EVENING UPDATE:  MAY 5,  2008

Posted at 7:33 p.m. ET

SHE'S A BIRD, SHE'S A PLANE, SHE'S...

Hillary Clinton is now threatening to smash OPEC.  How?  Well, she doesn't exactly say, but I have to admit that the rhetoric is satisfying.  Ben Smith at The Politico:

Clinton's attacks on oil prices as artificially inflated, Enron-style, keep escalating, and today she appeared to threaten to break up the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

"We’re going to go right at OPEC," she said. "They can no longer be a cartel, a monopoly that get together once every couple of months in some conference room in some plush place in the world, they decide how much oil they’re going to produce and what price they’re going to put it at," she told a crowd at a firehouse in Merrillville, IN.

"That’s not a market. That’s a monopoly," she said, saying she'd use anti-trust law and the World Trade Organization to take on OPEC.

Clinton has cast herself as a warrior for working people against the oil industry and malicious "speculators," and made that -- along with her push for a gas tax holiday -- central to her closing message in Indiana.

It's a potent message, like the attack on "Wall Street money brokers," with deep roots in American politics. It's also very hard to figure out what exactly she means by the threat to break OPEC.

Smith, in an update, reports:  "The Obama campaign points out that Clinton has not signed on to cosponsor a bill that aspires 'to make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal.'"

Details.  Endless details.

But the fact is, as Smith notes, that this kind of talk has deep roots in American politics.  It can be effective, although it was odd to hear a New York senator attack Wall Street.

May 5, 2008.      Permalink          

THE SMOKING WIFE

Christopher Hitchens examines the case of Michelle Obama.   As I've written here, I think she's the smoking gun of the Obama campaign, from whom many problems will flow.  After noting the horror of Reverend Wright and his impact on the Obama campaign, Hitchens asks:

What can it be that has kept Obama in Wright's pews, and at Wright's mercy, for so long and at such a heavy cost to his aspirations? Even if he pulls off a mathematical nomination victory, he has completely lost the first, fine, careless rapture of a post-racial and post-resentment political movement and mired us again in all the old rubbish that predates Dr. King. What a sad thing to behold. And how come?

Hitchens goes on:

Could it possibly have anything, I wonder, to do with Mrs. Obama?

This obvious question is now becoming inescapable, and there is an inexcusable unwillingness among reporters to be the one to ask it.

Hitchens asks, to his credit:

I direct your attention to Mrs. Obama's 1985 thesis at Princeton University. Its title (rather limited in scope, given the author and the campus) is "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community." To describe it as hard to read would be a mistake; the thesis cannot be "read" at all, in the strict sense of the verb. This is because it wasn't written in any known language. Anyway, at quite an early stage in the text, Michelle Obama announces that she's much influenced by the definition of black "separationism" offered by Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton in their 1967 screed Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America. I remember poor Stokely Carmichael quite well. After a hideous series of political and personal fiascos, he fled to Africa, renamed himself Kwame Toure after two of West Africa's most repellently failed dictators, and then came briefly back to the United States before electing to die in exile. I last saw him as the warm-up speaker for Louis Farrakhan in Madison Square Garden in 1985, on the evening when Farrakhan made himself famous by warning Jews, "You can't say 'Never Again' to God, because when he puts you in the ovens, you're there forever." I have the distinct feeling that the Obama campaign can't go on much longer without an answer to the question: "Are we getting two for one?" And don't be giving me any grief about asking this. Black Americans used to think that the Clinton twosome was their best friend, too. This time we should find out before it's too late to ask.

Yes we should!  But what reporter for a major news organization will ask the question and risk the threats? 

I'm glad Hitchens brought this up.  It has been a buzz for some time, especially given Michelle Obama's weird statements about never being proud of her country, or her description of America today as a mean place, or her assertion that, despite a huge income, she can't find money for piano lessons for the kids.

I've heard Michelle Obama speak a number of times.  I've always had an uneasy feeling that, as Johnny Carson used to say, she has a couple of shingles missing.  Hitchens is right.  We'd better find out before it's too late to ask.

May 5, 2008.       Permalink          

EARLY EVENING POSTING:  MAY 5,  2008

Posted at 6:04 p.m. ET

LATEST POLLS

Some late state polls have just been posted.  Survey USA has Obama up five over Clinton in North Carolina, not a great showing.  Three of the four polls posted today have Obama leading by single digits in a state where an Obama blowout had been expected only weeks ago.  Also, Obama often polls better than the final voting result, so this can be interesting.

