From this point on we'll be blogging about today's primaries.

11:53 p.m.:  We discussed here yesterday the huge crowd that turned out for Obama in Oregon on Sunday, and wondered whether the estimate of 70,000 people was accurate.  Fox News now reports that the rock group that started the rally is hugely popular in Portland, and that this fact may have accounted for at least part of the large turnout.  Fox noted that none of the news organizations factored in the popularity of the rock stars when giving the crowd-size estimate.  Nice to know.

11:40 p.m.:  With 48 percent of the Oregon vote counted, Obama's lead has been cut to 14 points.  Remember that Clinton won Kentucky by 35 points at last count. 

11:20 p.m.:  Fox calls Oregon for Obama.  With 30 percent counted, Obama leads by 20 points, but we don't know where these votes are coming from. 

11:12 p.m.:  Oregon votes are starting to come in.  Obama is ahead, but it's too early to give details.  Because it was a mail-in vote, there was no exit polling, but CNN did do some phone polling.  CNN is stressing that educated voters are more likely to vote for Obama than for Clinton.  One CNN commentator - John King - stressed that in saying this he wasn't insulting anyone.  Ah, but how it's taken by the audience is another story.

10:34 p.m.:  Obama continues.  Frankly, I find his speech tiresome.  It's the same old leftist rhetoric about "change," but with nothing substantive.  He paints a picture of the opposition as somewhat sinister and dishonest.  He is talking about John McCain, a national hero, but doesn't seem to realize it.  A side note:  He got his smallest appause when he said that America was still a beacon to the world.  It says something about his ardent supporters. 

10:26 p.m.:  Obama now is claiming that he has the majority of pledged delegates, but stops short of declaring total victory.  He is praising Clinton's stamina.  His speech is the usual stuff - lots of preachin', no details.  He talks about how his campaign is inspiring people.  He apparently wants us all to march off together, behind him.  Reminds me of my 12th-grade high-school social-studies teacher who warned about leaders who want us to march off.  "Better find out where you're marching to," Mr. Watson taught us.  Right on.

10:12 p.m.:  Senator Obama has just begun to speak in Iowa, where his campaign had its first victory.  Presumably, his appearance in Iowa tonight symbolizes his belief that he has the nomination wrapped up.  He does now have a majority of the pledged delegates, but math is very fuzzy in the Democratic Party, which seems to follow the pattern of our chic universities:  It depends on whose "narrative" you're using.    

9:39 p.m.:  Results of the Oregon vote, which is entirely a mail-in vote, won't be available until much later tonight.  Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, a Clinton supporter, is on Fox right now.  Like the other Clinton people, he insists she can still win the nomination, based on the "electability" factor.  He points out she's won seven of the last ten primaries, three by blowout margins.  Much of this talk raises an intriguing question:  If the states that voted early and went for Obama could vote now, what would the result be?  As more and more is known about Obama, he seems to do worse and worse in the voting.  That raises the intriguing question about whether one national primary, held, say, in June of each presidential election year, might be the best way to settle a nomination.   

9:05 p.m.:  Fox now reporting that, with 93 percent counted, Clinton's Kentucky lead has jumped to 36 points.

8:54 p.m.:  Fox reports that, with 91 percent of the Kentucky vote counted, Clinton's lead is up to 35 points.  She was expected to win big.  This is very big.  But again, the key remaining question tonight is whether she can cut into Obama's lead in Oregon and keep his win to single digits.  I doubt it, but we'll see.

8:27 p.m.:  Clinton's lead, with 72 percent of the Kentucky vote counted, is up to 34 points.  Not too shabby.  Clinton, in her speech, pledges to fight on, although she speaks more and more of "Democrats" being returned to power. 

8:16 p.m.:  Clinton is addressing her supporters in Kentucky.  Her lead in the vote count there has increased to 32 points.  She is now paying tribute to Ted Kennedy, who made some decidely nasty remarks about her just before falling ill.  Okay, graciousness has its place.

8:09 p.m.:   Clinton is now ahead by 30 points in Kentucky.  Obviously, a huge win.  The key to tonight is whether she can cut into Obama's expected lead in Oregon.  If she can, she has some kind of argument, but it's probably too late.

7:44 p.m.:  CNN just pointed out something remarkable.  Only six percent of those polled in Kentucky said they had no religion.  But 28 percent polled in Oregon said they had no religion. 

7:42 p.m.:  Clinton has taken Kentucky by a wide margin, although the exact numbers are still to come.  At this point in the count she's ahead by 17 percent.  That number is likely to grow.  There's a lot of talk on the cable systems about the possibility of an Obama/Clinton ticket.  But it's only talk. 

