SECOND EVENING UPDATE:  JUNE 25,  2008

Posted at 10:58 p.m. ET

BRICKBATS FOR BARACK

Barack Obama is learning what's it's like to receive the wrath of the righteous - the righteous left, that is.  Carrie Budoff Brown at The Politico reports that the netnuts are upset with their guy because he's strayed from the true path:

When former Sen. John Edwards dropped out of the presidential race, the progressive Netroots took their affections to Barack Obama, defending him against attack from Hillary Rodham Clinton and others.

But with his support of a government surveillance bill that offers retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies — a bill that he vowed last year to filibuster — the honeymoon has ended.

Disappointed over his position on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the online activists feel jilted and betrayed and have taken to questioning his progressive credentials. One prominent blogger, Atrios, has even given him the moniker “Wanker of the Day.”

“He broke faith,” said Matt Stoller, a political consultant and blogger at OpenLeft.com. “Obama pledged to filibuster, and he is part of that old politics, in this case, that he said he wasn’t. It will spur us to challenge him.”

The fear, the loathing.  Of course, this is the fringe that doesn't believe there should be any surveillance because it don't think there's any problem.  Hey, if we just try to understand them.

More:

“It angers the blogosphere to its core,” said Jane Hamsher, founder of the popular blog Firedoglake.com. “We want to be able to know: What did you do? If we can get that information, we can make sure they don’t do that again. We can get the public engaged.”

Obama’s decision to support the bill with the immunity provision was not surprising, she said. Republicans frame critics of such security measures as soft on terrorism, and the presumptive Democratic nominee probably does not want it used against him.

“[A] lot of people tried to convince themselves that he was a progressive hero, and I think they were disappointed,” Hamsher said. “You can feel a real shift in the zeitgeist online.”

When they start tossing around the zeitgeist, you know the mainstream is somewhere else.   Obama says:

“It is not all that I would want,” Obama said of the legislation, which was negotiated by congressional leaders of both parties. “But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence-collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise but do so with a firm pledge that, as president, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the inspectors general and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives — and the liberty — of the American people.”

I have absolutely no idea what that means.  But who knows what Obama means about anything these days.  Chances are he'll straddle the issue, and become part of the long tradition of voting against it before voting for it.

June 25, 2008.      Permalink          

FIRST EVENING UPDATE:  JUNE 25,  2008

Posted at 7:14 p.m. ET

FAIRNESS?

There apparently will be a big push in Congress, especially if the Dems win big in November, to resurrect the "fairness doctrine."   For those of you who are youthful, the fairness doctrine, very generally, was a Federal Communications Rule requiring radio and TV stations using public airwaves to give equal time to the different sides of controversial issues - "fair and balanced," as the current phrase might put it.

The doctrine began to wither away in the 1980s through court decisions and FCC action.  Now, because of the success of conservative talk radio, liberals want to bring it back.  It would, essentially, knock conservatives like Rush Limbaugh off the air in many markets.  John Gizzi of Human Events explains:

Experts say that the “Fairness Doctrine,” which was ended under the Reagan Administration, would put a major burden on small radio stations in providing equal time to Rush Limbaugh and other conservative broadcasters, who are a potent political force. Rather than engage in the costly practice of providing that time, the experts conclude, many stations would simply not carry Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other talk show hosts who are likely to generate demands for equal time.

The fairness doctrine made sense at a time when there were few stations.  Today, with our vast radio, cable and TV networks, and with the internet, it makes no sense at all.  Liberals get plenty of air time, and have attempted to start their own network, Air America.  The market defeated that.  Maybe they can do a better job next time and put grown-ups in front of the microphones.  We should root for them to put a mature, thoughtful series of programs on the air.  They could then compete in the marketplace of ideas.  That's real fairness.

June 25, 2008.      Permalink           

SECOND AFTERNOON POST: JUNE 25,  2008

Posted at 4:35 p.m. ET

KOREA - REMEMBER

Let us remember that today marks the 58th anniversary of the start of the Korean War.  President Truman's decision to resist the Soviet-sponsored North Korean invasion of South Korea was one of the bravest, and most painful, of his presidency.  Resistance in Korea, and maintaining South Korea's independence, made the clear statement that we had learned the lessons of the late thirties. 

