JUNE 1,  2008 - CONTINUED

We're now blogging on the Puerto Rico primary, held today, and other political news:

10:12 p.m. TIME has an excellent report on yesterday's meeting of the Democratic Party's rules committee.  It was apparently ugly and divisive, and the story suggests that these wounds won't heal soon:  "The other committee members grimaced at the shouts of derision, which included chants of 'McCain 08,' 'Bastards,' and 'Denver,' an echo of their hopes that Clinton would take her case all the way to the Democratic National Convention to be held in August in Denver. After the meeting adjourned, women sat on the floor sobbing, while others, like Pennsylvania voter Betty Jean King, 60, a retired teacher from Shippensburg, ranted to television cameras: 'If it's not Hillary, I'm voting for McCain. 17 million people voted for Hillary and I'm telling you many of them are going to defect.'"  Not exactly the unity Obama had been hoping for.

7:35 p.m.  Vanity Fair has run a particularly vicious attack on Bill Clinton, written by Todd Purdum, who, ironically, is married to Clinton's former press secretary, Dee Dee Myers.  (It seems to be the week for these things.)  The Clinton bunker has now responded with a very strong, cutting memo.  Sparks are flying.  Good story for evening reading.

7:09 p.m.  The Clinton campaign today began airing an ad in South Dakota and Montana, which vote Tuesday.  The ad pushes the idea that Clinton is leading in the popular vote: "Some say there isn't a single reason for Hillary to be the Democratic nominee," says the ad's narrator. "They're right. There are over 17 million of them."

6:24 p.m.  Clinton has won the Puerto Rico primary, and now leads in the vote count, 68 percent to 32 percent, with about 76 percent of the vote counted. 

Clinton has just spoken.  She didn't give an inch to Barack Obama.  There is no hint that she is dropping out.  She argues that she's winning in the overall popular vote, which may or may not be accurate.   The actual turnout in Puerto Rico today was not strong, and Clinton, despite her lopsided victory by percentage, did not pick up the total number of votes to make the popular-vote gain that she'd hoped for.

So this next week is critical.  Clinton is likely to lose the Montana and South Dakota primaries on Tuesday, and it's probable that enough superdelegates will declare for Obama after that to put him over the top.  Does Clinton have a strategy to deal with that?  She may.  Remember, a declaration of support by a superdelegate is not a vote.  Votes are cast only at the convention.  Clinton could appeal to the superdelegates to reconsider, to hold back a final decision until the convention votes.  She could point to her string of victories in recent primaries, and to some polls that show her leading Obama in electoral votes.  She can say that much can happen between now and the late August convention in Denver, almost three months away.  After all, another member of the reverend clergy can come crawling out of Obama's closet. 

Or, Clinton can wait until next week, and fold.  Nothing she says today, in Puerto Rico, will be remembered.

What will she do?  I have no idea.  But watching her this week will be utterly intriguing.

BULLETIN AT 3:44 p.m.:  Hillary Clinton has won the Puerto Rico primary by a substantial margin, according to both CNN and Fox.  CNN's exit polls show she won every demographic category.

This may not affect the ultimate outcome of the Democratic nomination fight, but it's hardly a compliment to Barack Obama.  This was a Hispanic primary, and there is, despite liberal illusions to the contrary, a black/Hispanic split.  Obama has work to do.  If he slips in the Hispanic vote, it can cost him the election.

More to come.

June 1, 2008.      Permalink          

SECOND EARLY AFTERNOON POST:  JUNE 1,  2008

Posted at 3:04 p.m. ET

WONDERFUL

I've remarked here many times about the superiority of The Washington Post's editorial page, over that of The New York Times.  I often disagree with The Post, but its editorials tend to be thoughtful, well reported, and challenging.  Today the Post lives up to that tradition with a an editorial view of Iraq that seems firmly linked to the facts, is non-partisan, and optimistic.  In liberal circles, this takes courage:

While Washington's attention has been fixed elsewhere, military analysts have watched with astonishment as the Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years and sending key militants scurrying to Iran. At the same time, Iraqi and U.S. forces have pushed forward with a long-promised offensive in Mosul, the last urban refuge of al-Qaeda. So many of its leaders have now been captured or killed that U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, renowned for his cautious assessments, said that the terrorists have "never been closer to defeat than they are now."

I wonder how many subscriptions that will cost the Post in Georgetown.  It goes on:

It is -- of course -- too early to celebrate; though now in disarray, the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr could still regroup, and Iran will almost certainly seek to stir up new violence before the U.S. and Iraqi elections this fall. Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments -- and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the "this-war-is-lost" caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

Wait!  You mean, Obama isn't a saint?  His views don't come from a higher authority?  Scandal, scandal!  Quick, the smelling salts!

Finally...

If the positive trends continue, proponents of withdrawing most U.S. troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable; Iraq's 2009 elections will be crucial. It also should mean providing enough troops and air power to continue backing up Iraqi army operations such as those in Basra and Sadr City. When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.

I love it when editorial writers, liberal or conservative, follow the facts and write with integrity.  New York Times, please note.

June 1, 2008.       Permalink          

EARLY AFTERNOON POST:  JUNE 1,  2008

Posted at 2:37 p.m. ET

TRACKERS

Both Gallup and Rasmussen have now published their tracking poll results for the day.

Rasmussen has McCain up one over Obama in the general.  Gallup has Obama one up over McCain.  A wash.

Rasmussen has McCain three up over Clinton.  Gallup has Clinton two up over McCain.  Almost a wash.

