JustOneMinute

OK, So What Are The "Legitimate Claims" Of Hezbollah And Hamas?

David Brooks chatted with Barack Obama on Hezbollah and Hamas, with eyebrow-raising results:

The U.S. needs a foreign policy that “looks at the root causes of problems and dangers.” Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that “they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.” He knows these movements aren’t going away anytime soon (“Those missiles aren’t going to dissolve”), but “if they decide to shift, we’re going to recognize that. That’s an evolution that should be recognized.”

As a former community organizer himself  I suppose Obama might admire the efficacy of the Hamas and Hezbollah street level operations.  But what "legitimate claims" does he have in mind?  Beats me.  The Confederate Yankee and Noah Pollak of Commentary are also concerned.

But I have a Bold Suggestion - since Obama is backing away from his "I'll meet with any rogue fool without preconditions" pledge anyway, why doesn't he announce one pre-condition - any bad boy dictators or lunatics who want to meet with Obama must load onto YouTube a video of themselves singing a chorus of Kumbaya.  That should be reassuring.

Disaster Relief - Myanmar And China

Americares is a terrific international and domestic aid organization currently focused on Myanmar and China.  If you have not heard of them, they are highly regarded for their good work and low expense ratio - less than 2% of donor dollars go to overhead, mainly because their staffers are paid a pittance (my wife works there).  Closer to home, Americares is also involved with tornado relief in the Midwest.

The story of their founding is a classic:

On April 4, 1975 a U.S. jet carrying 243 Vietnamese orphans crashed into the jungle outside Tan Son Nhut. A third of the children burned to death, many of the remaining victims were critically injured. Soon after, the Pentagon announced that it would not have the resources to rescue the children for 10 days.

The world received the news of the crash with dismay, shock, and a widespread sense of helplessness. One individual decided to take action. Robert C. Macauley, a paper broker from New Canaan, Connecticut immediately chartered a Boeing 747 to rescue the young survivors. Within 48 hours, the children were safe in California.

The rescue plan a success, Macauley now had to deal with a few financial issues, a minor detail in his philanthropic mind. Macauley did not have $10,000 in the bank to cover the down payment for the aircraft, nor the $241,000 for the remaining balance. To cover his expenses, Mr. and Mrs. Macauley took out a mortgage on their house. A fair trade, his wife Leila comments, "The bank got the house and Bob got the kids."

If you fly it, they will come; Times coverage from their archives is here and here.

Their current effort in Myanmar is described here; a snippet:

An AmeriCares emergency relief expert arrived in Myanmar and is assessing the situation and working to obtain clearance for our airlift of essential medicines
and medical supplies to land in Yangon. They are also working closely with the World Health Organization to help coordinate relief efforts and ensure the aid is distributed to the delta regions most affected by Cyclone Nargis.   Our relief expert on the ground has extensive experience in responding to the 2004 tsunami disaster.

...AmeriCares is mobilizing additional disaster relief experts to the region.  Our manager of emergency response has been in Bangkok working to procure additional emergency relief supplies and participating in logistics meetings with the UN and other NGO's to coordinate relief efforts staged out of Thailand.

AmeriCares is working around the clock to obtain additional visas into the country in order to distribute the first airlift to those most affected.  We are in the process of planning additional shipments of essential supplies, including water purification sachets and supplement anti-malaria medications, which are included in the first airlift.

Aid groups are having a hard time getting people and aid into Myanmar right now.

In China, Americares has people on the ground, as well as an unlikely ally - the  good people of Worldwide Wrestling Entertainment plan to put a smackdown on earthquakes (I guess they are ready to rumble, but don't say that).

It's for a good cause.  Thanks in advance.

Myanmar Relief

China Relief

Tornado Relief.

Profiles In Courage (Self-Portrait Sub-Division)

This is pretty funny - in a recent speech Obama practically separates his shoulder patting himself on the back for entering the lion's den and, in a Detroit speech from May 2007, telling automakers they need to improve the fuel efficiency of their fleets:

"We're going to have do what I did when I went to Detroit and told the automakers that they're going to have to raise fuel-efficiency standards on cars. We can make more efficient cars right here in the United States. There's no way they have to be made in Japan. But, it requires that Detroit changes its ways. And I have to say that when I delivered that speech, nobody clapped. The room was really quiet. But that's OK, because that's part of what is the task of the next president."

There are just a couple of problems - the video of the Detroit speech is available, and in reality Obama was interrupted by applause at that point in the speech.  And why might he have been interrupted?  Well, Obama came laden with carrots as well as sticks; this is from the WaPo account of the Detroit speech:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) yesterday proposed federal assistance to help U.S. automakers cover the cost of their retired workers' health benefits if the companies invest in technology to improve their vehicles' fuel efficiency.

In a speech at the Detroit Economic Club, the Democratic presidential candidate offered a plan to ease the pain of U.S. automakers even as he reiterated support for higher fuel-efficiency standards.

...

Obama proposed that the government pay for 10 percent of domestic automakers' health-care costs for retired workers through 2017 if the firms plow half the savings into equipment for making more efficient cars and trucks. Obama's campaign estimates that this would cost taxpayers roughly $7 billion over the next 10 years.

In addition, Obama proposed tax incentives for retooling auto assembly plants and the extension of tax credits for hybrid vehicles beyond the current 60,000-cars-per-manufacturer limit. His campaign put the 10-year cost of his plan at $20 billion and said it would be covered by auctioning greenhouse gas permits under a cap-and-trade program that Obama also supports.

Let's hear it for taxpayer subsidies!  Greg Mankiw was scathing; the NY Times was laudatory, and barely mentioned the carrot part of the Obama speech.  However, they included this:

Despite Mr. Obama’s sometimes harsh words Monday, the diverse audience interrupted him 10 times for applause. “I think it took a lot of courage to come to Detroit and lay it on the line,” said Peter Eckstein, a retired labor union economist from Ann Arbor, Mich.

He's a hero!  And I know it's true because I read it in the Times.

MORE:  The LA Times blog also has this, and also connects it to the Hillary-Bosnia story.  Do we detect the dark power of Sidney Blumenthal?

Maybe Try To Smile When You Say That

The Obama campaign rises to defend the Sister Grim:

“This is a shameful attempt to attack a woman who has repeatedly said she wouldn’t be here without the opportunities and blessings of this nation,” says Obama spokesman Sevugan. Read full response.

Responding to tart Tennessee GOP video/press release attacking Michelle Obama for saying she had not been proud of America as an adult before the campaign.

Has she really said that repeatedly?  Has she ever smiled when she said it?  I have often said something similar to "I wouldn't be here without the blessings of this great nation" while standing on a crowded subway platform during a July heat wave, which is her most common demeanor; check the New Yorker profile, or the Chicago Tribune, or TIME, or Newsweek.

But fair's fair - in this version of her stump speech she does admit that she stands on the shoulders of giants and has beaten the odds, just before explaining to her audience how unlikely it is that any of them will do so.

Does Karl Rove Still Have The Magic?

Back in 2004 the Massachusetts Supreme Court and Gavin Newsom, Mayor of San Francisco, launched a national conversation on gay marriage.  Now the California Supreme Court may provide Republicans the same favor (I deplore these distractions).  We will find out at about 1 PM EDT; the WSJ blog has the relevant legal background but omits a key political point - in 2005 [and 2007] the California legislature narrowly passed a bill legalizing gay marriage; Schwarzenegger vetoed it as contrary to the 2000 referendum [Excellent background from Eugene Volokh].

In a mad fit of shameless self-promotion, I will cite this old post from Feb 2004 as shockingly insightful, or anyway, inciteful - my gist was that "Loving v. Virgina", in which the Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws in 1967, was *not* an example of an activist court.  In fact, since many states had already repealed such statutes (and since Congress had recently passed the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act), my contention is that the Supreme Court ratified a societal change that had already occurred.

That will be quite different from the situation in California, clearly.  But as to what the popular will is in the Golden State, who knows?  A 2000 ballot initiative barring gay marriage passed with 61%; as mentioned, in 2005 the legislature ignored that; and now a new ballot initiative (this time in the form of a constitutional amendment) is poised to go on the November ballot.  It does appear that the people will be heard and a full judicial cram-down avoided.

MORE:  Ruling is here (172 page .pdf).  From p. 7:

We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.

I am not a lawyer and I have not read the rest, but my quick impression is that this is a finding of a right within the California constitution to gay marriage both in substance and in form (i.e., it will be called "marriage"), which brings the attempt to amend the constitution by way of ballot initiative into play for this November.  Loose the hounds!

DEPLORABLE DESCENT INTO SNIDENESS - Nothing about this yet at Sully's site?  Geez.

Team Volokh is reading what I'm reading.

Eugene Volokh:

California Supreme Court Holds That California Must Recognize Same-Sex Marriage

Orin Kerr:

California Supreme Court Holds That There Is A State Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage in California

SNIDENESS REVISITED:  Lots of coverage by Andrew Sullivan (1, 2, 3, 4, 5); I liked this from his first post:

The most populous state now joins much of the rest of the Western world in bringing gay couples into the civic and human family as equals.

Really?  I would have inferred that they have joined Canada, Belgium, Holland, Spain and South Africa.  Not to overlook Massachusetts.  The list for civil partnerships is much longer, but that is not what this tussle is about.

I will agree with Andrew's point that this is not a clarion case of judicial activism, given the legislative support in 2005 and the high likelihood of a ballot initiative this fall.  Now, if the ballot initiative succeeds in amending the California constitution and the California Court strikes it down, we are into judicial wonderland.

SINCE YOU ASK:  My official editorial position has been that gay marriage is an idea whose time is coming (based on its strong support among the young and opposition among the elderly) and that it ought to arrive by way of the legislative process rather than by judicial fiat.

As to the merits, I have no idea how vast or trivial a social experiment we are talking about.  In Massachusetts and around the country black ministers were opposed - apparently they have had trouble promoting marriage to the young gangsta wanna-bes who are currently reluctant to do the white thing with their ladies; if marriage is further re-branded as a gay thing, they felt their challenge would be even greater.  Are they right?  And should we let the homophobia of a bunch of dysfunctional urban youth drive our social policy?  Or is this yet another liberal assault on the black family (To be filed under "What Else Is New?)

Well.  I think if we get to gay marriage by way of the tedious democratic process of mustering support and passing laws, we will be fine.  If we get there because some creative Obama judges, after contemplating the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution, come to the realization that our Founding Fathers really did endorse gay marriage, well, that will be divisive and a distraction.  And we don't want that.

