EVENING UPDATE,  MARCH 27,  2008

WELL, IT IS THE THING TO DO

All of you have no doubt been clicking onto Urgent Agenda to learn of the latest poll results for Connecticut.  How do folks in the richest state in the union plan to vote, after pulling up to the polling places in their Volvos or hybrids?

We have those results.  Quinnipiac, the latest poll, has Obama at 52, McCain at 35.  The same pollster has Clinton at 45, McCain at 42.

Now that's ridiculous.  Obama leads by 17, and Clinton by only 3?  Yup.

And it's not ridiculous.  That's Connecticut, not far from where this is written.  It doesn't have a very large African-American population, so that's not what's driving Obama up.  But it is heavy in Ivy League angst, Wall Street guilt, and sixties liberal nostalgia.  From their million-dollar shacks and three-million dollar proper homes, the Connecticut elite will turn out for "our fellow human, and symbol of ethnic awareness, our brother, Barack Hussein Obama."   They will be proud to use his middle name.  That's real liberalism.  And they will feel cleansed of their history, their cruelty.

And they will look out their windows after voting, watching carefully the work done on their lawns by illegal immigrants.  Oh, I'm sorry.  I meant intercultural sojourners.  And they will feel wonderful...about themselves. 

They always have.

March 27, 2008.  Permalink 

IT'S CLINTON'S FAULT

According to Senator Obama, the fault for the current economic mess lies with government, including the Clinton administration, with lobbyists, with industry, and, y'know, maybe he even meant to include global warming:

Senator Barack Obama called Thursday for tighter regulation of mortgage lenders, banks and other financial institutions, even as he spoke of pumping $30 billion into the economy to shield homeowners and local governments from the worst effects of the collapse of the housing bubble.

He laid much of the blame for the current financial difficulties on the industry lobbyists and politicians who dismantled much of the regulatory framework overseeing energy, telecommunications and financial services.

Speaking in the Great Hall at the Cooper Union in Manhattan, Mr. Obama blamed Democrats no less than Republicans for policies that now cast a shadow of foreclosure and insolvency over millions of Americans. He did not mention former President Bill Clinton by name, but the implied criticism seemed clear.

“Under Republican and Democratic administrations, we failed to guard against practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productivity and sound business practices,” Mr. Obama said. “The result has been a distorted market that creates bubbles instead of steady sustainable growth — a market that favors Wall Street over Main Street, but ends up hurting both.”

He did not mention irresponsible lenders who borrowed way beyond their means.

Look, I have no love affair with slick bankers or slipshod lending companies.  And I can be just as harsh about overpaid executives and country-club croneyism as anyone else.  But Obama won't solve anything if his answer is simply more regulation. 

He's getting into details.  Now he opens himself to examination.

March 27, 2008.  Permalink

DELIGHTFUL MISCHIEF

Here's a bit of delightful mischief.  Susan Estrich, not unknown to feminism, examines the possibility that Democratic superdelegates might act independently:

I had to laugh last weekend watching New Mexico Governor and superdelegate Bill Richardson, who was everywhere endorsing Barack Obama, taking a moralistic stance on superdelegates respecting the will of the people.

Come again. Which people?

Would that be the people of his home state, who he will actually be "representing" at the convention, or the people of the 48 states that will be allowed to vote on the first Credentials Challenge, or the people of the 50 states who will be voting if Hillary ultimately has even one more vote than Obama on the question of seating Florida and Michigan?

High-minded moral questions about respecting the will of the people don't usually lend themselves so easily to the multiple choice approach! Of course, the people of New Mexico handed Hillary Clinton a victory, as did the people of Massachusetts, which isn't, and shouldn't be, stopping superdelegates Bill Richardson and Ted Kennedy from casting their votes for Barack Obama.

If you do the math, you quickly come to the conclusion that neither candidate, barring some truly unexpected landslide, is going to win this nomination on the basis of pledged delegates alone. As the rules structure it, there is no "will of the people," or at least not one strong enough to support a nominee. Unless you want to change the rules in the middle of the game, the fact is that it will be up to the superdelegates to do what they were put there to do: decide who is most electable, and cast their votes accordingly.

And who is the most electable of the two?

The truth is, who knows?

Interesting question.  Read the whole thing.  I happen to agree that superdelegates should be free to vote however they wish.  That's why they're there.  And Estrich raises valid questions about Richardson and Ted Kennedy, who presumably will vote for Obama, despite the tallies in their own states' primaries. 