LATE AFTERNOON POST:  MAY 20,  2008

Posted at 5:59 p.m. ET

MEMO TO BARACK

In a devastating must-read, Victor Davis Hanson reminds Barack Obama to brush up on his American history.  Historian Hanson gives sound advice:

Barack Obama should review the basics of American history and the fundamentals of diplomacy. In comparing various enemies, one is by needs more willing to talk to hostile nuclear super-powers (as Nixon, and Reagan did with China and the Soviet Union) that have the ability to destroy us than to talk to a hostile power like Iran. In the former case, we have few options, in the latter plenty. For the analogy to be valid, did Nixon and Reagan have summits with Castro as they did with Mao or Gorbachev—and if not, why not? And is not Obama's speak-anytime-anywhere-to-anyone -policy at odds with many of our allies in the EU who haven't gone that far with an Iran or Venezuela?

Guess Obama didn't read that textbook.  Hanson goes on to other lessons, well taught, and then comes to this, and I'm glad someone finally said it, and said it this well:

Finally, re: Michelle. To go after a Pat Nixon or a George McGovern's wife, or any traditional First Lady or candidate's spouse is despicable. BUT many women in such a limelight — Eleanor Roosevelt, Hillary Clinton, Teresa Kerry, and, yes, Michelle Obama — freely chose to use the exposure to enter the political fray and advance a political agenda, often in controversial fashion. Is Bill Clinton exempt from criticism as a candidate's spouse as he barnstorms and sounds off? 

What is "low class" (given West Virginia and Kentucky "class" is not a pejorative that Obama should employ at any cost) is not criticizing Michelle Obama's choice to characterize her country as mean and not worthy of pride, but rather criticizing those who are terribly disturbed by such a public figure's political commentary. Well apart the wisdom of running ads against Michelle (not wise I think), we all know the rules: either follow the traditional role of First Lady and enjoy the immunity that such abdication from controversial politics conveys, or roll the dice, become a political figure in one's own right, and enjoy all the greater attention and acclaim — as well as the inevitable hard knocks that accompany political controversy.

Her call, not the country's — and yet another indication of the Obama rules that serially establish two sets of quite different standards for the candidates.

Wonderfully stated.  What is so sad is that there are plenty of camp followers in the press who will happily abide by Obama's rules in order to "make a difference," and maybe get invited to deliver a commencement address. 

May 20, 2008.      Permalink          

EARLY AFTERNOON POST:  MAY 20,  2008

Posted at 2:09 p.m. ET

TRACKERS

Tracking polls today pretty much prove that Senator Obama didn't gain from his dustup with President Bush last week.  Rasmussen has McCain up three over Obama, but Gallup has Obama up three over McCain, a wash.

Rasmussen has McCain and Clinton tied, whereas Gallup has Clinton four up over McCain.

Once again, Senator Clinton continues to show remarkable strength despite the political hearse parked outside her door.  There is no rushing to Obama.

There are no last-minute polls in Kentucky or Oregon, which vote today.

May 20, 2008.      Permalink          

TUESDAY:  MAY 20,  2008

Posted at 6:58 a.m. ET

THE PRIMARIES

Oregon and Kentucky vote today.  The New York Sun states exactly what the significance of the day will be:

WASHINGTON — The results out of Kentucky and Oregon tonight are likely to be bittersweet for Senator Obama as he looks to claim a key victory in the Democratic primary battle even as a significant bloc of party voters refuses to ratify his nomination.

Polls are predicting an Obama victory in Oregon, and the Illinois senator will clinch a majority of total pledged delegates in the nomination fight, an achievement that his campaign is calling a “major milestone” reflecting the will of Democratic voters nationwide. Mr. Obama will stop short of declaring victory outright, but the moment will increase pressure on the remaining undecided superdelegates to endorse his candidacy and effectively end the last hopes of Senator Clinton.

The problem...

At the same time, Mr. Obama is facing the prospect of his second lopsided loss to Mrs. Clinton in as many weeks, with polls showing a nearly 30-point lead for the former first lady in Kentucky. The expected split offers a snapshot of a divided Democratic Party in which Mr. Obama has yet to win over white, working-class voters even as his nomination appears all but certain.

A pollster comments:

While respondents expressed similar views of Mrs. Clinton in both states, they differed widely on Mr. Obama, the director of Suffolk’s Political Research Center, David Paleologos, said. Seventy-three percent of Democratic voters in Oregon had a favorable view of Mr. Obama, while 43% of Kentucky Democrats viewed him favorably.

“This is a huge hurdle for November,” Mr. Paleologos said.

It certainly is.  And it sets up the Democratic Party for a case of buyer's remorse, especially if Mr. Obama's campaign falters between now and the summer conventions.  A major international crisis could also damage him, even within the party, as Senator Clinton is perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be stronger on national defense than is Obama.