In Indiana, an Insider Advantage poll has Clinton up only four, and a PPP poll has her up five.  Those are not staggering leads, and an upset is always possible.

Please note that late deciders have leaned toward Clinton in the last days before the vote. 

Voting is tomorrow. 

May 5, 2008.      Permalink          

EARLY AFTERNOON POSTING:  MAY 5, 2008

Posted at 2:18 p.m.

POLLS

There are some new polls just in for North Carolina and Indiana. Insider Advantage has Obama up only three in N.C., Zogby has him up eight, and the latest listing, PPP, has him up ten.  That's an average of seven.  If Obama falls under five in the actual vote, that's a poor performance in a state where African Americans make up more than a third of the Democratic vote.

In Indiana, the new Survey USA poll has Clinton up 12, but Norfolk has her up six, and Zogby has her trailing Obama by two.  That averages a Clinton lead of just over five points, not spectacular, but enough to be respectable if it holds up through the actual vote.

Both Indiana and North Carolina have the potential for upsets. 

For the Democratic nomination, Rasmussen has Obama up one over Clinton, but Gallup has him up five.  Again, no blowout.

In the general, both Ras and Gallup have McCain up four against Obama. 

Rasmussen has Clinton up four against McCain, whereas Gallup has a tie.

Once again, and it cannot be denied, the polling trend shows Senator Clinton's remarkable resilience, at least in the Ras and Gallup trackers.  For a presumed frontrunner for his party's nomination, Obama doesn't have many bragging rights.

There may be more Indiana and North Carolina polls published later in the day, or early tomorrow.

May 5, 2008.      Permalink          

MONDAY:  MAY 5,  2008

Posted at 6:36 p.m.

ENDORSEMENT

It was expected that the Charlotte Observer, North Carolina's largest newspaper, would endorse Barack Obama.  But rarely have I read an endorsement so adolescent in its argument and pathetic in its execution.  The paper should be convicted of rhetorical malpractice, and its editors forced to listen to hip-hop lyrics for seven hours straight.  Among the exciting and novel arguments brought forth in this mighty essay, are these:

As to Sen. Obama, he's one of the most powerful, effective speakers to seek the presidency in years.

Irving Berlin said it better:  "There's no business like show business."  It goes on:

Experience is important, but it's no substitute for good judgment and the ability to assemble and wisely use capable advisers.

Good judgment, right.  Like getting involved with an America-hating pastor and a couple of vets from the Weather Underground.  Advisers?  Are we talking Samantha Power?  Or the adviser who told a Canadian diplomat that Obama didn't really mean it on NAFTA?  Or the illustrious Zbig Brzezinski, Jimmah Carter's national security guy?  What a magnificent corps.

And the Observer observes:

Sen. Obama is a man of uncommon intelligence. He's a graduate of Columbia University with a law degree from Harvard, where he was editor of the law review.

Oh, I'm so excited.  I think he'd be such a wonderful president...of the senior class. 

Look, when are these editorialists going to learn that where you went to school means zilch.  Lincoln had almost no schooling.  Truman never went to college.  Reagan went to some obscure school not known outside its neighborhood.  The Ivy League produced...well, there's John Kerry.

But the argument builds and builds:

Nominating Sen. Obama would send a powerful message to the world. He's the son of a white mother from Kansas and an absent father from Kenya. His personal story would make it plain that America is changing for the better.

Oh, there's the catch.  We have to vote for him to show that we're changing for the better, in the opinion of the perfect humans who run the Charlotte Observer. 

That is complete rot.  If Obama becomes president it will make a positive difference - for about three months.  But does anyone seriously think that the gents who run Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia really care about the color of the American president?  They care about his policies and his checkbook. 

Other than the president, the most visible American to foreigners is the secretary of state.  Did Colin Powell's race make any difference to anyone?  How about the color, and personal story, of Condi Rice?  I can just see Bin Laden saying to one of his crazies, "Oh, by Allah, we cannot attack the Americans because a person of color sits in what the infidels call the Oval Office." 

Not a convincing endorsement.

May 5, 2008.      Permalink          

OBAMA AND THE ROLLICKING MULLAHS

The New York Sun gets it right in nailing Barack Obama for his views on Iran.  The crisis involving Iran's mischief in Iraq and its pursuit of nuclear weapons gets worse, but Obama offers only vague sentiments, without much backbone:

Mr. Obama's default came yesterday, under questioning by NBC News's Timothy Russert on "Meet the Press." The National Broadcasting Company played a video clip of Senator Clinton on "Good Morning America." Quoth the senator of New York: "Well, the question was, 'If Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be?' And I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that. We would be able to totally obliterate them."