FULL DISCLOSURE:  I am dating myself here but I am easily old enough to remember when the motivation behind the push for gay marriage in New York City was to enable gay tenants to pass along rent-controlled apartments to their significant other.  A bit later the AIDS crisis prompted a push for gay marriage to allow a spousal access to health insurance.  So the current talk about the desire for access to marriage as a fundamental expression of true love falls a bit flat to these tired ears.

ENCORE:  David Brooks on the conservative case for gay marriage as a stabilizing institution, from Nov. 2003.

FROM THE CANDIDATES:  Ben Smith of The Politico has statements from the campaign.  I like this summary:

... JMart wisely notes: Because Obama is not where the far left wants him to be (marriage) and McCain not where the far right wants him to be (a federal ban), this is not something either will probably make front and center.

A GI Bill Compromise?

Smart and necessary for McCain.

A Helpful Matt Bai Skipper

Times contributer Matt Bai will have a long NY Times magazine entry this Sunday.  Apparently it is an upscale attempt to Swiftboat John McCain (You know I use that term mockingly) by de-legitimizing his wartime experience.  My advice to Attack Dems intent on this path - have fun storming the castle!

Fortunately, we can all skip directly to the vivisection - Karl at Team Protein, Michael Goldfarb, and Capt. Ed cover the bases.

Briefly, Bai ignores the good news out of Basra (deadline problems?) and McCain's extensive study of insurgencies in the Naval War College after Vietnam.

Don't Know Much About History (Last Chapter?)

The Minuteman gets results!  OK, really the Rightosphere, but let me savor the moment.  We have had some fun mocking Obama's ahistorical notion, offered as justification for his willingness to talk with Iran, that Roosevelt and Truman negotiated with our enemies (Stalin was still our ally against Germany at the time of Tehran and Yalta).

But in a statement reported today, Obama seems to have cracked open the old history books:

It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power -- including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria.

Obama invoked Roosevelt and Truman and Kennedy during a victory speech following his win in North Carolina - presumably, he calculated that neither the moment nor the audience was right for an invocation of Nixon and Reagan as two of his guiding lights, and how many of his young supporters were likely to spot the error, or care?

Since Obama majored in international relations back in his Columbia days, I will opine that he knew he was blowing smoke with the "Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy" triumvirate, but liked its audience appeal.  That's new politics?

Good News From Basra

Betsy Newmark clips from the WSJ and the NY Times.

Almost Heaven, West Virginia

Hillary wins huge in West Virginia, with a 67-26 margin that doesn't count since it delivered by was older white people, some of whom are the sort of racists that would send a former Klansmen to the US Senate.  The critical significance of this result is explained by Matt Yglesias:

As the Clinton campaign sagely points out "no Democrat has won the White House without winning West Virginia since 1916" and therefore Obama's primary loss shows that despite his large lead in the polls over John McCain, he can't possible win the election.

What's even more interesting is that no Democrat has won the White House without carrying Minnesota since 1912 (it went for Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose party) so given that Obama won Minnesota and Clinton won West Virginia, McCain is guaranteed to win the general election unless the eventual nominee can somehow completely replicate the social and political conditions prevailing in pre-WWI America. The outlook, in short, is very grim.

If a vigorous discussion of Hillarity's renewed hope cannot hold people's attention, help me with this equally portentouus puzzle: is "Take Me Home, Country Roads" the best pick for state song of West Virginia (ignore this official list)?

Bonus Question - does John Denver score a second entry with "Rocky Mountain High"? 

And some real headscratchers:  First, I have a digitaly remastered version of Al Jolson singing "California, Here I Come", which can't be ruled out as a possible Best Song for California.  However, is Tony Bennet's "I Left My Heart In San Francisco" eligible?  It's really a city song, obviously, but if the judges let it in then they have to consider "New York, New York" as well.

Among Grand Champions it is very tough to beat "Oklahoma", but "Georgia On My Mind" could do it ("Midnight Train to Georgia" is a logical nominee and house fave, but we recognize our limitations, sometimes).

Some of these other states have songs that aren't obviously ghastly - Tennessee has "Rocky Top", and, if desperate, could share "Gimme a 'T" For Texas", and the Washington DC song ("Send In The Clowns") is a classic.  If folks have a great suggestion for New Jersey (A suggestion for a song) please share.  But that is where I am leaning for the big winner - Oklahoma.

OUTSIDE THE BOX:  Here it is - American President Idol!  The winner of each primary has to sing that state's song on national television.  Oh, you know that would be Must-See TV!  Must-See with the sound turned down, maybe...

History Is Bunk (Subcategory: Experience)

Dan McLaughlin writes on the importance of experience for a President; McQ provides the crib notes:

The "experience factor" is the most potent weapon the Republicans have to wield against an Obama candidacy. Sure there will be other factors which work against him as well, but in this age of terrorism and uncertainty (to include economic uncertainty), his lack of experience in just about every sphere should scare voters to death.

Obama's dazzle factor has, to this point, pretty well hidden his experience deficit. Now is the time to begin to bring out that deficit.

I deplore these distractions.

Creeping Towards A Denunciation Of Bill Ayers

Barack Obama took what might have been the first baby step towards renouncing and denouncing Bill Ayers, who worked with Obama on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge for several years in addition to their widely-publicized stint together on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago:

Making a token appearance today in veteran-heavy West Virginia, Obama will say this at a rally:

One of the saddest episodes in our history was the degree to which returning vets from Vietnam were shunned, demonized and neglected by some because they served in an unpopular war. Too many of those who opposed the war in Vietnam chose to blame not only the leaders who ordered the mission, but the young men who simply answered their country’s call. Four decades later, the sting of that injustice is a wound that has never fully healed, and one that should never be repeated.

I'll take a chance and generously suggest that even though he specifically referred to "returning vets", Obama would not consider an attempt to bomb active duty officers as consistent with supporting the troops.  Let's cut to Salon for background on Bill Ayers' Weathermen:

Three Weathermen had blown themselves up while building a bomb in a Greenwich Village townhouse, no more than a mile from where Rudd is sitting today. To the group's everlasting shame, that bomb was intended for an officers' dance at Fort Dix, N.J., where it presumably could have killed not only military personnel but their civilian dates and whoever else might have been in the building.

Obama was heroically wearing a flag pin as well, but not in a gimmicky or pandering way - today, it was just his heartfelt desire to wear his patriotism on his sleeve, or lapel, anyway; on another day, he will no doubt offer a more nuanced expression of his patriotism through word and deed.

SPITTING ON VETS:  Don't even ask.  Let me set the stage by quoting fantasist Paul Krugman:

On the other hand, we should bear in mind that many people believe things about Vietnam that never happened, like demonstrators spitting on returning soldiers.

Uh huh.  Given the long back story and eventual resolution, I would say that Krugman serves as a useful example of a lefty believing what he wants to believe, aided and abetted by left-wing academic bias: the original notion that spat-upon veterans was a myth was coined by a Prof. Jerry Lembcke, a former Vietnam war protester intent on rehabilitating the image of war protesters in the  run-up to Desert Storm.   

And for a bit of perspective, let's note that Lembcke also argued that Vietnam post-traumatic stress disorder was a media construct from the late 70's intended to discredit protesting anti-war veterans, despite John Kerry's 1973 anti-war testimony about suicidal, drug-addled, unemployed vets intended to discredit the Pentagon war effort.  The grinding of Lembcke's axe is audible across the years (but not to Krugman).

 

Blacks And Hillbillies

I'm just glad it was not a thoughtful and sensitive righty who wrote this:

And the level of paranoia and stupidity in some areas of the Middle East eclipses that in Harlem or West Virginia.

I guess that answers the rhetorical question asked about Bill O'Reilly's visit to a Harlem restaurant:

"And I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship," - Bill O'Reilly, on a Harlem restaurant. What was he expecting?

I guess he was expecting paranoia and stupidity, right?  Baffling.

Well, since this is coming from an Obama supporter, the "elitist" tag fits snugly.

EVEN PARANOIDS HAVE REAL ADDRESSES... Just what is the defense of this - that there are real paranoids in Harlem and West Virginia, and stupid people, too?  Who can doubt it?  But I would never single out those two areas as the pinnacles of paranoia and kookery in America without even entertaining nominating speeches in favor of California or the Upper West Side.

STRETCHING AND STRAINING:  How about a defense such as "The Clintons are headquartered in Harlem and campaigning in West Virginia, so really this was a swipe at them"?  Right.  Of course, it makes no sense in context, but someone might buy it. 

Focus On Obama - A SOFT Focus

The enterprising team at All The News That Fits The Narrative work hard to report on Obama's political history without actually disturbing his supporters.

Their coverage of his relationship with Bill Ayers is too incurious to be an accident:

Mr. Obama also fit in at Hyde Park’s fringes, among university faculty members like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, unrepentant members of the radical Weather Underground that bombed the United States Capitol and the Pentagon to protest the Vietnam War. Mr. Obama was introduced to the couple in 1995 at a meet-and-greet they held for him at their home, aides said.

Now, along with Mr. Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Mr. Ayers has become a prime exhibit in the effort by Mr. Obama’s presidential rivals to highlight what could be politically radioactive associations. In 2001, Mr. Ayers said he did not regret the Weatherman bombings. Even so, in Hyde Park, he and his wife were viewed favorably for their work in addressing city problems. Mr. Ayers was just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” Mr. Obama said recently.

The two men were involved in efforts to reform the city’s education system. They appeared together on academic panels, including one organized by Michelle Obama to discuss the juvenile justice system, an area of mutual concern. Mr. Ayers’s book on the subject won a rave review in The Chicago Tribune by Mr. Obama, who called it “a searing and timely account.”

"The two men were involved in efforts to reform the city’s education system"?  Bill Ayers was instrumental in writing the grant proposal that led to the formation of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and worked closely with the group for several years after its inception; the first chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was Barack Obama.  That seems to merit a lot more exposition than the Times delivers.  The Times might have started by asking the Obama team whether they would care to expand on their "Fact Check" on the Ayers-Obama relationship, which somehow overlooked their mutual interest in education.

Now, is it possible the Times was utterly unaware of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge connection, yet was broadly aware of their mutual interest in education reform?  Who can tell?  However, right now a Google on "Obama Ayers Chicago school reform" offers  links to four different posts on the first page (1, 2, 3, 4)that mention the relationship, including a Hot Air post helpfully titled "Did Obama Work For Bill Ayers?".  Yet somehow the Times either missed this or buried it.

