EVENING UPDATE,  MARCH 3,  2008

LOOK, YOU NEVER KNOW

Late poll numbers from Real Clear Politics show a slight shift toward Hillary Clinton in Texas and Ohio.  We know that late deciders in California went heavily for Clinton.  Are we seeing the same thing here?  Obviously, we can't say yet.  But if late deciders do break for her again, it's an argument in her favor - the candidate who can go the distance and not suffer a last-minute backlash. 

We'll see tomorrow.  If Clinton squeaks out victories, even narrow ones, in Texas and Ohio, I can't see her dropping out.  In fact, there could even be a building resentment against those demanding she do so.  This could get interesting.

YUP, SHE JUST MIGHT

At Contentions, published by Commentary, Jennifer Rubin endorses the possible Hillary-is-back scenario, with the understanding that Clinton must win both states to stay competitive.  The quote:

So if she should win Texas and Ohio there will be a gasp from the media (not to mention some of those superdelegates) who will then have to discard the Obama-mania, invincibility argument and absorb the new storyline: she’s baaaaaack. True, she won’t reach 2025 delegates by June, but the fact remains–neither will he. Momentum, press spin and the appearance that Obama can not take a punch will weigh heavily on those superdelegates. Oh, and with a little help from Governor Crist (hmm, who’s he trying to help?) the race could be extended by a do-over in Florida.

Now if she loses Ohio and Texas? Even the most die hard supporters won’t be able to come up with a scenario to rescue her.

The more the Dems battle, the better it is for McCain.  Some Democrats could become very bitter.  Hey, let's go, bitterness!

AND LET'S GO, ARROGANCE!

I do think the Obama camp risks resentment with its increasing arrogance.  No matter what we think of Hillary Clinton, she's a serious candidate, a former first lady, and she's served respectably in the Senate.  The constant drumbeat calling on her to get out of the race is unseemly, especially coming from those who are supporting a young, junior candidate like Obama.  Ben Smith in The Politico reports: 

In a statement emailed to reporters, and reiterated on a conference call just now, Obama's campaign Manager, David Plouffe, says:

It is clear that narrow popular vote wins in Texas and Ohio will do very little to improve their nearly impossible path to the nomination. If they do not win Texas and Ohio by healthy double digit margins – and they led by healthy double digit margins as recently as two weeks ago - they will be facing almost impossible odds to reverse the delegate math.

"They were sitting on enormous leads as recently as two weeks ago," he said on the call, dismissing the notion of a Clinton "comeback."

"They keep moving the goal posts, but at some point you run out of field," he said.

Oh, please.  Someone tell this dude that a day is half a lifetime in politics.  If Clinton wins by any margin tomorrow, no one will care what the numbers were two weeks ago.  Now let's just wait for the results before we push the opposition off the train.  Those opposing candidates can be pretty useful in a general-election campaign.

WHOOPS - CHECK THE RECORD FIRST

The great James Taranto, who edits The Best of the Web for The Wall Street Journal's online Opinion Journal, comes up with a flap in the Obama campaign.  James quotes an AP dispatch:

Obama criticized Clinton expressly for failing to read the classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons capabilities, a report available at the time of her October 2002 vote authorizing the Iraq war. "She didn't give diplomacy a chance. And to this day, she won't even admit that her vote was a mistake--or even that it was a vote for war," Obama said.

"When it came time to make the most important foreign policy decision of our generation the decision to invade Iraq Senator Clinton got it wrong," Obama said.

He said that Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a fellow Democrat from neighboring West Virginia, had read the intelligence estimate as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and had voted against the war resolution.

Rockefeller, who is now chairman of that committee, endorsed Obama on Friday and campaigned with him on Saturday.

But James notes there's "just one problem":

As blogress Clarice Feldman points out, and as the Senate roll-call confirms, Rockefeller voted for the war. We guess it was too good to check!

And I guess it's an example of more good judgment by Barack Obama.

DIDN'T THEIR POLITICAL MOTHERS TEACH THEM ANYTHING?

Author and journalist Ronald Kessler, writing for NewsMax.com, asserts that the Democrats have a political suicide trait, and that it's hardly in remission:

In more ways than one, Democrats are exhibiting suicidal tendencies.