Well, at least we had learned one lesson - to resist aggression immediately.  The fact is that the United States, only five years after the end of World War II, was militarily unprepared for Korea.  The jolt we received, though, set us on the correct path of preparedness to fight and win the Cold War.

Korea is sometimes called "the forgotten war."  Its veterans have generally been ignored.  As Vietnam swept away the memories of Korean winters, as the left became more and more vocal on American campuses and in the press, the fading of the image of the forgotten war became even more pronounced.  But our men in Korea made a massive contribution to our security, and to ultimate peace. 

A myth about Korea is that it was a "stalemate," a word, like "quagmire," that is thrown around loosely.  In fact, we achieved our primary military objective, the securing of an independent South Korea.  It took years for that nation to build a stable, vibrant democracy, and the usual suspects were out there regularly telling us we had failed because the South Korean government wasn't perfect.  (Sound familiar?)  But South Korea is stable today, with a vibrant economy - thanks to those American and allied troops who paid the price starting 58 years ago today.

June 25, 2008.       Permalink          

AFTERNOON POST:  JUNE 25,  2008

Posted at 4:22 p.m. ET

TRACKERS

Our standard trackers show a slight gain for Senator McCain.

Rasmussen has Obama up four over McCain.  But Gallup now shows a tie, for the first time in many days.

We stress that this could simply be the normal fluctuation in statistics.  A one-day result is just a snapshot in time. 

Both trackers are in dramatic contrast to two large polls that have been widely publicized.  One, Newsweek, shows Obama up 15.  It was considered a fluke until yesterday's publishing of an L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll showing him up either 12 or 15, depending on what story you read.  It would be nice if they got their results straight. 

So we have wildly different poll results.  But the bottom line is that all, except today's Gallup tracker, have Obama ahead.  And June polls, over the years, have become increasingly predictive of the approximate final election result. 

So Senator McCain has work to do.  One thing I'd like to see is for conservatives who didn't favor his nomination to come to their senses and realize the alternative to McCain is a man who will surrender abroad and pack the Supreme Court with leftists at home.  Are these things important?

June 25, 2008.       Permalink          

WEDNESDAY:  JUNE 25,  2008

Posted at 6:58 a.m. ET

IRAQ WORTH IT?

Tony Blankley asks the question today.   The answer two years ago might have been clearly no, but things have changed.

...last month, Strategy Page reported: "Al Qaeda web sites are making a lot of noise about 'why we (al-Qaida) lost in Iraq'. Western intelligence agencies are fascinated by the statistics being posted in several Arab language sites. Not the kind of stuff you read about in the Western media. According to al Qaeda, their collapse in Iraq was steep and catastrophic. ... If you can read Arabic, you can easily find these pro-terrorism sites, and see for yourself how al Qaeda is trying to explain its own destruction (in Iraq) to its remaining supporters."

Now, it is doubtlessly true that our invasion of Iraq (and Afghanistan) helped al-Qaida's recruitment. I have been told that by U.S. government experts I trust. But that is an old fact. What Osama bin Laden famously said about recruitment is also true: People follow the strong horse. And the new fact is that as we are winning in Iraq, as we are killing al-Qaida fighters and other Islamist terrorists there by the truckload (along with other insurgent opponents of the Iraqi government we support with our blood and wealth), we are proving to be the strong horse after all and can expect to see a reduced attraction for young men to join the Islamist terrorist ranks.

Yeah.  Didn't a chap named MacArthur once say that "in war, there is no substitute for victory"?  It's amazing what our winning can do to the other side.  AS Blankley says...

The full effects of the vigorous martial response of President Bush to the attacks of Sept. 11 will not be known for decades. But if history is any indicator, military courage, persistence and a capacity to kill the enemy in large numbers usually work to the benefit of such nations.

Blankley concludes...

It is time to reconsider whether President Bush or Barack Obama was right on whether to fight. Obama has had a good political run on the early and inconclusive evidence. As victory starts to emerge in Iraq, more persuasive data begin to fall on President Bush's side of the argument. This is a debate worth having before November.

The problem, of course, is that Democrats and their camp followers in the press will simply keep repeating that Iraq is a disaster.  How do you debate with an illusion?