It's getting very hot in the Democratic Party.  A lot of people are going to leave the Denver convention very angry.  So sad, so sad.

I'll be back tomorrow.  If events warrant, we may have a late story tonight.

March 27, 2008.  Permalink

MORE AFTERNOON POSTINGS,  MARCH 27,  2008

THE TRACKERS

Tracking polls are reasonably steady today.  The campaigns, despite all the media noise, are in a kind of lull, awaiting the big push in Pennsylvania, which will occur in the coming weeks.  Rasmussen still has McCain up 10 against Obama, whereas Gallup shows McCain up only one.  Averaging, it's about 5.5 points.  The key is that McCain holds a steady lead.

Rasmussen also has McCain up 10 over Clinton, a greater spread than we've seen, possibly a result of Clinton's work of war fiction.  Gallup has McCain up three over Clinton.

March 27, 2008.  Permalink

THE ODD COUPLE, OR LOGICAL?

Guess who came to Utah today to campaign with John McCain?

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - John McCain got some help Thursday from former Republican rival Mitt Romney, a pairing that months ago seemed improbable as the two fought bitterly for the party's presidential nomination.
In their first campaign swing as allies, Romney appeared with the likely Republican nominee at a private fundraiser in this Republican bastion. The two were traveling to Denver for a second fundraiser.

They were joined by Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., an early McCain supporter whose name has been mentioned as a potential vice presidential pick. Meg Whitman, the outgoing chief executive of eBay Inc., and a former Romney backer, also joined them.

Hey, you never know.  Kennedy picked Johnson in 1960, and the two loathed each other.  As long as their offices are far apart...

March 27, 2008.  Permalink

AFTERNOON POSTINGS,  MARCH 27,  2008

It is 3:24 p.m., ET

THE DISGRACE

There's a story out of Los Angeles that makes me want to repeal the First Amendment.

The Los Angeles Times is properly apologizing for a story about the murder of rap star Tupac Shakur, as reported by Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post:

The Los Angeles Times has acknowledged that it unwittingly relied on fabricated FBI documents, created by a con man, for a report that implicated associates of rap mogul Sean "Diddy" Combs in the 1994 shooting of rapper Tupac Shakur.

The story's author, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Chuck Philips, said in a statement late yesterday: "In relying on documents that I now believe were fake, I failed to do my job. I'm sorry." Deputy Managing Editor Marc Duvoisin also apologized, saying in a separate statement: "We should not have let ourselves be fooled. That we were is as much my fault as Chuck's. I deeply regret that we let our readers down."

Fair enough. That's well said, without excuses.  Of course, the jokes will now begin.  Why is The Times apologizing?  Well, it wants its building to be there in the morning.  Hah, hah.

But it's not a joke.  This kind of apology should be issued far more often, for the press sins far more often, and it sins on major matters. 

This year, 2008, marks the 40th anniversary of the Tet offensive in Vietnam.  The Tet offensive, launched by our enemies, turned out to be, for them, an unmitigated disaster.  It was an enormous victory for the United States and its Vietnamese allies.  It broke the back of the Communist-led Viet Cong. 

But Tet was reported to our people as an American defeat.  Led by the incompetent Walter Cronkite and the reliably anti-war New York Times, we were told that it proved we could not win the war.  What we were told was false.  It was the worst journalistic scandal in modern American history.

And yet, four decades later, there has still not been a single apology from a major news organization.  When I see that, I will know that journalism is trying seriously to regain its credibility.  Until then, no mea culpa over a rapper story will convince me.

March 27, 2008.  Permalink

NORTH CAROLINA

Once again, a knowledgeable reader assists us with a story.  I noted earlier that the North Carolina Democratic primary, to be held May 6th, will be critical, and that Senator Obama will depend on the African-American vote and the vote in college towns like Durham (Duke) and Chapel Hill (University of North Carolina).

But a reader reminds me that May 6th is in the middle of finals week.  College students will be very distracted, with a lot to do.  There may well be a falloff in their vote, and it could affect the outcome of the election.

That's the blogosphere.  There are many people out there who know things, things that "journalists" don't know.  They are invaluable. 

WHOOPS:  This story has to be amended, although the effect is the same.  Schedules change all the time, of course.  It turns out that Duke's finals end on the 3rd, according to the latest posted calendar, a few days before the primary.  UNC Chapel Hill continues torturing students through the 6th.  So, students will either be gone, or still laboring.  The impact on the primary will still be fewer students available for Obama.