It doesn't get much closer than this.  There may, repeat may, be some slight indication that Clinton is losing her small edge over Obama in general-election matchups as Obama's nomination becomes a near-certainty. 

In a Democratic year, you'd expect the Democratic nominee to be well ahead at this point.  Obama is not.  A very tough and bitter race ahead.

June 1, 2008.      Permalink          

SUNDAY:  JUNE 1,  2008

Posted at 8:45 a.m. ET

THE CANDIDATE

I watched Barack Obama's press conference late yesterday, held to explain his decision to resign from his Chicago church.  It was a press conference held by the man almost certain to be the Democratic candidate for president of the United States.  It was the press conference of a man whose odds of becoming president are high, and whose way will be greased by an adoring press, drunk on the fraudulent idealism of the 1960s.

The press conference was pathetic.  It was Obama at his cynical worst.  He rambled on, apparently either bored by the subject or thinking it a distraction from his higher, Heaven-inspired campaign.  He presented himself and his church as victims:

Mr. Obama said that his resignation was not a matter of political convenience, but rather that he had reached the point where neither he nor Trinity’s pastors and congregants could worship in peace. He noted that reporters now pored over sermons and that some had called sick members at home to ask about the church.

“I suspect if you were in my shoes, it seems plausible at least that you wouldn’t want your church experience to be a political circus,” Mr. Obama said. “I think most Americans will understand that.”

Is that what this whole thing is about?  As Johnny Carson used to say, "I did not know that."

By the way, a Washington Post report on the resignation notes that it was prompted by the latest embarrassment to Obama, a sermon at the church priest by visiting Catholic priest, the Rev. Michael L. Pfleger.  The Post reports:

On the Obama campaign's Web site, a "faith testimonial" from Pfleger that was online several weeks ago, in which he said Obama had the "intellect" to be president and likened him to Robert F. Kennedy, was taken down when the controversy over his comments erupted. The pastor's name was also removed from a list of more than two dozen priests and scholars on the senator's National Catholic Advisory Council, which is designed to court Catholic voters.

Why, how very Stalinist.  Do something embarrassing, and you're purged.  The photo disappears.  Your name is history.  Except, of course, it isn't.  It's no secret that Obama is a close friend of Pfleger's.  Will he now tell us that he never knew what Pfleger stands for, the same thing he told us about Rev. Wright?

If Obama were a conservative candidate, he'd be out of the race by now.  But the behavior of people like Wright and Pfleger doesn't really offend the Democratic base, and its hard-left affiliates like MoveOn.  To them, Obama is still their hope.  He is the change their professors have been waiting for.

June 1, 2008.      Permalink          

THE CRITICAL QUESTION

Michael Goodwin, of The New York Daily News, is one of the more perceptive analysts writing today.  Here he critiques a serious and growing question for Barack Obama - Obama's credentials on national security.  Although Obama has now resigned from his church, that does not erase his history of radical affiliations, his amateurism in foreign policy, and his lack of interest in the military:

Nothing describes Barack Obama better than the cliche about a man facing good news/bad news. The good news for Obama is that he is getting a first-rate education on what it means to be commander in chief. The bad news - his teacher is John McCain.

Even before he clinches the nomination, a flurry of McCain attacks over Iran, Iraq, Cuba and military leadership has exposed Obama's soft underbelly on national security. The effective barrage is a testament to how the primary battles never tested the rookie Democrat on whether he is ready to be commander in chief.

And...

The problem for Obama, beyond his lack of experience, is that his instincts are those of the Perfect Liberal by way of Harvard Law School. Like Bill Clinton's clumsy attempts to salute when he first won the Oval Office, Obama exhibits discomfort about things military. He is a peacenik by gut and, as critics note, drew the wrong lessons about Cold War talks JFK and Ronald Reagan had with the Soviets.

That didn't matter during the primary battle, where Obama's early opposition to Iraq was a defining difference against Hillary Clinton. But doubts about his national security bona fides are already a handicap in the nascent general election.
McCain, showing it is never too early to shape the battlefield to match your strengths, has ripped into Obama on a daily basis. Truth be told, Obama has presented him with a target-rich environment.

And...

Even as Obama scales back on his promise of unconditional meetings with Iranian madman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Raul Castro, McCain has added two wrinkles. He scolded Obama for not meeting with our top Iraq commander, Gen. David Petraeus. And, noting Obama has not been to Iraq in two years, McCain suggested they go together.

Obama rejected the joint trip, but with John Kerry acknowledging his fellow Democrat should go to Iraq, Obama has little choice. But that won't be the end of McCain's advantage. By meeting our troops and commanders, Obama will be confronted with the fact that the surge of troops he opposed has made Iraq safer. What then?

Finally...

There's more. When New York Times columnist David Brooks questioned Obama about Hezbollah's miniwar with our ally, the government of Lebanon, Obama said we must make sure "the disaffected have an effective outlet for their grievances, which assures them they are getting social services." He also said Hezbollah and Hamas must realize violence "weakens their legitimate claims."

Obama has yet to define those "grievances" and "legitimate claims." Perhaps Prof. McCain can ask him to on the next quiz.

The tragedy, though, is that Obama, not McCain, is likely to be president.  We have seen that he surrounds himself with those of like mind, only to dispatch them as soon as their presence becomes embarrassing.  Will the American people see the danger soon enough, or will the press damage McCain sufficiently to ensure an Obama presidency?  On that question may well rest the future of this country.

June 1, 2008.      Permalink