Much later the Times covers the  current scuffle between McCain and Obama over Hamas - this is  pure cover-up:

But for all of Mr. Obama’s attentiveness to Jewish concerns about Israel, Republican Party officials have made it clear that they think this is an area of vulnerability. Though Mr. Obama has condemned Hamas, a militant Palestinian group, as a terrorist organization, just last week Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, suggested that the group wanted to see Mr. Obama in the White House. Mr. Obama denounced that suggestion as a “smear.”

Missing from the Times reporting is that McCain was not merely offering his opinion as to Hamas' likely view, but was simply passing along the assessment of Obama offered by a Hamas spokesperson on WABC radio.  And since Mr. Axelrod of the Obama campaign had reacted to the Hamas "endorsement", it is fair to assert that the Obama campaign is well aware that McCain is not simply offering his opinion - is McCain's statement a smear if it the truth?  [I now see that I missed this Saturday whitewash from the Times, eviscerated by Dean Barnett.  See "DOES NOT ADVOCATE", below]

FERTILE GROUND:  In a recent article with extended excerpts from Michelle Obama's stump speech she explained how Obama heroically turned down the millions of dollars available to him on a conventional corporate law career path in order to join a small law firm focusing on civil rights (1, 2).  The Times describes that as a carefully calculated political decision intended to jump start his career, which is flourishing, what with the best-sellers and the Presidential prospects.  Whatever.

Here we go:

This is a man who walked away from a career on Wall Street more than two decades ago to become a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, setting up after-school programs, and bringing jobs to the jobless. Who turned down a lucrative career as a corporate lawyer to organize 150,000 new voters, mostly black, in one of Chicago’s biggest voter registration drives – and who, by the way, has been fighting for our voting rights ever since.

THOSE DARN STAFFERS:  On two different occasions reported by the Times Obama explains a seeming flip-flip by blaming staffers for misrepresenting his views.  Ooops!  A critic might note it is the boss's job to hire and organize the staff, but again, whatever.  [Jake Tapper extends and amplifies this point.]

DOES NOT ADVOCATE:  The Saturday Times "examined" the McCain-Obama-Hamas scuffle and included this howler (emphasis added):

But important nuances appear to have been lost in the partisan salvos, particularly on Mr. McCain’s side. An examination of Mr. Obama’s numerous public statements on the subjects indicates that he has consistently condemned Hamas as a “terrorist organization,” has not sought the group’s support and does not advocate immediate, direct or unconditional negotiations with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president.

Hmm, so why does that unscrupulous John McCain think he does?  Maybe it was this story from last summer in the Times describing the You-Tube debate:

Perhaps the sharpest point of difference came when the candidates were asked if, during their first year as president, they would be willing to meet without preconditions with the presidents and dictators of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

''I would,'' said Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. ''And the reason is this: that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous.''

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who has also criticized the Bush administration for ''not talking to our enemies,'' took a different tack, pledging robust diplomacy but refusing to make that promise of leader-to-leader talks.

Or maybe McCain was relying on this follow-up coverage:

For days, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have been exchanging retorts over the wisdom of sitting down for diplomatic meetings with hostile dictators. In case voters had not been following along, Mr. Obama sought to inform them, weaving his side of the dispute into the overarching message of his campaign.

“Some of you noticed that this week I got in a debate with one of my colleagues who is also running for the presidency,” Mr. Obama said Friday night, opening a two-day trip to Iowa. “The debate was about whether we talk to world leaders even if you don’t like them. My theory is that you do.”

The quarrel emerged from this week’s debate in South Carolina, when Mrs. Clinton said she would not meet with foreign leaders, including those of Iran and North Korea, without preconditions. She later criticized Mr. Obama’s response as “irresponsible and, frankly, naïve.”

Those four words touched off the most direct confrontation yet in the fight for the Democratic nomination. And Mr. Obama worked to keep the distinction alive during a weekend trip to Iowa, turning the disagreement into an example of how he would lead the country differently.

“Our standing in the world has diminished so much because people think that the United States wants to dictate across the world instead of cooperate across the world,” Mr. Obama said Saturday. “When we start sending a signal that we are ready to engage in serious diplomacy, then we’ve got the opportunity to stand before the world and say: We’re back. America is back.”

Or maybe McCain was relying on Obama's web site:

Renewing American Diplomacy

• ...
• Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs.

 

Don't Know Much About History... (Reprise)

Think about this - the probable next President of the United States does not know even the broad outlines of the history of American foreign policy from WWII forward and does not know the history of Democratic icons Roosevelt or Truman.  We had kvetched about this earlier.  The fateful quote from Barack's Tuesday victory speech is this:

"I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did."

Hope and change!

MORE: STALIN IT IS!  Here is Obama at a March 27 2008 fundraiser:

"I think people understand the notion of talking to our enemies," Obama said. "If FDR can meet with Stalin and Nixon can meet with Mao and Kennedy can meet with Khrushchev and Reagan can meet with Gorbechav, then the notion that we can't meet with some half-baked dictator is ridiculous."

Well, Stalin was a fully-baked dictator, but he was also our ally against Nazi Germany when he met with Roosevelt.  For a good example of "half-baked" we need look no further than Barack's proposed meeting with Ahmadinejad.

SOME BACKGROUND: Here is an account of the debate where this came up:

In the debate, Obama was asked if he would be willing to meet — without precondition — in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

"I would," he responded.

Clinton said she would not.

"I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes," she said. Her campaign quickly posted video of her answer online, trying to show she has a different understanding of foreign policy than her chief rival.

RETURN TO SENDER:  No, letters don't count (and I already had pointed out the Roosevelt-Hitler letter) - letters do not provide the sort of propaganda photo-op being criticized.  Besides, Bush has sent a letter to Kim Jong Il, but where is the photo of the two of them shaking hands?

BRINGING IT TOGETHER:  McCain wants to bash Obama on Hamas, and has criticized Obama's intention to confer legitimacy on the Iranian regime by meeting without preconditions.  Well, if Obama is justifying that meeting by reference to historical parallels that exist only in the imaginations of himself and his speechwriters, that is troubling.

And having an Obama adviser caught chatting with Hamas is not helpful for Obama's cred, either.

EXPANDING THE ELECTORAL MAP:  Set aside his evident deficiencies in American post-war history (Nooo, not the Vietnam war) and think about this - Obama is still hazy on how many states there are in the Union, not to mention the normally uncontroversial status of Alaska and Hawaii.  Marc Ambinder has the video of Obama claiming that he has visited 57 states (Hmm, maybe he was sampling Heinz ketchups...).  Obama made a similar whoopsie when chatting with the AP a few weeks ago - back then, he was talking about forty-eight states, plus Alaska and Hawaii.

I would tell him to check the flag in his lapel, but of course he won't be wearing one.  [OK, maybe he did check his lapel pin...]

DOCTOR, DOCTOR, GIMME THE NEWS:  MRI, stat:

This faux pas is beyond weird; I know the guy is tired, but “How many states are there in America?” is the kind of question they ask you at the hospital after you've had a seizure to see if your brain is still working.

He Who Controls The Past Controls The Future

Some Duke academics are trying to re-write the history of the Duke lacrosse debacle; KC Johnson won't let them.

He's outnumbered but they are outgunned.  Sorry, scary metaphor which might alarm the Duke profs; please substitute "they are out-classed".  And Prof. Johnson's alliance with the truth won't hurt his chances either.

My guess is that this tussle will go on for years as the Duke profs continue their revisionism in various sympathetic outlets.

POLITICAL BONUS:  Per Prof. Johnson, Obama was the only Presidential candidate to call for a DoJ investigation of Nifong.

Losing My Bearings

John McCain, in his appearance on Jon Stewart, reprised his observation that Hamas favored Obama.

Barack Obama, in an interview with Wolf Blitzer, engaged in a bit of agesim by deploring this "smear" and asserting that John McCain had "lost his bearing".

McCain aide Mark Salter fires back.  His gist - a Hamas spokesperson did say exactly that, and has a perfectly good reason to say so - Iran trains and funds Hamas and would welcome the publicity coup of the unconditional meeting with an American President promised by Barack.

Andy McCarthy points out that the Obama campaign wasn't so incensed a few weeks ago:

When asked about the endorsement, Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, was flattered that Hamas compared his candidate to JFK: "We all agree that John Kennedy was a great president, and it's flattering when anybody says that Barack Obama would follow in his footsteps."

Mr. McCarthy also notes Barack's own invocation of his middle name as providing an opportunity to heal America's standing in the world.  Fair enough, and let's toss in Obama's face, by way of Mr. Sullivan:

What does he offer? First and foremost: his face. Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the United States since Reagan...

Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.

So let me project Sully's view onto the current dust-up - we should vote for the black guy becasue of his cosmetic appeal to brown-skinned third worlders, but we should be appalled at the suggestion that third-world jihadists will consider him likely to be more sympathetic.  Is everybody clear?

I am not.

PILING ON:  Jimmy Carter, famous Democrat, former President and lifetime clown, met with Hamas; if Hamas were asked to guess which party is more likely to be sympathetic to them, can we think of a reason they would answer "the Democrats"?

MEETING WITH THE ENEMY:  I enjoyed this, from a frustrated Democratic adult:

As you probably know, Barack Obama appeared on Fox News Sunday on April 27, 2008 (to the apparent dismay of many liberal bloggers who support negotiating with our nation’s enemies, but are boycotting Fox in order to “delegitimize” it. Please, kids, grow up with all your litmus tests.)

Cool Story For Poll Geeks

The "Poblano" story is very interesting for poll jockeys and number crunchers.  Basically, he broke down the Hillary and Obama vote differentials based on demographic characteristics and then applied earlier primary results to the changing demographic mix in upcoming states, with pretty good results.  The Big Finish from the National Journal:

All of which brings us to the underlying story of the Democratic presidential primaries. Since Super Tuesday, it has mostly been the story of what hasn't happened. Over the last three months or so, for better or worse, the underlying coalitions of support for Obama and Clinton have remained largely constant.

So therein lies the bad news and the worse news for the Obama and Clinton campaigns, respectively. The bad news for the Obama campaign is that evidence of an expansion of his coalition is weak.

The far worse news for the Clinton campaign is that evidence that she made "important progress" among white voters in Indiana and North Carolina is weaker still. After weeks of pummeling over the controversies involving the Wright's remarks and Obama's comments about the "bitterness" of rural voters, Obama's coalition remains intact and on track to produce a majority of pledged delegates. The "game-changer" that the Clinton campaign counted on to alter the thinking of unpledged superdelegates did not materialize.