March 27, 2008.  Permalink

THURSDAY,  MARCH 27,  2008

DAMAGE CONTROL

When I was a student at Columbia's Graduate School of Journalism, we took a course in libel law.  There we learned the concept of "compounding the libel."  In short, if you're libeled, and bring a lawsuit, there's the danger that publicity over the suit - newspaper reports, TV spots - simply "compound the libel," they repeat the smear against you over and over.  That's one reason why many people don't sue for libel.  They let the matter drop.

I thought of that concept while watching Barack Obama trying, once again, to put the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. behind him.  Every time the issue is brought up, it compounds his problem by drawing attention to the petulant pastor.  Obama is doing a poor job with this:

Reflecting the campaign's concern about the fallout, Obama used a question about religion at a town hall forum as an opportunity to address the issue.

''This is somebody that was preaching three sermons at least a week for 30 years and it got boiled down ... into a half-minute sound clip and just played it over and over and over again, partly because it spoke to some of the racial divisions we have in this country,'' Obama told an audience in this central North Carolina city.

''There are misunderstandings on both sides,'' the Illinois senator said. ''We cannot solve the problems of America if every time somebody somewhere does something stupid, that everybody gets up in arms and forgets about the war in Iraq and we forget about the economy.''

Sorry, Senator, but that just doesn't cut it.  You're making matters worse.  The issue involves your judgment:  Why did you, a public figure, continue to associate yourself with a pastor who preached open hate?  Why did you take your children to hear his sermons? 

This isn't going away.  It may get worse if more incendiary comments by Wright surface.  One surfaced yesterday, in which he seemed to smear Italian Americans.

And...

Wright has canceled some planned public appearances this week. Obama said Wednesday he has spoken with the pastor.

''I have talked to him. I have not asked him to do anything,'' the Illinois senator told reporters.

Well, what did he say to the man?  He could have asked Wright to reflect on his hate speech and make a public statement, but apparently he didn't.  By the way, why did he talk to him?

Obama is manipulative, and the public may start to resent being manipulated.

March 27, 2008.  Permalink

HANSON ON OBAMA

Victor Davis Hanson gives Obama some unsolicited but wise advice on how to handle the Wright stuff.  Hanson examines what Obama might have said in his speech on race, given last week:

Had Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., just said the following words last week in his speech on race in America, his problems with his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, would probably now be over:

"You have all heard the racist and anti-American outbursts of my pastor Rev. Wright. They are all inexcusable. His speeches have forced me to re-examine my long association with Trinity United Church of Christ. And so it is with regret that I must now leave that church.

"I had heard similar extremist language of Rev. Wright in the past, and now apologize that I did not earlier end my attendance and contributions. Had I long ago expressed my strong objections to Rev. Wright's views, such opposition might have suggested to him a more moderate path.

"But any good that now might come by remaining steadfast to Rev. Wright in consideration of our long past friendship is outweighed by the damage that would accrue from the sanction of his extremism that my continued attendance at his church might convey.

"I have loyalty aplenty, but it is to the truth, my country and universal tolerance, not to any one friend, however long and close our association."

Read the whole thing.  It's worth it, and reminds us of what Obama had to do, and didn't. 

One key element here is that Obama is a United States senator, not a private citizen.  The rules are different.  If a white senator attended a church presided over by a hatemonger, he'd probably be voted out of office, or would become a kind of political pariah.  Obama has asked for a pass not given to others.  Can't do that. 

March 27, 2008. Permalink

THE NIGHTMARE THAT KEEPS ON SCARING

It may be that the Democratic Party, not swift on most things in recent decades, is finally realizing the cost of excluding Michigan and Florida from its convention because their early primaries broke party rules.  It's the appearances, dearie.  So crude.  So cold.  So...well, it's the kind of thing Hollywood liberals would do when negotiating a contract, just before they leave for a "save the whales" rally. 

In today's Wall Street Journal, Lawrence B. Lindsey, a Republican, gives the best analysis of the Michigan/Florida dilemma that I've read.  He also proposes a sane solution:

Discussion among Democrats on how to deal with Florida and Michigan centers on three options. The first is not to seat them at all. Legally appropriate, but it would doubtless hurt the Democrats in both states in November -- which may be why Republicans in the state legislatures found themselves as allies of Mr. Obama in working against a revote.

The second option would be to seat delegations that were evenly split between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. This would make the votes of 2.3 million Democrats irrelevant, while creating artificial representation for the states. It is very much like the 72 bonus delegates selected by party leaders to "represent" women, ethnic minorities, the gay and lesbian communities and the handicapped.

