EVENING UPDATE:  MAY 28,  2008

Posted at 7:58 p.m. ET

McCLELLAN

Presidents seem to have trouble with people named McClellan.  Lincoln did, now Bush does. His former press secretary, Scott McClellan, has written a vicious tell-all that trashes the administration he served.  It's the big political story of the day.

How far beyond a day it will go is hard to guess.  The charges in the book seem over the top, and a reader is forced to ask why, if McClellan felt this way, he didn't resign with honor.  Instead, he got fired...which may be the real reason why he wrote the book at all.  Revenge is sweet.

I'm not sure the American people will buy it.  In fact, there may well be a backlash.  Tell-all authors are generally not held in the highest regard, to start with.  But to engage in this viciousness after being fired shows a distinct lack of class.  When was McClellan lying?  When he was press secretary to the president?  Or when he wrote the book?  Inquiring minds want to know.   

The Dems will be delighted.  MSNBC will probably make the book into a 603-part series.  But the rest of the country may remain cold.

May 28, 2008.      Permalink          

FRICTION IN IRAN

A rival to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president of Iran's parliament.  The New York Times reports:

A rival to Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected by an overwhelming majority as speaker of the Parliament on Wednesday, a strong signal of growing impatience with his economic policies and a possible sign of a political shift in the country.

The new speaker, Ali Larijani, Iran’s former nuclear negotiator, is viewed by the West as a moderating influence in Tehran. He said his priority would be to address Iran’s economic problems.

The role of parliamentary speaker is a powerful position in Iranian politics and analysts said Mr. Larijani could use it to challenge Mr. Ahmadinejad, against whom Mr. Larijani ran for president in 2005. Mr. Larijani won the speaker position by a vote of 232 to 31.

I'm always amused by the deep yearning of the American press to find moderates in the Iranian government.  Is this guy a moderate?  Well, channelling Bill Clinton, it depends on what "moderate" is.  Just a few days ago he denounced, in particularly tough terms, a UN report critical of Iran's lack of cooperation in disclosing details of its nuclear program.  And moderates have a strange way of becoming hardliners if career ambitions demand it. 

Don't become blindly optimistic about this development.  That's the State Department's job.

May 28, 2008.       Permalink          

SECOND AFTERNOON POST:  MAY 28,  2008

Posted at 6:10 p.m. ET

HILLARY ON HILLARY

Hillary Clinton has sent a letter to all Dem superdelegates, arguing her case that she's the strongest candidate against McCain.   She asserts:

Recent polls and election results show a clear trend: I am ahead in states that have been critical to victory in the past two elections. From Ohio, to Pennsylvania, to West Virginia and beyond, the results of recent primaries in battleground states show that I have strong support from the regions and demographics Democrats need to take back the White House. I am also currently ahead of Senator McCain in Gallup national tracking polls, while Senator Obama is behind him. And nearly all independent analyses show that I am in a stronger position to win the Electoral College, primarily because I lead Senator McCain in Florida and Ohio. I've enclosed a detailed analysis of recent electoral and polling information, and I hope you will take some time to review it carefully.

In addition, when the primaries are finished, I expect to lead in the popular vote and in delegates earned through primaries. Ultimately, the point of our primary process is to pick our strongest nominee - the one who would be the best President and Commander in Chief, who has the greatest support from members of our party, and who is most likely to win in November. So I hope you will consider not just the strength of the coalition backing me, but also that more people will have cast their votes for me.

Okay, fair enough.  She's arguing her case and she makes some good points.  The problem is, the party seems to want to nominate Barack Obama, and that she may not be able to overcome. 

The primaries end Tuesday.  That's when the fun might really begin.

May 28, 2008.      Permalink          

AFTERNOON POST:  MAY 28,  2008

Posted at 4:36 p.m. ET

TRACKERS

Today's tracking polls continue to confirm the trend we've been reporting here:  Clinton, although not by that much, is a stronger general-election candidate against McCain than is Obama. 

Rasmussen has McCain up four over Obama.   Gallup has McCain up one.

Rasmussen has Clinton up one over Obama.  Gallup has her up four.