I Think We Got it

ABC News covers McCain's appearance with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show:

For his part, McCain joked that he had picked his running mate. With fanfare he pulled out a piece of paper upon which the name of Dwight Schrute, the power-hungry but bumbling character from the NBC sitcom "The Office," was written. Stewart’s audience seemed to approve.

"That is pandering," Stewart joked when McCain received applause.

McCain’s press secretary Brooke Buchanan explained that McCain is a fan of "The Office" and was trying to make a joke.

Thank heaven they checked with the press secretary. 

More coverage (with video link) at USA Today; the WaPo Trail is long and sympathetic.

So let me segue to a point articulated by Michael Scherer of TIME back when the Republicans still had a contest:

Here's one thing you need to know about John McCain. He's always been the coolest kid in school. He was the brat who racked up demerits at the Naval Academy. He was the hot dog pilot who went back to the skies weeks after almost dying in a fire on the U.S.S. Forrestal. His first wife was a model. His second wife was a rich girl, 17 years his junior. He kept himself together during years of North Vietnamese torture and solitary confinement. When he sits in the back of his campaign bus, we reporters gather like kids in the cafeteria huddling around the star quarterback. We ask him tough questions, and we try to make him slip up, but almost inevitably we come around to admiring him. He wants the challenge. He likes the give and take. He is, to put it simply, cooler than us.

Mr. Scherer goes on to contrast McCain with Romney, but a contrast with Barack Obama is also in play.  Barry/Barack was just not the cool kid in school.  He went along, he got along, he wanted to fit in, and I presume he was liked and respected (except as a kid in Indonesia where he was bullied regularly), but he was never one of the cool kids.  And even now he is afraid to go back and talk to the press.

Whatever - Barack has aged gracefully, and, as he might say himself, he is certainly cool enough.  But is is not natural with him, and he knows his secret, as do I (it is a Brotherhood of Nerds thing...).

Now, McCain is 113 years old, so it is not immediately apparent that he will have youth appeal.  However, he will do better on that front than people expect (as Reagan did).  My secret high school spy met McCain at a barbecue in New Hampshire with about forty people in attendance, and came away very impressed; I think she went with the idea that it would be like going to meet grandpa and listening politely while he rambles on about whatever, and she was surprised by how engaging McCain was.

We'll see.  Expect the unexpected.

MORE:  I don't want to cast Barack as Commodus.  But Russell Crowe as John McCain as the Gladiator is a lay-up:

Commodus: The general who became a slave. The slave who became a gladiator. The gladiator who defied an emperor. Striking story! But now, the people want to know how the story ends. Only a famous death will do. And what could be more glorious than to challenge the Emperor himself in the great arena?
Maximus: You would fight me?
Commodus: Why not? Do you think I am afraid?
Maximus: I think you've been afraid all your life.

The scene continued:

Maximus: I knew a man once who said, "Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back."
Commodus: I wonder, did your friend smile at his own death?
Maximus: You must know. He was your father.
Commodus: You loved my father, I know. But so did I. That makes us brothers, doesn't it? Smile for me now, brother.
[stabs him]

Hmm, Hillary could be Commodus... This is tricky - she has the endless ambition, but I don't think she has a fearful inner core, which Obama, the life-long conciliator, might.  Developing...

COURAGE!  Here are two articles contrasting John Kerry's apparent physical courage in Vietnam with his utter lack of political courage thereafter.  We won't be seeing similar articles about McCain, but what will people say of Barack Obama?  What bold stand has he ever taken? 

To be fair, he crossed the aisle with a number of Democrats in favor of tort reform early in his Senate career, and seems to have been reined back in since then.  In any case, this analysis of the tort reform effort does not depict Obama's vote as meriting a Profile in Courage.

And please don't mention his Oct 2002 anti-war speech; 90% of the Congressional Black Caucus opposed the war, so Barack was taking the utterly conventional position for his district.  He also hoped to enter the 2004 Senate race if Carol Mosely Braun declined to run, and she was staunchly anti-war, again, unsurprisingly.  His decision to oppose the war earns him a Profile in Obviousness.

That Was Easy!

Navy releases McCain's military record

No surprises, apparently.  Meanwhile, we are still waiting for a public release of John Kerry's military records.  When last we checked he had signed a limited Form 180 so that a few friendly newspapers could assure the rest of us that it was all good.

With that in mind, I do query this from the AP story about McCain:

The Navy recently released McCain's military record - most of it citations for medals during his Navy career - after a Freedom of Information Act request by The Associated Press.

I see three possibilities: Either McCain signed a Form 180 and agreed to the release, in which case he ought to get some acknowledgment for forthrightness, or the rules have changed quite a bit since 2004 (doubtful); or the AP is a bit confused and these aren't McCain's complete records (the AP, confused?).

A hint is in the excerpt - "most of it citations for medals during his Navy career".  As I recall the Kerry records that we did see included endless performance evaluations about nothing.  I am thinking this is the record of McCain's citations, which might very well be available under an FOIA request but which do not represent the complete file.

Obama The Answer Man

A devoted Obama staffer explains to the WaPo that Obama is all wise and all knowing; also, all-talking:

Two days after his damaging defeat in Pennsylvania last month, Barack Obama gathered his wife and senior campaign staff around the dining room table of his Chicago home.

For two hours after dinner, Barack and Michelle Obama, campaign manager David Plouffe, message man David Axelrod, deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand, communications chiefs Robert Gibbs and Dan Pfeiffer, family friend and Chicago business heavyweight Valerie Jarrett, and scheduling chief Alyssa Mastromonaco hashed over the presidential campaign's history, looked at the upcoming primaries and decided how the candidate would approach the coming two weeks. Obama wanted to get away from the sniping, including his own, and get back to the approachable, hopeful campaign of last winter's long sojourn in Iowa.

"It wasn't like 'Let's have a discussion.' It was 'One, two, three, four, here's what we're going to do,' " a staffer said. "When things don't go well, he doesn't yell and scream. He's very prescriptive. Everybody understands this isn't about having a discussion. He's got 99 percent of the voting shares. There's no point in taking a vote."

What?  Sure, there is no point in taking a vote, but that hardly means that there is no point in having a discussion - presumably these strategists and advisers are intelligent adults with possibly-useful perspectives and an effective leader would draw them out and explore alternatives.

As to the idea that Barack doesn't yell and scream, he simply tells people what to do - well, that would be fabulous if he were running for fire marshall in an office building, but the President of the United States can't possibly be expected to know the answer to every question that will arise during his Administration.  Despite whatever this staffer may have experienced professionally or personally, there are plenty of effective leaders who can handle adversity without yelling or screaming while also promoting creative discussion of alternative strategies.

I assume this staffer meant to be providing fawning praise of the Messiah, but as an example of Obama's leadership style it is not encouraging.

Don't Know Much About History...

Obama wins North Carolina, concedes Indiana, calls for unity. 

Here is a transcript of his speech: this detail struck me:

I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.

Obama's supporters are too young to know any of this, but Roosevelt led the United States in the war against Hitler; the Allied policy was unconditional surrender, so there was very little for Roosevelt and Hitler to discuss, and in fact, the two did not meet at all (but they did exchange correspondence before the war).

So my guess is that Obama is thinking of the Yalta Conference with Churchill and Stalin as talking to "our enemies", although of course we were still allied with the Soviet Union against Germany and Japan at that point.  Beyond that, is the Yalta Conference something Obama and his advisers view as a success worthy of emulation?  Puzzling.

HE'S KIDDING?   Maybe Obama's team is finally realizing they have a Michelle problem;from Obama's speech:

I believe in our ability to perfect this nation, because it's the only reason I'm standing here today. I know the promise of America, because I've lived it. Michelle has lived it; you have lived it.

It is the light of opportunity that led my father across an ocean. It's the founding ideals that the flag draped over my father's coffin stand for. It is life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It's the simple truth I learned all those years ago when I worked in the shadow of all those shuttered steel mills on the south side of the Chicago, that, in this country, justice can be won against the greatest odds, hope can find its way back from the darkest of corners.

And when we are told that we cannot bring about the change that we seek, we answer with one voice: Yes, we can.

"Michelle has lived it"?  Any reasonable person would say that Michelle has lived the American dream, but I am not talking about a reasonable person - I am talking about the woman who whines about loneliness and crushing college loans every time she speaks.  Well, maybe they will gently ask her to go to re-write and try to find something to smile about.

ERRATA: "It's the founding ideals that the flag draped over my father's coffin stand for" - shouldn't that be "grandfather"?  Presumably granddad was entitled to a military funeral; dad was off in Kenya IIRC, probably not with an American flag.

Paddling Into The Mainstream

We detect early ripples as the Obama-Ayers connection by way of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge makes its way a bit closer to the man stream media.

John Murtagh, firebombed by the Weather Underground when he was a kid, appeared on Fox News with Greta Van Susteren, and included this:

MURTAGH: Greta, I do not hold Senator Obama responsible for what happened to my family four decades ago. But he has a relationship with Bill Ayers and with Bill Ayers wife and family that goes back 20 years or more.

Bernadine Dorn, Bill Ayer's wife, who took credit for the bombings in New York, was a coworker with Michelle Obama at the Chicago law firm where Barack Obama and Michelle Obama met.

Barack Obama, as you've pointed out, served on the board of the Wood Foundation for a number of years with Bill Ayers. He was the director of an organization called the Annenberg Challenge in Chicago, which if you look at Bill Ayers Resume on his web site he takes credit as one of the founders of that organization.

In addition, there is an organization called The Educational Leadership Organization in Chicago. Senator Obama served on that board with Bill Ayers brother and father.

I think what is trouble is that the Senator tries to dismiss this as though he were a neighbor down the block that did something 40 years ago. It is a working relationship and apparently has been a working relationship for close to two decades.

That's what I've been saying - good job by Mr. Murtagh, who clearly has done his homework.

SPEAKING OF HOMEWORK:  Currently, a simple Google search on "Obama Ayers" does not turn up the Chicago Annenberg Challenge link until the second page, where this Hot Air story has pride of place.

The March of Feminism

Megan McArdle describing her contemporary lifestyle:

I carry mine with me everywhere, so I can whip it out whenever I have down time.

... I feel like it could be slightly bigger.

Aren't there any "Guy Things" left out there?