Mr. Russert asked Mr. Obama for his response. What he got from the senator from Illinois who leads the Democrats in the delegate count was one of the most milquetoast responses ever to pass from the lips of an American presidential candidate in wartime. "It's not the language that we need right now, and I think it's language that's reflective of George Bush," Mr. Obama said. Quoth he: "It is important that we use language that sends a signal to the world community that we're shifting from the sort of cowboy diplomacy, or lack of diplomacy, that we've seen out of George Bush. And this kind of language is not helpful. When Iran is able to go to the United Nations complaining about the statements made and get some sympathy, that's a sign that we are taking the wrong approach."

Well, Theodore Roosevelt was the one who spoke of speaking softly and carrying a big stick. Mr. Obama's announced Middle East policy is starting to look more like someone who speaks loudly about carrying a small stick.

This is the greatest danger of an Obama presidency - that he will be Jimmy Carter without the peanuts.  At least Carter served on nuclear submarines.  I'm not so sure Obama has ever seen one.

May 5, 2008.      Permalink          

THE TICKET

Bill Kristol raises the intriguing possibility that McCain might go beyond the safe choices and make an unusual pick for vice president.  Kristol points to polls showing that a conventional ticket of McCain-Romney would do poorly against a unity ticket of Obama-Clinton.  A conventional choice for McCain would simply link him to the unpopular Republican brand.  Kristol says:

Maybe that’s why, in separate conversations last week, no fewer than four McCain staffers and advisers mentioned as a possible vice-presidential pick the 36-year-old Louisiana governor, Bobby Jindal. They’re tempted by the idea of picking someone so young, with real accomplishments and a strong reformist streak.

It might also be a way to confront the issue of McCain’s age (71), which private polls and focus groups suggest could be a real problem. A Jindal pick would implicitly acknowledge the questions and raise the ante. The message would be: “You want generational change? You can get it with McCain-Jindal — without risking a liberal and inexperienced Obama as commander in chief.” I would add that it was after McCain spent considerable time with Jindal in New Orleans recently, and reportedly found him, as he has before, personally engaging and intellectually impressive, that the campaign’s informal name-dropping of Jindal began.

Interesting, and exciting.  I'm not sure, though, that the generational-change-without-risk argument can win the day.  Jindal would be "one heartbeat away" if he becomes vice president, and he's only one year above the legal age requirement to be president.  Democrats can reasonably ask, "How can you criticize Senator Obama's youth and inexperience when you choose, as the man next in line, this young...?"  You get the picture.

But it is interesting and exciting.  Jindal is one of the most impressive young figures on the political stage, with a sense of the practical that Obama lacks.  And I wouldn't underestimate the instincts of the McCain political team.  They worked miracles this past year.  Maybe they can work another.

May 5, 2008.      Permalink          

THE ELITES

Finally, a salute to the serious, mature halls of America's colleges.

An Ivy League professor is threatening to sue her students because, she says, their anti-intellectualism violates her civil rights.  Professor Priya Venkatesan has escaped the horrors of Dartmouth and fled to Northwestern, apparently to protect herself against the savage hordes of Hanover, New Hampshire. 

"My students were very bully-ish, very aggressive, and very disrespectful," she told Tyler Brace of the Dartmouth Review. "They'd argue with your ideas."   What a horror.  Students who disagree with the professor.  This degeneracy must stop!

It goes on:

After a winter of discontent, the snapping point came while Ms. Venkatesan was lecturing on "ecofeminism," which holds, in part, that scientific advancements benefit the patriarchy but leave women out. One student took issue, and reasonably so – actually, empirically so. But "these weren't thoughtful statements," Ms. Venkatesan protests. "They were irrational." The class thought otherwise. Following what she calls the student's "diatribe," several of his classmates applauded.

Ms. Venkatesan informed her pupils that their behavior was "fascist demagoguery." Then, after consulting a physician about "intellectual distress," she cancelled classes for a week. Thus the pending litigation.

I cry out in sympathy.  I feel her multicultural pain. 

The writer of the story observes:

The remarkable thing about the Venkatesan affair, to me, is that her students cared enough to argue. Normally they would express their boredom with the material by answering emails on their laptops or falling asleep. But here they staged a rebellion, a French Counter-Revolution against Professor Defarge. Maybe, despite the professor's best efforts, there's life in American colleges yet.

The students may save us.  The professors won't.

Be back later.  A lot of good politics in the next few days.

May 5, 2008.      Permalink