What's important here is that Obama, no matter how many times he's anointed by the mainstream media, still can't pull ahead of Clinton in the general-election matchups.  Has he reached a plateau?  I have no idea, but the fact is that his party has not yet unified around him.  Not good, not good.

May 28, 2008.      Permalink          

WEDNESDAY:  MAY 28,  2008

 Posted at 7:03 a.m. ET

A DEM MELTDOWN?

The Democratic Party's internal rumble is about to begin.  Roger Simon reports at The Politico:

Those people who believe all problems have solutions may be unfamiliar with the inner workings of the Democratic Party.

On Saturday, the party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee will try to solve a big problem, in order to avoid a huge problem in order to prevent a train wreck.

The big problem is what to do about Michigan and Florida, two states stripped last year of their delegates to the Democratic National Convention because both broke party rules and moved their primaries up too early in the election year.

The rules committee will try to work out a compromise Saturday to try to seat those states in some form or fashion. It will be difficult, and the 30 members of the committee, who come from all over the nation, have been warned to keep their hotel rooms Saturday night, because the meeting may go into Sunday.

The huge problem is what happens if one side or another does not like the rules committee’s compromise. In that case, the controversy would go to the 186-member Credentials Committee, which will convene in July or August.

And if that happens, the party will be presented with a possible train wreck: Whatever the Credentials Committee decides will have to be voted on by the Convention in late August as its first order of business. And this could create what the media might love but the party dreads: a floor fight in Denver.

Oh goodie.  I really can't wait.  You have no idea how much I devoutly hope for a floor fight in late August.  You know, summers can be so dull and sticky.  To watch Dems fight over whether to include two of the largest states at their convention could be such a lift to pre-Labor-Day blues.  While this doesn't rise to the level of something for which I'd pray to the Almighty, it's getting close, and I'm sure He'd understand.

May 28, 2008.      Permalink          

THE ANTI-GORE

There arises from Eastern Europe the anti-Gore.  He is the president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, and, judging by what he's bringing us, he may well be the long-lost brother of the better-known Christmastime Klaus, or Claus, or whatever.

Vaclav Klaus is a trained economist who has doubts about global warming.  (The sound you just heard was Gore-generated lightning trying to strike him.)  He's written a book, "Blue Planet in Green Shackles," and he wants to debate Al Gore.  Really. 

Washington - Czech President Vaclav Klaus said Tuesday he is ready to debate Al Gore about global warming, as he presented the English version of his latest book that argues environmentalism poses a threat to basic human freedoms. "I many times tried to talk to have a public exchange of views with him, and he's not too much willing to make such a conversation," Klaus said. "So I'm ready to do it."

Klaus was speaking a the National Press Building in Washington to present his new book, "Blue Planet in Green Shackles - What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?", before meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney Wednesday.

"My answer is it is our freedom and, I might add, and our prosperity," he said.

The man is a heretic.  A heretic, I say.  Send him to Salem, where they'll treat him proper!

The heretic speaks:

Klaus, an economist, said he opposed the "climate alarmism" perpetuated by environmentalism trying to impose their ideals, comparing it to the decades of communist rule he experienced growing up in Soviet-dominated Czechoslovakia.

"Like their (communist) predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality," he said.

"In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat - this time, in the name of the planet," he added.

Klaus said a free market should be used to address environmental concerns and said he opposed as unrealistic regulations or greenhouse gas capping systems designed to reduce the impact of climate change.

"It could be even true that we are now at a stage where mere facts, reason and truths are powerless in the face of the global warming propaganda," he said.

Klaus alleged that the global warming was being championed by scientists and other environmentalists whose careers and funding requires selling the public on global warming.

"It is in the hands of climatologists and other related scientists who are highly motivated to look in one direction only," Klaus said.

Can you believe there are still people who will question the teachings of the Gospel of Hot, according to Gore? 

I wanted to alert you so you can stuff cotton in your ears.  If you're a young person, under 60, do not tell your parents you've read this. 

May 28, 2008.       Permalink          

THE WORD FROM IRAN

We've devoted space to Iran in the last few days because it's such a critical issue.  Now we have a kind of informal answer to Barack Obama's apparent belief that magic wands are available for dealing with the Iranian regime:

Iran's new parliament speaker Ali Larijani warned Wednesday that Teheran could impose new limits on its cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog after a critical report from the agency.