OK, THAT WAS DEPLORABLE... Folks who want to advise me on the merits of the Kindle are welcome to bail me out here.  I have one friend who raves about it, but that is all I know.

Not Exaggeration But Aspiration - The Times Defends Hillary!

Yesterday Mickey Kaus had Hillary on the couch, metaphorically speaking.  And Mickey gets results!  Tucked away in today's Science Times is a fascinating summary of a recent psychological study on lying and exaggerating which leads, as the Times acknowledges in their closing paragraphs, to a defense of Hillary's in and with Bosnia:

Some tales are so tall that they trip over their own improbable feats, narrative cracks and melodrama. That one-on-one playground victory over Kobe Bryant back in the day; the 34 hours in labor without painkillers; the former girlfriend or boyfriend who spoke eight languages and was a secret agent besides.

...in milder doses, self-serving exaggeration can be nearly impossible to detect, experts say, and there are several explanations.

The Sister Grim

Yet another vicious attack columnist savages Michelle Obama by quoting her.  I especially like her perspective on the perils of the ongoing economic hardship experienced by almost all Americans almost all the time:

"What happens in that nation is that people do become isolated, they do live in a level of division, because see when you’re that busy struggling all the time, which most people that you know and I know are, see you don’t have time to get to know your neighbors, you don’t have time to reach out and have conversations to share stories, in fact you feel very alone in your struggle because you feel somehow it must be your fault that you’re struggling that hard, everybody else must be doing ok, I must be doing something wrong, so you hide…What happens in that kind of nation is that people are afraid. Because when your world’s not right no matter how hard you work, then you become afraid of everyone and everything, because you don’t know whose fault it is, why you can’t get a handle on life, why you can’t secure a better future for your kids."

...“Our fear,” Mrs. Obama says, “is helping us to raise a nation of young doubters, young people who are insular and they’re timid, and they don’t try because they already heard us tell them why they can’t succeed.”

Gosh, and I thought it was the manipulation of the terror alerts by Evil BushCo that had created a fearful nation of bedwetters (with a few heroic hold-outs!).  Now I see this has been happening for generations as the Dem's leading choice for First Lady takes to the stumps with the message that we have nothing to fear but life itself.  Inspirational.

MORE:  Christopher Hitchens thumped Michelle and suspects she is the reason Barack stayed with Wright.  Maybe that's why he stayed, but Barack found Wright before he met Michelle.

FINDING THE SILVER LINING WITH LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE:  The PowerGuys note a silver lining - however despondent her current tone, at least Ms. Obama has dropped her earlier threat to have Barack harangue and harass me if I show apathy or switch the channel over to the Yankees.

Could Richard Cohen Be More Absurdly Clueless?

The WaPo's Richard Cohen pens a paean to Obama's courageous and independent fashion sense:

Sometimes I think the best thing about Barack Obama is that little empty space on his lapel. It is where other politicians wear the American flag pin, a kitschy piece of empty symbolism that tells you nothing about that particular person except that he or she thinks like everyone else. Obama's flag, invisible to the naked eye, is the Jolly Roger of a politician thinking for himself.

Cohen dutifully notes that Evil men have hidden behind a flag pin:

I suspect more to the point -- and much more important than votes on veterans' issues -- was Obama's sense that the flag pin, rather than representing patriotism, was an emblem of conformity and hypocrisy. Richard Nixon, for instance, sported one while undermining the Constitution and, in private, cursing all sorts of minority groups. And history does not record whether his vice president, Spiro T. Agnew, took his off on the solemn occasions when he received bribes in the White House. Somehow, the flag pin did not improve the character of either man.

The glow goes on - a bit more, and you will more than have the flavor:

Many people will read a lot of meaning into Obama's refusal to wear the pin. Some will see it as a lack of patriotism, an emotional distance from the country that has served him so well. Others, such as I, will see it as an expression of cool, the statement of a candidate who wants to be president but not at the cost of his intellectual integrity. And still others (me again) will see it as Obama's push-back, his reluctance to do something simply because it is demanded of him.

An allergy to cant can be an admirable quality in a politician, although not necessarily a politically smart one.

In brief - Obama doesn't wear a flag pin - isn't he the coolest?

And the punchline - actually, he is at best tied for coolest, since John Sidney McCain does not wear a pin regularly either.

I am trying to imagine Cohen delivering this column with "McCain" substituted for "Obama" throughout.  E.g., the conclusion:

Still, it is bracing to see a presidential candidate recoil, for the most part, from the orthodoxies of pandering. In this regard, the lack of a flag pin has become an important sign of [McCain's] desire to think for himself. For all it says about [McCain], I salute it.

Send in the clowns.

MORE:  Stupidity spotters across the pond take note of Cohen:

I credit Cohen's good intention in defending Obama, but frankly, not his laziness in making a reflexive and utterly false assumption and assertion. The idea that everybody wears these pins is classic Stephen Colbertian "truthiness" at work. There was a time when it was true. But that time ended a few years ago.

A Day For Voting (And Bursting Into Song!)

Finally, the good people of the great states of Indiana and North Carolina formally weigh in on Wright, Ayers, Bosnia, the gas tax holiday, and all the other issues and distractions before them.  So which candidate will end the evening rocking down to "Indiana Wants Me"?  And who will be belting out a quick stanza of "Nothing Could be Finer Than To Be In Carolina In The Mooooornin'"?

My utterly unscientific prediction follows the principle established in Pennsylvania - neither Howard Dean's luck nor the luck of the Democratic Party has changed, so the result tonight will be whatever is necessary to maximize confusion.  That will mean Barack wins North Carolina, Hillary wins Indiana (and the white sub-primary in North Carolina, natch), and neither margin will be viewed by anyone as decisive.

Obama Ad Quietly Misrepresents Krugman

Interesting in a "When Lefties Collide" way - a new Obama ad misrepresents Krugman's position on Hillary's gas tax holiday, and the Professor is justifiably peeved.

The text of the ad is at CNN, but you really have to see it:

Announcer: More “low road” attacks from Hillary Clinton…Now she’s pushing a “bogus” gas tax gimmick…Experts say it’ll just “boost oil industry profits” ….they’ll “simply raise prices and pocket… the difference.” Clinton aides admit it won’t do much for you – but would help her politically. So here’s the choice…Clinton gimmicks that help big oil…Or Barack Obama… a real energy plan and a $1000 middle class tax cut to help families truly pay the bills.

The visual accompanying "Experts say it’ll just “boost oil industry profits”' is a graphic saying "NY Times, April 28" - it seems fair to assume that refers to the April 28 Krugman column which said McCain's plan would "would boost oil industry profits".  However, since Hillary's plan includes the never-gonna-happen windfall profits tax on oil companies, Krugman assessed it differently in a blog post:

The Clinton twist is that she proposes paying for the revenue loss with an excess profits tax on oil companies. In one pocket, out the other. So it’s pointless, not evil. But it is pointless, and disappointing.

The Obama ad also references The American Prospect with "a bogus tax cut" and this Alter piece from Newsweek with "they’ll “simply raise prices and pocket… the difference.”.

Dean Baker of the Prospect made the point that, given the inelasticity of gasoline supply, the tax cut won't help the struggling working class because it won't result in lower prices; I would say the Obama ad snipped him fairly.

And here is a bit more from Alter, who was very critical of the McCain and Clinton proposals:

It's a direct transfer of money from motorists to oil companies, which are getting ready this week to again report record obscene profits. If the federal excise tax were lifted, oil companies would simply raise prices and pocket most of the difference. Clinton's proposal to recover the money with a windfall profits tax on oil companies sounds nice but won't happen. That tax was easily blocked by the Senate in December and would likely be blocked again.

So the ad was fair to him as well.

Reaching? Those Are Warm-Up Stretches!

Obama disses the once vaunted Right Wing Attack Machine:

“You know that folks are reaching when the big attack on me is I’m not wearing a flag pin,” Obama said. “They’re reaching. This is the best they can do.”

Can we do better than a mere flag pin - Yes We Can!

Lots of details on an unreported link between unrepentant Weatherman Bill Ayers and unforthcoming candidate Barack Obama are at this post, but here is the headline - in 1995 Bill Ayers founded and worked closely with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, first chaired by Barack Obama.

From the Ayers resume online:

Co-Founder and Co-Chair, Chicago School Reform Collaborative (The Annenberg Challenge), 1995-2000.

From Slate, April 2008:

A decade later, when Obama was a second-year state senator, he served on the board of several local education foundations that had supported the councils and chaired the board for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a $50 million philanthropic effort that supported local control.

Obama made no mention of this in the Philadelphia debate, when he described Bill Ayers as "a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago...".  Nor did his campaign disclose it when they released a Fact Check on the Obama-Ayers ties.

Why the cover-up?

 

Compassionate Conservatism

I disagree with Mickey's aside on Eight Belles:

The Eight Belles Metaphor is so obvious that everyone is embarrassed to use it, figuring that everyone else is already using it--a thought born embalmed as a cliche, already tiresome from anticipated over-expression before being sincerely expressed in the first place.

Obvious or not it is also pretty grim - quips revolving around a dead horse don't leap easily off the page, although there are comic heroes who will march to any frontier.

Things To Do

The LA Times appraises the health care plans of the three candidates.

Their gist is that the current system of employer based health coverage developed up in response to features of the tax code (and WWII wage/price controls, IIRC); McCain would stike at the root by changing the tax code and hope that other types of groups would emerge:

But McCain, who has been treated for melanoma, says he recognizes that there is a flaw when it comes to coverage in today's individual market, and he would work with states to craft effective protections for people in poor health, such as special risk pools and basic standards for insurers.

And his aides predict that membership organizations such as AARP -- the seniors lobby -- and labor unions and religious denominations would sponsor health insurance, creating new pools and taking the place of employers. Then, they say, workers could switch jobs without fear of losing coverage.

Clinton and Obama would layer a greater Federal role onto the current system:

In contrast to McCain, Clinton and Obama would not make any major changes in the tax treatment of healthcare benefits.

Instead, they would concentrate on closing gaps in the insurance system. Both envision a shared responsibility among employers, individuals and government -- although the public role would become markedly stronger.

The federal government would provide a new insurance option -- a public plan that middle-income workers could join -- as well as boost funding for a program that insures children in low-income working families.

Washington would work with the states to set up insurance purchasing pools through which individuals and employers could buy private plans that agree to operate under new pricing and coverage rules.

Critics fault the Democratic plans over the increased role for government -- and also their cost.