There actually are conflicting stories as to whether Obama will make some kind of victory claim tonight.  Even if he does, Clinton has no obligation to withdraw.

May 20, 2008.      Permalink          

KENTUCKY

The Politico lists the things to watch in the Kentucky returns.  Their take on this primary:

LOUISVILLE, Ky. – Hillary Clinton is counting on Kentucky to give her more ammunition to make her case to the superdelegates who control the fate of her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.

If the state gives her a victory anywhere close to the 41-point landslide she got out of neighboring West Virginia last week, Team Clinton will have considerably more evidence to buttress its argument about her electability.

It would embolden her to assert she could win Kentucky in the general election against presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, and to claim that Democratic frontrunner Barack Obama is unable to expand the Democratic electoral map into states like Kentucky.

If Clinton wins by a larger margin than the one by which Obama is expected to beat her in Tuesday’s other primary in Oregon, it would also amplify her assertion that she’s ahead in total votes, if Florida and Michigan are counted.

Maybe.  But I will say again that the Democratic base, regardless of worries, wants to give the nomination to Obama as a kind of fulfillment of the sixties dream.  The party is also, understandably, concerned about African-American anger should Obama be denied.  Senator Clinton may have some logical arguments, and I do think she'd be the stronger candidate against John McCain, our candidate here, but I don't think her arguments can prevail against the wind.

May 20, 2008.      Permalink          

OREGON

And The Politico's take on Oregon:

PORTLAND, Ore. – Oregon seems tailor-made for Barack Obama.

The Democratic voters are considered progressive, post-partisan and reform-minded. Every member of the state’s Democratic congressional delegation voted against authorizing the use of force in Iraq. It’s one of the least diverse states in the country, but not one where race generally comes into play in politics, said Mark Wiener, a Portland-based Democratic political consultant.

And Oregon never turned out overwhelmingly for former President Bill Clinton, who won the state with 43 percent of the vote in 1992 and 49 percent in 1996.

“Oregonians seem to like the cool, cerebral type,” Oregon pollster Tim Hibbitts said. “They liked Harding. They liked McCarthy. They liked McGovern. They seem to like that kind of Democrat. And, without putting an ideological implication on it, I think that Obama stylistically appeals to Oregonians.”

All of this portends a strong showing Tuesday for Obama. A better-than-expected performance for Hillary Rodham Clinton would do wonders for her campaign, but few, if any, Oregon political experts predict such an outcome.

Harding?  The cool, cerebral type?  I never knew.

At any rate, I'd go along with that assessment, with one caveat:  Two last-minute polls showed a very close race in Oregon, although two others had Obama with a wide lead.  I suspect those last two are right, but let's just wait and see.  As the quote said, a better-than-expected result for Clinton would do wonders for her campaign. 

Interesting night tonight, comparing Kentucky with Oregon.  A sociologist's dream.

May 20, 2008.      Permalink          

CAROLINE

Caroline Glick of The Jerusalem Post almost defines the concept of speaking truth to power.  When I think of her I recall, and modify, an old Goldwater slogan, "In your heart you know she's right."  She is blunt, and sees the world for what it is.  She also sees Senator Obama for what he is, and she minces no words regarding Obama's stance on Iran, which includes a willingness to negotiate with no conditions.  She notes Obama's reaction to President Bush's strong speech last week before Israel's parliament:

OBAMA'S RESPONSE to Bush's speech was an effective acknowledgement that appeasing Iran and other terror sponsors is a defining feature of his campaign and of his political persona. As far as he is concerned, an attack against appeasement is an attack against Obama.

I love it, I love it.  John McCain should use that line.

Then...

Far from exerting force to strengthen his diplomatic position, Obama has pledged to withdraw US forces from Iraq where they are fighting Iranian proxies, cut military spending and shrink the size of the US nuclear arsenal.

SINCE THE definition of appeasement is to reward others for their bad behavior, and since the US has refused for 29 years to reward the Iranians for their bad behavior by having presidential summits with Iranian leaders, Obama's pledge represents a massive act of appeasement. And since it is Iran's illicit nuclear weapons program that would bring a President Barack Obama to the table, his policy would invite nuclear blackmail by other countries by signaling to them that the US rewards nuclear proliferators.

But even if Obama and his supporters were right and negotiating with the ayatollahs was not by its nature an act of appeasement, the question remains whether it would be possible to reach a deal with them that would not endanger US interests or US allies a la Neville Chamberlain at Munich.

Wait.  The Democrats say it's unfair to bring up Munich, unfair to mention Chamberlain, unfair to mention Michelle Obama.  Hasn't someone told Caroline Glick about the new order? 

Ignore all the above quotes.  It's unfair to bring any of this up.  Just talk about global warming.

Be back later.

May 20, 2008.      Permalink