The latest example is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to let the House go on vacation rather than take a vote on extending the Protect America Act. The act updates surveillance laws to take into account technological changes and give telecommunication companies immunity from lawsuits over their cooperation with the government.

The result of the House’s inaction is that if the National Security Agency (NSA) needs to monitor a new terrorist group, it will not be able to do so immediately. Even using the 72-hour emergency provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), monitoring is delayed for a day or two while facts can be lined up to ensure that a permanent warrant can be obtained.

“You can’t go back and ask for a FISA for a conversation that’s already occurring,” Arthur M. “Art” Cummings, who heads national security investigations at the FBI, told me for my book “The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack.”

And...

The Democrats’ blindness to the need to protect our national security is suicidal: On the one hand, Democrats don’t seem to recognize that Congress itself is an obvious target of another terrorist attack. The hijacked airplane that crashed in Pennsylvania was headed for Capitol Hill. On the other hand, Democrats are giving Republicans powerful ammunition for successfully opposing them in the 2008 election.

Freedom’s Watch, for one, will be running tens of millions of dollars in ads pointing to the Democrats’ actions in undermining efforts to protect us.

“In the coming election, the American people will look at who is making us safe and who is taking actions to weaken us and tie our hands behind our backs in this fight for our lives,” Blakeman says.

As Sen. Joe Lieberman has told me, he is “disappointed” because “my colleagues for various reasons — some ideological, some political — are missing this threat to us.”

Yes, indeed.  Even Hillary Clinton, whether she means it or not, has tried to make that point in the last few days.  This election isn't about who cuts the best figure or "excites" a crowd.  If we don't get national security right, there may not be any crowds to excite.

I recall the time when the Democratic Party was the national-security party.  It was the time of John F. Kennedy, and we had recollections of FDR and Harry S. Truman.  None of those three would recognize the Democratic Party of today.  Truman, being Truman, would probably walk out and start a new party of his own.  A lot of us would be with him.

IRAN - A TAP ON THE KNUCKLES

We should take note of the fact that the UN voted new sanctions on Iran today.

The resolution authorizes inspections of cargo to and from Iran that is suspected of carrying prohibited equipment, tightens the monitoring of Iranian financial institutions and extends travel bans and asset freezes against persons and companies involved in the nuclear program.

It adds 13 names to the existing list of 5 individuals and 12 companies subject to travel and asset restrictions. The new names include people with direct responsibility for building fast-spinning centrifuges that enrich uranium ore and a brigadier general engaged in “efforts to get round the sanctions” in the two earlier resolutions.

The new measure also bans all trade and supply of so-called dual-use items, materials and technologies that can be adapted for military as well as civilian ends.

Look, every little bit helps, especially in building a public record, and showing that all steps were taken before military force is used.  These new sanctions have only tiny baby teeth, and will not stop the Iranian program, but they may influence so-called "moderates" in Iran to urge a more responsible course.

DO NOT SEND TO SOMEONE YOU LOVE

We end on an important financial note:

NEW YORK (AP) -- You know that Sharper Image gift card you got for Christmas? Right now, it's worthless. And other gift cards in your wallet could lose their value, too.

As more retailers file for bankruptcy or go out of business, more than $75 million in gift cards are at risk of becoming worthless pieces of plastic this year.

''If I knew this was going to happen, I would have used them right away,'' said Jon Tapper, a public relations executive from Boston who received two Sharper Image cards as business gifts just a few weeks ago. Their total face value is $50.

''I love gift cards, but now this makes me think twice.''

The Sharper Image announced late last month that it was suspending the acceptance of gift cards, at least temporarily. It urged shoppers to check the company Web site later this month for an update. That is typical of businesses that reorganize under Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which treats gift cards as a loan to the company, not as cash.

Okay, go check your wallet.  Check that old brown envelope in the bottom drawer where you keep those cards.  And be sure to call your mother-in-law and tell her there'll be no vibrating relaxing chair for her!  No, ma'am. 

Just don't expect a warm Thanksgiving at her house.

And I'll be back later.

Posted on March 3, 2008.