Larijani, formerly the country's top nuclear negotiator, was overwhelmingly elected as parliament speaker Wednesday. Moments later, he told parliament that a new report by the International Atomic Energy Agency was "deplorable."

The unusually strongly worded report issued Monday said Iran may be withholding information needed to establish whether it tried to make nuclear weapons.

"We recommend them not to clandestinely keep passing Iran's nuclear dossier between the IAEA and 5-plus-1 group. This parliament won't allow such deception," Larijani told an open session of parliament broadcast live on state-run radio.

He was referring to IAEA reports and permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany. The council has imposed three sets of sanctions against Iran for its refusal to halt enriching uranium - a process that can be used to generate electricity or nuclear arms.

"Should this behavior continue, the parliament...will set new limits on cooperation with the IAEA," Larijani said.

His comments drew chants of "God is great" and "Death to America" from the chamber.

Love those chants, don't you?   The rhythm.  The spirit.

But, please.  Don't get any ideas.  Everyone knows that all we have to do is solve the Palestinian problem, and all this will go away.  Right?  Anyone?

Read the next piece for more perspective.  Iran will come up repeatedly during the campaign, and, more ominously, afterward.

May 28, 2008.      Permalink          

TALK TO IRAN?  JUST WAIT.

Amir Taheri is one of our most knowledgeable writers on Iran.  You've probably read his columns.  Here he examines the argument, thrown forth by the Obamans, that a bit of talking with the mullahs won't hurt.  Oh yes it can!  Read on:

...presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama – in lieu of a policy for dealing with the growing threat posed by the Islamic Republic – repeats what has become a familiar refrain within his party: Let's talk to Iran.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with wanting to talk to an adversary. But Mr. Obama and his supporters should not pretend this is "change" in any real sense. Every U.S. administration in the past 30 years, from Jimmy Carter's to George W. Bush's, has tried to engage in dialogue with Iran's leaders. They've all failed.

Nice to have that pointed out.  He goes on:

The Europeans invented the phrase "critical dialogue" to describe their approach to Iran. They negotiated with Tehran for more than two decades, achieving nothing.

The Arabs, especially Egypt and Saudi Arabia, have been negotiating with the mullahs for years – the Egyptians over restoring diplomatic ties cut off by Tehran, and the Saudis on measures to stop Shiite-Sunni killings in the Muslim world – with nothing to show for it. Since 1993, the Russians have tried to achieve agreement on the status of the Caspian Sea through talks with Tehran, again without results.

Hmm.  Why is this?  It must be BUSH!  No, not quite:

The reason is that Iran is gripped by a typical crisis of identity that afflicts most nations that pass through a revolutionary experience. The Islamic Republic does not know how to behave: as a nation-state, or as the embodiment of a revolution with universal messianic pretensions. Is it a country or a cause?

A nation-state wants concrete things such as demarcated borders, markets, access to natural resources, security, influence, and, of course, stability – all things that could be negotiated with other nation-states. A revolution, on the other hand, doesn't want anything in particular because it wants everything.

And...

The problem that the world, including the U.S., has today is not with Iran as a nation-state but with the Islamic Republic as a revolutionary cause bent on world conquest under the guidance of the "Hidden Imam." The following statement by the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the "Supreme leader" of the Islamic Republic – who Mr. Obama admits has ultimate power in Iran -- exposes the futility of the very talks Mr. Obama proposes: "You have nothing to say to us. We object. We do not agree to a relationship with you! We are not prepared to establish relations with powerful world devourers like you! The Iranian nation has no need of the United States, nor is the Iranian nation afraid of the United States. We . . . do not accept your behavior, your oppression and intervention in various parts of the world."

Finally...

The Islamic Republic might welcome unconditional talks, but only if the U.S. signals readiness for unconditional surrender. Talk about talking to Iran and engaging Mr. Ahmadinejad cannot hide the fact that, three decades after Khomeinist thugs raided the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, America does not understand what is really happening in Iran.

That is important reading, and I recommend the whole thing.

Be back later. 

May 28, 2008.      Permalink