, shows what is happening to Obama's campaign.  In the race for the Democratic nomination, it has Obama up by only three over Clinton, and this despite overwhelming African-American support.  In the general, AP Ipsos is stunning:  Obama defeats McCain by three points, but Clinton beats McCain by nine. 

Senator Clinton, no favorite here, has found her voice, and is now running a competent campaign, although chock full of Clintonesque cynicism.  The team of Clinton and Wright is pushing Obama to the wall.

April 29, 2008.      Permalink          

SOWELL

Thomas Sowell, the African-American commentator, is one of our great public intellectuals.  Today he analyzes the Obama situation, and holds nothing back:

There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president -- especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans.

Many people seem to regard elections as occasions for venting emotions, like cheering for your favorite team or choosing a Homecoming Queen.

And...

Barack Obama has already indicated that he wants judges who make social policy instead of just applying the law. He has already tried to stop young violent criminals from being tried as adults.

Although Senator Obama has presented himself as the candidate of new things -- using the mantra of "change" endlessly -- the cold fact is that virtually everything has says about domestic policy is straight out of the 1960s and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is straight out of the 1930s.

Protecting criminals, attacking business, increasing government spending, promoting a sense of envy and grievance, raising taxes on people who are productive and subsidizing those who are not -- all this is a re-run of the 1960s.

Finally...

Internationally, the approach that Senator Obama proposes -- including the media magic of meetings between heads of state -- was tried during the 1930s. That approach, in the name of peace, is what led to the most catastrophic war in human history.

Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it.

Senator McCain, please take notes.  That's the best summary of the case against Obama that I've read.  You should run, Senator, as previously argued in this space, as the candidate of the future, portraying Obama as the candidate of the past, and of past failures.

April 29, 2008.      Permalink          

THE POLITICAL TIME BOMB

The price of gasoline, that is.  With some experts speculating that the price could go to ten bucks a gallon - an economic catastrophe for Americans, and a threat to our sovereignty - the presidential candidates are weighing in.  Here again, Senator Obama seems to have a tin ear, although Clinton's is pretty tinny as well:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton lined up with Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, in endorsing a plan to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for the summer travel season. But Senator Barack Obama, Mrs. Clinton’s Democratic rival, spoke out firmly against the proposal, saying it would save consumers little and do nothing to curtail oil consumption and imports.

While Mr. Obama’s view is shared by environmentalists and many independent energy analysts, his position allowed Mrs. Clinton to draw a contrast with her opponent in appealing to the hard-hit middle-class families and older Americans who have proven to be the bedrock of her support. She has accused Mr. Obama of being out of touch with ordinary Americans who are struggling to meet their mortgages and gas up their cars and trucks.

The needle on the cynicism meter is stuck way at the right on this one.  This is a gathering national crisis, yet it's being nickel-and-dimed.  At least, though, Clinton seems to understand the politics of the thing, as does McCain.

At the same time, our overseas oil suppliers are building enormous cash reserves, and that cash will be well spent buying influence in the United States, something the Saudis have done expertly, and under the radar, for years.  Don't be shocked if you soon see a Hugo Chavez professor of Latin American Studies at Berkeley.  The smiling Chavez will hang on the professor's wall.

Sure, we need more efficient forms of energy, but cars run on gasoline, and homes run on home heating oil.  How about some common sense.  We've got to drill on an emergency basis - it can be done with respect for the environment - and we've got to refine.  We go back to World War II to understand that, when this country focuses, it can achieve remarkable things in very little time.  We seem to have lost that focus, and the will to win. 

The price of gas is the ticking time bomb in this election year.

April 29, 2008.      Permalink          

IN THE REAL WORLD

Washington's confirmation last week that Israel hit a partially constructed nuclear reactor in Syria in its September 6th raid, came and went.  Ho hum.  More scares from the neocons, from BUSH.  ("Bush lied, thousands died!")  It was a story for a day or two, but has faded.

Now, though, CIA director Michael Hayden has a stark follow-up:

CIA Director Michael Hayden said Monday the alleged Syrian nuclear reactor destroyed by an IAF air strike in September would have produced enough plutonium for one or two bombs within a year of becoming operational.

US intelligence and administration officials publicly disclosed last week their assessment that Syria was building a covert nuclear reactor with North Korean assistance. They said it was modeled on the shuttered North Korean reactor at Yongbyon, which produced a small amount of plutonium, and was within weeks or months of being operational.

"In the course of a year after they got full up they would have produced enough plutonium for one or two weapons," Hayden told reporters after a speech at Georgetown University.

All right, class, a question:  What does this say about the Iranian nuclear program?  Yes, they're different programs and different countries, but the Iranian program is, by common consent, vastly larger.  Yet, most Americans - especially those in the mainstream media - not only are sleep, but look for every chance to downplay the Iranian threat.

This is another ticking time bomb.  Unlike the political one, this one goes off.

April 29, 2008.      Permalink