The third option would be to let the early primary votes stand, and select delegates according to the outcome. On a statistical basis, this is clearly the right result for Florida. The easiest solution for Michigan is to simply award the 45% of the vote uncommitted or for another candidate to Mr. Obama. This appears to be the intent of those voters, as well as the likely result of a rematch. It would reduce Mr. Obama's current edge in pledged delegates to 115 from 167. It would also reduce the adjusted popular-vote margin, that converts caucus votes to primary votes, to an edge for Mr. Obama of 466,000. If Mrs. Clinton wins Pennsylvania by the margin polls now suggest, the two candidates would be essentially tied in popular votes, with an Obama edge in delegates of about 80. That would leave the remaining primaries and the superdelegates to decide the outcome of an essentially tied race.

And that sounds like the most fun for our side, which is why I think it's sober, brilliant, fair and reasonable.

March 27, 2008. Permalink

THE McCAIN DEMOCRATS

It's pretty clear that this phrase will echo throughout the campaign. The Reagan Democrats were critical to putting Ronald Reagan in office.  The McCain Democrats may do the same for John McCain.  (Lord, are you listening?  Please make it happen.)

The Politico's David Paul Kuhn spotlights the phenomenon:

A new analysis of March polling data suggests that John McCain's cross-party support surpasses that of either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

According to data provided by the Gallup Organization at Politico’s request, in a hypothetical contest between McCain and Obama, McCain wins 17 percent of Democrats and those leaning Democratic, while Obama wins 10 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaners.

In a potential contest with Clinton, McCain wins 14 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaners while Clinton wins 8 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaners.

By way of comparison, exit polls in 2004 reported that George W. Bush won 11 percent of Democrats and John F. Kerry won 6 percent of Republicans.

The new analysis, calculated from a compilation of the Gallup Organization’s daily polls between March 7 and 22, seems to indicate that there are more “McCain Democrats” than the much-ballyhooed “Obama Republicans” — or “Obamacans,” as they are sometimes referred to.

Further...

Democrats say they must undercut McCain’s maverick image in order to shore up their flank.

“People tend to confuse maverick with moderate,” said Steve Rosenthal, a Democratic leader in mobilizing voters. Rosenthal said Democrats must position McCain as a conservative and introduce them to the “real John McCain” on issues ranging from abortion to the war in Iraq to the environment.

“If Republicans are successful in defining John McCain as a moderate who can work across party lines and is a straight talker, then we will be in a real battle to win Democrats in some of these swing states,” he continued.

“Against McCain,” Rosenthal said, “it’s clear this is going to be an extremely close race. Anybody who thought that Democrats were going to waltz to the White House in 2008 is crazy.”

Seems to me there are a lot of those crazies at Dem national headquarters - the kind of guys who think you can exclude two of our largest states, Michigan and Florida, and get away with it.  May they continue to hold their jobs.

March 27, 2008. Permalink

R.I.P.

Finally, a tribute.

Herb Peterson has died.

He lived a full life, and we pay tribute to him now.  Who, we ask, has contributed more?

Wait.  You don't know who Herb Peterson was?  Really?  And you want to admit that?  Why, you vulgar, uneducated readers.  What am I going to do with you?

All right, I'll lower myself and explain:  Herb Peterson invented the Egg McMuffin.

Now do you understand why I feel so emotional about this?  The man was gifted:

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Herb Peterson, who invented the ubiquitous Egg McMuffin as a way to introduce breakfast to McDonald's restaurants, has died, a Southern California McDonald's official said Wednesday. He was 89.

Peterson died peacefully Tuesday at his Santa Barbara home, said Monte Fraker, vice president of operations for McDonald's restaurants in that city.

He began his career with McDonald's Corp. as vice president of the company's advertising firm, D'Arcy Advertising, in Chicago. He wrote McDonald's first national advertising slogan, "Where Quality Starts Fresh Every Day."

Peterson eventually became a franchisee and was currently co-owner and operator of six McDonald's restaurants in Santa Barbara and Goleta, Fraker said.

Peterson came up with idea for the signature McDonald's breakfast item in 1972. He "was very partial to eggs Benedict," Fraker said, and worked on creating something similar.

Rest in peace, Herb.  May your arteries remain Eternally clear.

And I'll be back with our Evening Edition later.  But, under our new policy, I may well have some good tidbits in the afternoon or late morning, depending on where you are.  So check back whenever you can.

March 27, 2008. Permalink