Clinton's plan would cost $110 billion a year, Obama's between $50 billion and $65 billion. And critics say the Democrats may be lowballing their cost estimates and lack a viable long-term financial base.

With Critics Like This

Jeralyn Merritt is attacked by clowns, and good luck to her!

Ms. Merritt flagged this Obama video in which the Chosen One explained to Indiana voters that they lose their dignity when they lose their jobs.  Now, that does not grab me as a wildly controversial statement or a promising line of attack, but check this response from an Obama supporter on Ms. Merritt's far-left flank:

Her gripe is that Obama is being elitist because he said that losing your job means that you lose your dignity.  Of course, the smear begins by grossly taking this out of context, which shows how amateurish the attempt given that she actually produces the whole clip in context.

You say amateurish, I say honest.  We make these tough calls every day!  And now comes the classic pop sociology:

Now, I live in Virginia, you all know this by now, but I grew up in Stockton, California, and I’ve seen first hand what happens when economic hardship takes hold and becomes not just a temporary thing, but instead is integrated into the local culture, and I’ve seen what results.

Crime, gang violence, drugs.

Hmm, weren't we told that the victims of economic hardship would be bitterly clinging to their guns and religion?  And now drugs and crime.  My goodness, no sex or rock&roll?

You can’t tell me that the loss of dignity caused by the loss to provide for one’s own doesn’t feed this.  Why do you think gangs exist?

Bangers don’t hang their heads.  They don’t sit around and feel sorry for themselves, and you know why?  And this is going straight to the heart of the point I’m trying to make; gang life returns to these people that which economic loss has robbed their families of often times long before they even hit the streets.  The community that the bloods and crips offer give someone dignity.  They give them a means to take care of their family, and they give them a sense of being a part of something greater than they are.

It is important that we understand this because it’s the same pattern that we see over and over again.  We see it under the white sheets and hoods of the KKK, and we see it behind bomb vests in the middle east.

I see.  So given the latest economic downturn the good people of the great state of Indiana are five minutes away from joining up with the Bloods and Crips or donning suicide vests and heading to the nearest Outback.

I can't wait for Obama to update his stump speech to incorporate these insights.

MORE:  OK, Obama was tone-deaf.

No To Bobby Jindal

The alway sensible Betsy Newmark nixes Bill Kristol idea that Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal should be McCain's VP pick.  She also sends us to Dan McLaughlin's guidance for McCain's selection process.

Ed Morrissey also nixes Jindal and backs two of the same names as McLaughlin:

McCain has other choices for youth and energy, notably Tim Pawlenty (MN) and Mark Sanford (SC), both of whom have two terms as governors of their states. Both men have national stature, and both could reach different parts of the GOP coalition that may elude McCain at the moment. More critically, they both have experience in difficult political battles, and have proven their mettle repeatedly in electoral politics.

Ross Douthat argues that Jindal ought to graciously decline if approached; that may not be realistic if the McCain people are adamant that he is the guy, but surely he can signal disinterest - doesn't Jindal have hair to wash this weekend, and every foreseeable weekend?

Obama And The Teamsters Consent Decree

The WSJ reports today that Obama has quietly gone into the tank for the Teamsters, thereby winning their endorsement:

Sen. Barack Obama won the endorsement of the Teamsters earlier this year after privately telling the union he supported ending the strict federal oversight imposed to root out corruption, according to officials from the union and the Obama campaign.

It's an unusual stance for a presidential candidate. Policy makers have largely treated monitoring of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters as a legal matter left to the Justice Department since an independent review board was set up in 1992 to eliminate mob influence in the union.

Josh Marshall reports that the Obama campaign is defending this as not a secret and old news:

The Obama campaign has just sent me a newspaper clipping reporting that Obama publicly favored lifting Federal oversight over the Teamsters union back in 2004.

The Obama camp argues that this shows that The Wall Street Journal overplayed its story today saying that Obama secured the Teamsters' support this year after privately saying that he favored lifting the oversight, which comes in the form of a Federal consent decree that governs the union.

To which let me add, always trust content from Robert Novak sometimes; this was from last February 23rd:

Hoffa for Obama

The unexpected endorsement of Barack Obama by Teamsters President James Hoffa followed private indications by Bill Clinton that the 19-year federal monitoring of the big union under a court decree would not be ended under a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Hoffa previously had told friends he probably would stay neutral in the presidential race. He changed his mind, according to union sources, partly because of pro-Obama sentiment among rank-and-file Teamsters and partly because of former President Clinton's attitude about the consent decree.

Obama has indicated willingness to end federal oversight of the Teamsters. Refusal by President George W. Bush to do so helped sour his administration's relations with the union.

Well, OK then - this has been percolating below the radar for a while.  However, Jake Tapper points out that Obama's public posturing today, in response to a question about the Journal story, was quite ambivalent relative to his private comments to the Teamsters a while back:

Team Clinton says their candidate made no promises about the consent decree, whereas Obama's position is difficult to ascertain -- his campaign and the Teamsters have said the consent decree should be lifted, Obama this morning said "we should take a look at" the issue.

Why Johnny Can't Read (At The Movies Edition)

We saw Iron Man and liked it, although the ending was a bit predictable and crash-bangy.   But what caught our critical eye was this - early on, the  director went with the well-worn technique of showing a series of magazine covers and newspaper headlines to present the outlines of industrialist Tony (Iron Man) Stark's life.

And one cover, describing Stark's ascension to power at the company his father founded, was this:

Tony Stark Takes The Reigns At Stark Industries

Groan.  Confusion reins.

MORE:  OK, When it reigns, it's poor.  And now I am terribly self-conscious about that apostrophe in "it's".

Why Johnny Can't Read (Or Drive)

Obama's Methaphor Mangler was in overdrive when he appeared on Meet The Tim:

SEN. OBAMA:  ...You know, when you're running for president, your life's an open book, and I think that people have a right to flip the hood and kick the tires, and, and this is one element of a much larger track record...

I don't think this interview was a buzzer-beating home run.  And no question on Bill Ayers, Barack Obama and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

PILING ON:  On the topic of Rev. Wright and why he might have thought Obama was posturing in his early denunciations, this was comical:

MR. RUSSERT:  He said in a letter to The New York Times, he suggested that you apologized for not letting him do the invocation.  Is that true?

SEN. OBAMA:  Well, what happened was is that, you know, I was sorry that he felt, that he felt hurt by that decision.  And, you know, that is--that may be a fault of mine that I own up to, which is, is that I'm concerned about how other people feel, particularly somebody who I've known for quite some time. But, but that doesn't detract from, you know, my belief that, ultimately, what he has represent--what he has been saying about the United States over the last several months and over the last several years, particularly some of the statements that I had not heard before, are contrary to who I am and what I stand for.

Not exactly a denial, or even a clarification.  Here's the letter in question from Wright to Times reporter Jodi Kantor; the key passage is this:

I do not remember reading in your article that Barack had apologized for listening to that bad information and bad advice. Did I miss it? Or did your editor cut it out?

Russert also cited this Rolling Stone article which inspired the disinvitation of Wright from Obama's campaign kick-off.

GEEZ, GET HIM A TELEPROMPTER AND A PREPARED TEXT:  Obama does live improv on his patriotism and reminds us that he is helpless without his speechwriters:

And She Knows Angry!

Michelle Obama speaks on her area of expertise - anger and frustration:

Michelle Obama: Barack has hit boiling point

Mrs Obama told a rally in Durham, North Carolina, on Friday that only her   husband's desire to change US politics had helped him to control his feelings: "Barack is always thinking three steps ahead – what do we need to do to make change."

Her husband was thinking "I can't let my ego, my anger, my frustration get in the way of the ultimate goal," she said.

"Barack has been characterised as many things that have nothing to do with who he is."

... In contrast with the Clintons, Mrs Obama said: "We were taught that you   don't rip your opponents to pieces, you don't leave them on the roadside."

No, you just disqualify all their petitions so you can run unopposed.  Geez, this whole notion of "contested"" must seem tedious and unnecessary to Ms. Obama.

Don Surber piles on.

Public Editor - Times Wrong On Wright (And I'll Be Damned)

Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt admits the obvious - the Times early coverage of the most recent installment of the Jeremiah Wright story was a joke:

While The Times was aggressive with its coverage on the Web, it was slow to fully engage the Wright story in print and angered some readers by putting opinion about it on the front page — a review by the television critic of his appearances on PBS, at an N.A.A.C.P. convention and at the National Press Club — before ever reporting in any depth what he actually said, how it squared with reality and what it might mean as Democrats ponder Obama as their potential nominee.

Carol Hebb of Narberth, Pa., spoke for many when she wrote that she found the newspaper’s initial coverage “very strange.” If editors did not think Wright’s remarks were newsworthy enough to be on the front page, she asked, why did they put the review by Alessandra Stanley there? “I was very surprised that her piece was not accompanied by a ‘factual’ article reporting the content of Mr. Wright’s comments more completely and perhaps adding some meaningful context.”

...

Peter Weltner of San Francisco wrote that he wished The Times had examined what he said were falsehoods in Wright’s remarks — like the claim that blacks and whites learn with different parts of their brains — instead of “merely guessing why Mr. Wright said it.”

I’m with Hebb and Weltner. For a newspaper that showed great enterprise on the subject last year — breaking the story that Obama had disinvited Wright to deliver the invocation at the announcement of his presidential campaign, and publishing a deep examination of their relationship before most Americans had heard of Wright — it was a performance strangely lacking in energy at a potential turning point in the election.

I didn't waste their time or mine by writing in, but I agree.

I'LL BE DAMNED:  Clark Hoyt includes this iconic phrase:

Wright — he of the “God damn America” sound bites on YouTube — came back onto the scene a week ago Thursday...

As of May 4, the Times has yet to include that phrase in a straight news story.  It has previously appeared in a Kristol column, a Dowd column, and an editorial denouncing the Republican's North Carolina ad.

Today Wright is quoted in both the Hoyt column and a Week In Review appraisal of black liberation theology.  Baby steps!  This is real breakthrough stuff for the "Lots of the News That's Fit To Print (All The News That Fits Our Narrative)" Team.

Times Editors - Kidding, Or Is It Early Alzheimers?

The Times editors deliver yet another headscratcher in their call for John McCain's medical records:

Senator John McCain is 71 years old, a survivor of an aggressive form of skin cancer. If elected, he would be the oldest man to become president.

These factors are not disqualifying, but they impose on Mr. McCain a larger duty than usual to provide detailed, timely disclosure about his health. So far, he has failed to meet this obligation to voters, even though he is now the presumed Republican nominee.