June 25, 2008.      Permalink          

STRIKE TWO

Raise the eyebrows another notch.  For the second time in two days a major Washington Post columnist has taken a considerable swing at Saint Barack.  Once again I raise the intriguing possibility - just a dream at this stage - that the Post might stay neutral in this race or even endorse John McCain.  Wouldn't that be loverly?  Ruth Marcus writes:

When in the course of political events it becomes advantageous for a presidential candidate to dissolve a campaign promise, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that the candidate at least refrain from wrapping himself in the Declaration of Independence.

Not Barack Obama.

Click on Obama's campaign Web site and you'll find a virtual parchment scroll, complete with running tally of how many "citizens have declared their independence from a broken system by supporting the first presidential campaign truly funded by the people."

Written as " the PEOPLE," in that familiar, evocative style -- and with a July 4 deadline for signing up.

Isn't this the same Obama who unveiled his own presidential seal last week?  I mean, does he get his ideas from Tacky Productions Ltd?

More Marcus:

"Our opponents are dedicated to manipulating this broken system to raise as much money as possible -- and they've proven they are very good at it," Obama's site declares. No mention that Obama's been pretty good at it himself, raising $295 million to John McCain's $122 million. "To compete" -- as if he wouldn't be competitive otherwise -- "Barack has decided to keep putting his faith in ordinary people like you giving only what you can afford."

Ordinary people, that is, if your definition of ordinary people includes bundlers who can collect six- and even seven-figure sums for your campaign. Because even as he was rhapsodizing in public about "the grass-roots values that have already changed our politics and brought us this far," Obama was privately cozying up to Hillary Clinton's major fundraisers.

Now there's conniving we can believe in.  Finally...

What's galling is Obama's effort to portray himself through this entire episode as somehow different from, and purer than, the ordinary politician. Different might have been coupling the announcement with a self-imposed limit on the size of donations. Different might have been -- it could still be -- taking the big checks but acknowledging that, since bundlers will be bringing in even bigger hauls, disclosure should be adjusted accordingly, to reveal not only who raised $200,000 but also who brought in $500,000, who $1 million.

Obama's not the first politician to break a promise. He may be the first to do so in the guise of John Hancock, exuberantly signing the Declaration.

Do you get the feeling that the facts about Obama are starting to come out?  The Washington Post deserves our thanks for laying out these truths, which we hold to be self evident.

June 25, 2008.      Permalink          

SHE HAS RETURNED

Hillary has returned to the Senate. That itself is news.  I thought there was a chance she'd just resign and let the country pine for her.  But she smiles, she laughs, she fakes it.

There were no “Welcome Back!” banners or moving speeches. There were no roses or tears. Instead, when Hillary Rodham Clinton returned to her Senate office on Tuesday for the first time since suspending her presidential campaign, she found staffers playing a rowdy game of ping-pong.

It was a practical joke — their way of pretending it was all fun and games while she was gone — and Clinton went along with the gag, laughing and belting out, “I love this!” and then advising the legislative assistant who lost the match to “be gracious in defeat.”

But...

The bad news: She’s still the junior senator from New York, lacking any leadership title or chairmanship.

The good news: Clinton’s Senate colleagues say that her political capital remains high enough that she can drive the conversation in any direction she chooses — Iraq funding, health care, energy policy — and elevate issues to help Sen. Barack Obama and the Democratic Party as a whole.

Yeah, I'm sure she's dying to help Obama or the party that turned its back on her.  You can just sense her enthusiasm, and her husband's.

Clinton’s return on Tuesday had all the trappings of a presidential visit. Shrouded by security and a phalanx of staff, Clinton rolled through the large east front door of the Senate side of the Capitol, using an entrance that not even the vice president uses on his weekly visits to the chamber.

Her Democratic colleagues — gathered for their weekly policy lunch — cheered and clinked their silverware on their Senate china to mark her arrival, as if the bride had just entered the reception hall for a great Senate wedding.

Hmm.  I'm not sure analogies to brides and weddings work all that well for Bubba's wife. 

Clinton will leverage her dominance of the news cycle with another Capitol Hill appearance on Wednesday, when she will deliver a speech to the entire House Democratic Caucus. On Thursday, she’ll meet to talk money with Obama and some of her “HillRaisers,” then deliver a speech to a national group of Hispanic elected officials.

On Friday, she’ll make her first campaign appearance with Obama in Unity, N.H.

Her thoughts as they meet in Unity, N.H.?  "If he goes down in flames, I'm a cinch for 2012."  And you know...

June 25, 2008.      Permalink