...

No presidential candidate should get to the point that he has locked up his party’s nomination without public vetting of his health.

Hello?  John Kerry, who was treated for prostate cancer in early 2003, only sat down with the Times and let them leaf through his medical records in October 2004, a month before the election.

Not that he needed to wait - the Times went totally into the tank, and Kerry's medical records were not released to the general public.

As one example of the Times non-reporting, Kerry was promising to make available to the general public the same health care plan that covered him as a US Senator.  Yet Kerry's tax return showed $9,000 in unreimbursed medical expenses; that's a lot of money to a lot of people.  So what explained that gap in Kerry's coverage?  Are you kidding?  It was the Times asking the questions, so we'll never know.

To be fair, I do recall a perfunctory Times plea for Kerry's medical records earlier in the campaign, but the topic just drifted until the fall.  Oh, well - maybe McCain can sit down with the good people at Fox News and address their questions, Times/Kerry style.

A Waste Of Attack Space

The WSJ has a guest piece by Elizabeth Wurtzel discussing the Obama/Ayers connection.  Karl at Team Protein pans Ms. Wurtzel; Curt at Flopping Aces pans the piece.

And how could a serious commentator be unaware of the bond formed by Obama and Bill Ayers when they were both involved with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge in the mid to late 90s?  Honestly.

NOTE TO HENDRIK HERTZBERG:  Your list of "relevant facts" is woefully incomplete; try doing some reporting.  Maybe start by asking the Obama campaign why they are concealing, not revealing the Annenberg Challenge connection in their own Fact Check.  Or was their subtle allusion to the Annenberg FactCheck.org supposed to represent their disclosure?

Robert Reich Demagoguing On Taxes

Robert Reich gets some pixels at the NY Times Freakonomics blog; this demagoguery caught my eye:

Remember, almost all the economic gains of the last decade have gone to the people at the top. And they pay a relatively small percent of their income compared to what the people at the top used to pay. The marginal income tax on the highest earners was 93 percent under Dwight Eisenhower. It dropped to a little over 70 percent under John F. Kennedy. Now it’s 35 percent. It’s 15 percent if you’re lucky enough to be a private-equity fund manager or anyone else who can shift their income into capital gains.

Oh, please - actual taxes paid depends on the rate and the income base - back in the day, the "rich" had many more deductions available to them, as Reich well knows.

The CBO has calculated the effective Federal tax burden for different income groups from 1979 forward (1979-2002; 2004-5).  The CBO includes an estimate of the effective Federal income tax, and the effect of all Federal taxes, including Social Security/Medicare and an imputed corporate tax.

For the top 1% of earners, the effective Federal income tax rate has been this:

1979      21.8%
1985      18.9%
1995      23.7%
2005      19.4%

Not quite the wild range one might have expected, given that the top Federal income tax rate was 70% when Reagan took over in 1981 and was first cut precipitously all the way down to 50%.

As to the total effective rate, here we go:

1979    37.0
1985     27.0
1995     36.1
2005     31.2

The big difference is in the imputed corporate tax rate, which is currently quite low.  But that is not what Reich was talking about.

Well, he knows all this anyway.

A lot of the chat is quite sensible; I'll plug this:

Q: As an econ professor and Democrat I’m still having trouble with the protectionist talk of the two candidates. Do you think Obama is handling trade issues properly or should he be more pro-free trade?

A: While it makes sense to argue in favor of labor and environmental standards in trade deals (so long as they’re on a sliding scale, and poorer nations don’t have to reach the same standard as richer nations), I don’t think the candidates should feed the current frenzy against free trade.

Go, Brooksie

David Brooks, recently revealed as a former paramour of Barbara Walters, writes today about education versus globalization.  Its good in the sense that it is interesting (Mission Accomplished for a Times columnist!).  Reaction welcome.

A snippet:

Globalization is real and important. It’s just not the central force driving economic change. Some Americans have seen their jobs shipped overseas, but global competition has accounted for a small share of job creation and destruction over the past few decades. Capital does indeed flow around the world. But as Pankaj Ghemawat of the Harvard Business School has observed, 90 percent of fixed investment around the world is domestic...

...

The chief force reshaping manufacturing is technological change (hastened by competition with other companies in Canada, Germany or down the street). Thanks to innovation, manufacturing productivity has doubled over two decades...

The central process driving this is not globalization. It’s the skills revolution. We’re moving into a more demanding cognitive age. In order to thrive, people are compelled to become better at absorbing, processing and combining information. This is happening in localized and globalized sectors, and it would be happening even if you tore up every free trade deal ever inked.

...The globalization paradigm leads people to see economic development as a form of foreign policy, as a grand competition between nations and civilizations. These abstractions, called “the Chinese” or “the Indians,” are doing this or that. But the cognitive age paradigm emphasizes psychology, culture and pedagogy — the specific processes that foster learning. It emphasizes that different societies are being stressed in similar ways by increased demands on human capital. If you understand that you are living at the beginning of a cognitive age, you’re focusing on the real source of prosperity and understand that your anxiety is not being caused by a foreigner.

OK, that was a long snippet.

Hope For The Next Generation

This is a classic lesson in deportment.  Stay classy, Dems!

Such Language From A "Baptist Minister"

A former campaign office manager for Joe Biden now backing Obama humiliated himself at a McCain town hall meeting in Des Moines, Iowa.  Here is some local coverage:

A Clive man drew gasps from fellow audience members at today’s presidential candidate forum by using a four-letter word in a question to Sen. John McCain.

A member of the audience, identified as Marty Parrish of Clive, asked McCain during the event at the Polk County Convention Complex about a rumor that McCain had once used a profane word referencing female genitalia to describe his wife.

A book, “The Real McCain” by Cliff Schecter, accuses McCain of using the word in an exchange with his wife, Cindy, in 1992.

Here’s a transcript of today’s remarks:

PARRISH: This question goes to mental health and mental health care. Previously, I’ve been married to a woman that was verbally abusive to me. Is it true that you called your wife a (expletive)?

MCCAIN: Now, now. You don’t want to … Um, you know that’s the great thing about town hall meetings, sir, but we really don’t, there’s people here who don’t respect that kind of language. So I’ll move on to the next questioner in the back.

The audience gasped at the question and applauded at McCain’s handling of it. Parrish was escorted from the event and questioned by Secret Service, but not charged. Parrish had checked in to the event as a member of the press.

Parrish, a 45-year-old Baptist minister and technology business owner, said he attended the event specifically to confront McCain about the rumor.

“This is about character,” Parrish said, when reached by telephone afterward. “And in a moment of intemperance, he called his wife the most despicable name a person can call a woman.

Gee, a baptist minister!  Nothing in his blog profile suggests he has a religious background or is a minister [but see "MY TIRED EYES" below], although the "technology business owner" seems to check out.

Hot Air opines.  Its a proud day for the Nutroots as they focus on the real issues, not the distractions.

From the HuffPo:

Parrish, an ordained Baptist minister who holds a master's degree in political science...

...The former Joe Biden campaign worker stressed he is very concerned about the Republican presidential nominee's temperament.

The Marty Parrish blog profile to which I linked says Marty is 45, has a Masters in Political Science from Arkansas State University, owned a technology business, and worked for Joe Biden.  Seems like a good fit, except that no where in the educational background or interest is their a mention of his being a minister. [In this interview he is described as handing out anti-McCaon leaflets, lets there is some doubt as to whether he is a concerned Republican and not a Dem plant.]

Here we go:

Interests:

Racquetball Scuba Flying Music Piano Women Books Politics History Writing Psychology Sociology Anthropology Neuropsychology Current Events Airplanes Porsche 928 Orwell 1984 Movies SuperVikings Football Swimming

And a screenshot:









MY TIRED EYES (OR SOMETHING): Well, now Mr. Parrish's blog and profile include the information that he is

Licensed, First Baptist Church, West Memphis, Arkansas, Minister of the Gospel, 1980.

How did I miss that?  And how did the Google cache, which seems to be from mid-March, also miss it?  And why does a Google search on these two phrases - "Marty Parrish" "Minister of the Gospel, 1980" - come up blank?

Maybe I missed it last night and Google missed it last month, maybe he updated it. Whatever - he would have been licensed at about age 18, right out of High School.  I know nothing of Baptist practices - is "licensed" the same as "ordained" (the HuffPo description)?

Spike This!

They told Glenn that if George Bush were re-elected black ministers who identified government conspiracies would experience a stifling of their dissent - and they were right!

Don Surber is having even more fun than I am.  I hate to think this might end.

Bad Advice From Michelle Malkin

The other Michelle has some bad advice about changing the subject:

In a pickle with your spouse over laundry you neglected to do or trash you forgot to take out?

Looking for an easy way to wriggle out of a tough spot with your boss?

Never fear. Michelle Obama is here with her new patented subject-changer:

“You know, this conversation doesn’t help my kids.”

Worked like a charm yesterday during her softball interview with NBC’s Meredith Viera...

I can see it now:

...

- Speeders arguing with traffic cops:

“You know, this conversation doesn’t help my kids.”

Let me deliver some first-hand reporting.  I was pulled over, and as soon as the cop started in with his tedious "Do you know how fast you were going" shtick I cut him right off with "You know, this conversation isn't helping Michelle Obama's kids...".

Didn't help.  Puzzling.

Sons Of Privilege

OK, Now I'm peeved.  Here is Barack Obama on his life and hard times:

After those San Francisco remarks, he was hit with the elitist tag. “The irony is that I think it is fair to say that both Michelle and I grew up in much less privileged circumstances than either of my two other potential opponents,” he said.

John McCain had a "privileged" upbringing?  I have no doubt he would agree - his grandfather was an admiral, his father eventually made admiral, and John Sidney grew up in a household where the young men were expected to embrace the privilege of entering the military and getting their sorry asses shot at, which McCain experienced in spades.  As I further recall, a son of McCain's from his first marriage served in the military and he currently has two sons from his second marriage in uniform (one in Iraq), so I guess they are privileged, too.

Is it possible for the Democrats to nominate a bigger assclown?

MORE:  John McCain from his 2000 announcement, echoed in 2007:

I do not announce my candidacy to satisfy my personal ambitions. My life has already been blessed more than I deserve.

I don't begin this mission with any sense of entitlement. America doesn't owe me anything. I am the son and grandson of Navy admirals, and I was born into America's service. It wasn't until I was deprived of her company that I fell in love with America. And it has been my honor to serve her and her great cause - freedom. I have never lived a day since that I wasn't thankful for the privilege.

It is because I owe America more than she has ever owed me that I am a candidate for President of the United States.

If Barack ever said that, and managed to keep a straight face, Michelle would fall down laughing.

More McCain from 2005.

Let's Accept Michelle's Invitation

Michelle Obama, not surprisingly, wants to turn the page on Jeremiah Wright and focus on the issues:

“Let’s not elect somebody who has been there and hasn’t done it,” Michelle Obama said in a fairly clear reference to Clinton. She said education was the issue that most concerns parents and her husband is the only one who can make changes there.

“It’s going to take us being, as a nation, deeply passionate and angry about the failing education for all kids,” she said. “When was the last time we heard some really solid questions for these candidates on education in a debate? You know all about the issues in our personal lives, but ... education is the thing we should be angry about.”

I completely agree, so let's talk about Barack and education reform.

An excellent launching point is this April 2, 2008 Slate piece by Alexander Russo, but eventually we will segue to Obama's relationship with unrepentant Weatherman Bill Ayers. 

The Obama/Ayers soundbite is this:  Obama and Ayers (a professor of education) worked together on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge for several years in an ultimately unsuccessful effort to reform Chicago's public schools.  The extent of their relationship is not clear, since Obama has been opaque on this topic both in a televised debate and at his website.  However, Ayers was instrumental in founding the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and Obama was the group's first chairman, so there is something being concealed there.

Let's start with Slate:

Chicago School Days
Obama's lackluster record on education.

...the story of Obama's involvement suggests that on similarly contentious fronts involving national education policy, like the No Child Left Behind Act, he might respond the same way—holding back when powerful interest groups collide, only to support the status quo of local control in the end. The candidate's Chicago record on education also raises questions about his much-vaunted ability to bring different sides together to find lasting solutions.

Obama's links to local school councils began more than 20 years ago, when they were first being created. His South Side community organizing group, the Developing Communities Project, supported the 1988 reform act that created the councils. A decade later, when Obama was a second-year state senator, he served on the board of several local education foundations that had supported the councils and chaired the board for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a $50 million philanthropic effort that supported local control.

...

Obama was uniquely well-placed to take the lead in mediating this battle. He had a relatively strong background in community and education issues. He was friends and pickup-basketball buddies with Arne Duncan, who was then in charge of magnet schools (and has since taken over Vallas' job). Obama also knew Vallas, who liked him. Then, as now, he was considered a politician who could unify people and resolve challenging conflicts...

After the outcome was clear, Barack finally ratified the emerging consensus:

In being so late to the debate, however, Obama didn't really have to stand up to anyone—not the groups he was affiliated with, not Vallas, not Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley. He was just approving the final result. He remained loyal to his roots, but only when it was easy to do so...

...Based on Obama's actions in Chicago in 1999, it's hard to imagine him taking charge of the continuing debate over whether and how No Child Left Behind should be renewed. Forced to take a side, Obama's record suggests that, ultimately, he would be sympathetic to local autonomy. But there's not much evidence to show that he would be able to help mend deep and abiding schisms between testing hawks and local-control advocates. And without strong and unifying national leadership, our troubled public-education system stands little chance of making the dramatic improvements that it needs.

Well, well.  Please note the reference to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, because thereby hangs a tale.

In a White House ceremony in December 1993, philanthropist Walter Annenberg announced the Annenberg Challenge, putting $500 million towards efforts to reform public education.

Bill Ayers and two others formed and led a "Working Group" that produced Chicago's grant application; in 1995 Chicago was awarded $49.2 million, creating the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Fund ("CACF") in a well-publicized civic event.

The first chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Fund was Barack Obama.  This is disclosed on Obama's Senate forms and he is mentioned in a history of the CACF [link, p. 54 of the text].  The board was responsible for hiring an Executive Director, Ken Rolling, who should have been involved on a daily basis (and does anyone know anything about Mr. Rolling?).

The "Working Group" mentioned above morphed into the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, co-chaired by Bill Ayers and one of his two co-founders of the Working Group.  The Collaborative then worked closely with the CACF for several years.  Ayers' role is noted in this history and at his own website on his resume.

A sidebar - my guess is that this link between Ayers and Obama has gone unreported because of the name game; despite a close working relationship, the Collaborative and the CACF don't leap off the page as being obviously associated, although the Ayers resume is clear enough - "The Annenberg Challenge" appears in parentheses right next to "Chicago School Reform Collaborative".

So, what was the nature of the Ayers/Obama relationship back in simpler times?  Obama was asked about Ayers in the Philadelphia debate and described him as "a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago...".  It was left to Hillary to mention the widely publicized link between Obama and Ayers, both of whom once  overlapped on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago.

Obama's website then produced a Freudian's delight - a "Fact Check" (echoing the famous Annenberg  FactCheck.org) purporting to explain the Obama/Ayers relationship but omitting any mention of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Fund.

A bit later, Obama was asked about Ayers during his Fox news interview and gave an answer that should have left reporters scratching their heads and doing some research: - Obama described an overlapping board membership with Ayers that couldn't be the Woods Fund of Chicago:

Now, Mr. Ayres [Ayers] is a 60 plus year old individual who lives in my neighborhood, who did something that I deplore 40 years ago when I was six or seven years old. By the time I met him, he was a professor of education at the University of Illinois.

We served on a board together that had Republicans, bankers, lawyers, focused on education, who worked for Mayor Daley. Mayor Daley, the same Mayor Daley probably who when he was a state attorney prosecuted Mr. Ayres’s wife for those activities, I (INAUDIBLE) the point is that to somehow suggest that in any way I endorse his deplorable acts 40 years ago, because I serve on a board with him.

The Woods Fund of Chicago focused on poverty and did not work for the mayor; the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Fund focused on education, but did not work for the mayor.  A successor group, the Leadership Council of the Chicago Public Schools Education Fund, worked for the mayor and focused on education, but Bill Ayers was not a member (his father, Thomas Ayers, and his brother, John Ayers, overlapped with Obama).

So what does it mean?  Well, it is not going to be possible to evaluate this Obama/Ayers link until Obama is a bit more forthcoming about it, so having him or his campaign provide some basic facts would be an excellent starting point for some enterprising reporter.

One might well ask - how would Obama characterize his involvement with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Fund?  This story says he was involved; this one, also by Alexander Russo of the later Slate piece, says Obama was a non-player in Chicago school reform.]

How closely did Obama work with the fund's executive director, Ken Rolling (and what does Mr. Rolling have to say about this)?

What did Obama know of Bill Ayers' involvement (which the rest of us now know to be extensive)?

Eventually, the CACF was viewed as a failure (the final report says it had "little impact") - what did Obama learn from that?

Finally, there is a question of shared values; setting aside Ayers' bomb-tossing proclivities of the 70's, he has a very hard left approach to education; for example, he explained to Hugo Chavez and a Venezuelan audience that public education was a way to promote the revolution [and lots more here from Ed Lasky].  How much of this did Obama know then?  Or is this just another situation, as with Jeremiah Wright, where Obama simply didn't know anything about the fellow with whom he was associating?

In some ways, Obama's experience is analogous to Hillary's failed health care initiative of the mid 90's - he tackled a publicized, important, politically charged topic, and belly-flopped.  The obvious difference is that his failure is not being discussed.  And it's possible he was merely a figurehead who was hoping to take credit for success but distanced himself from failure; I leave it to his spinners to present that lack of interest in education reform more positively.

As to where this story is headed - who knows?  I don't think Hillary's staffers are regular readers here, but they may have picked it up from Global Labor,  Larry Johnson or Jeralyn Merritt, and they sure could use this now.  McCain's people and the RNC ought to like this story since McCain is comfortable bashing Ayers, but September or October may be fine for them.

The MSM has done nothing here, unsurprisingly.  As to Rush, Hannity, and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy - other than Hot Air, American Thinker, and Wizbang this is getting no traction.  Michael Barone wrote about how the Ayers story had broken through to the MSM, but they have a long way to go.  And we call ourselves a Noise Machine!

A few excerpts appear after the break to document points made above.

Some Euro-Bashing In The Times

All the Democrats bitterly clinging to their dream of moving to France if McCain wins had better think again - per the Times, the middle-class is being squeezed there as well:

For Europe’s Middle-Class, Stagnant Wages Stunt Lifestyle

By CARTER DOUGHERTY and KATRIN BENNHOLD

LES ULIS, France — When their local bakery in this town south of Paris raised the price of a baguette for the third time in six months, Anne-Laure Renard and Guy Talpot bought a bread maker. When gasoline became their biggest single expense, they sold one of their two cars.

Their combined annual income of 40,000 euros, about $62,500, lands Ms. Renard, a teacher, and Mr. Talpot, a postal worker, smack in the middle of France’s middle class. And over the last year, prices in France have risen four times as fast as their salaries.

At the end of every month, they blow past their bank account’s $900 overdraft limit, plunging themselves deeper into a spiral of greater resourcefulness and regret.

“In France, when you can’t afford a baguette anymore, you know you’re in trouble,” Ms. Renard said one recent evening in her kitchen, as her partner measured powdered milk for their 13-month-old son, Vincent. “The French Revolution started with bread riots.”

Arugula is through the roof too.

The European dream is under assault, as the wave of inflation sweeping the globe mixes with this continent’s long-stagnant wages. Families that once enjoyed Europe’s vaunted quality of life are pinching pennies to buy necessities, and cutting back on extras like movies and vacations abroad.

Potentially more disturbing — especially to the political and social order — are the millions across the continent grappling with the realization that they may have lives worse, not better, than their parents.

“I have this feeling that there is a wall in front of us,” said Axel Marceau, a 41-year-old schoolteacher living outside of Frankfurt. “We’re just not going to get any further.”

His concerns are well-founded. A study by the German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin found that the broad middle of the German work force, defined as workers making from 70 to 150 percent of the median income, shrunk to 54 percent of the population last year, from 62 percent in 2000.

Mr. Marceau’s father had a teaching job that afforded the family upward mobility, from owning a home to fancy ski vacations. But today, Mr. Marceau said, a new class of bankers, executives and other high earners has taken over. “I feel like we’ve been in a slow process of losing to the people up top,” he said.

This article does not dwell on the slow fiscal train wreck coming as Europeans retire and the ratio of retirees to workers rises.  The Social Security/Medicare crisis in this country is as nothing by comparison.