Did McCain Flip? Round Two With the New York Times

Here's the video of John McCain's confrontation yesterday with New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller (via Ann Althouse):

For the full story, check this MSNBC article, including this text:

Elisabeth Bumiller of the New York Times asked, “Senator, can I ask you about Senator Kerry. I just went back and looked at our story, the Times story, and you told Sheryl Stolberg that you had never had a conversation with Kerry about being about vice president...”

McCain testily replied, “Everybody knows that I had a private conversation. Everybody knows that. That I had a conversation. There’s no living American in Washington -- that knows that, there’s no one.”

Bumiller: “Okay.”

McCain: “And you know it, too. You know it. So, I don’t even know why you ask.”

Bumiller: “Well, I ask because I just read…”

McCain: “You do know it. You do know it.”

Bumiller: “Because I just read in the Times in May of ’04 you said….”

McCain: “I don’t know what you may have read or heard of, I don’t know the circumstances. Maybe in May of '04 I hadn’t had the conversation…”

Bumiller: “But do you recall the conversation?”

McCain: “I don’t know, but it’s well known that I had the conversation. It is absolutely well known by everyone. So do you have a question on another issue?”

Bumiller: “Well can I ask you when the conversation was?”

McCain: “No. nope, because the issue is closed as far as I’m concerned. Everybody knows it. Everybody knows it in America.”

Bumiller: “Can you describe the conversation?”

McCain: “No, of course not. I don’t describe private conversations.”

Bumiller: “Okay. Can I ask you…”

McCain: “Why should I? Then there’s no such thing as a private conversation. Is there (inaudible) if you have a private conversation with someone, and then they come and tell you. I don’t know that that’s a private conversation. I think that’s a public conversation.”

Bumiller: “Okay. Can I ask you about your (pause) Why you’re so angry?”

McCain: “Pardon me?”

Bumiller: “Nevermind, nevermind.”

McCain: “I mean, it’s well known. Everybody knows. It’s been well chronicled a thousand times. John Kerry asked if I would consider being his running mate.”

Bumiller: “Okay.”

McCain: “And I said categorically no, under no circumstances. That’s very well known.”

The 2004 New York Times piece in question ends in this way: "If Mr. McCain is offered the vice-presidential spot, people close to Mr. Kerry say, the request will come from the candidate himself and not through the campaign's vice-presidential vetting process."

"Asked if Senator Kerry had made such an offer, Mr. McCain said no without hesitation. But asked if the two men had ever discussed it, even casually, he paused for a moment. 'No,' he said finally. 'We really haven't.'"

Well, no wonder McCain's exasperated. The media's trying to take him down a bit, to help the Golden Child to a victory in November.

The whole thing's been blown out of proportion, according to Captain Ed:

I agree with Michelle about learning a lesson in dealing with the mainstream media. Obviously Elizabeth Bumiller wanted to trip his circuits; she pulls out a story in 2004 about the invitation from John Kerry to join his ticket, hoping to get a reaction. She’s not looking out for his best interests, quite obviously, but trying to be deliberately provocative. After all, wouldn’t that be a question to ask before he had sewn up the nomination?

But his reaction seems rather mild, under the circumstances. He’s annoyed, sure, but hardly spitting and cursing. By the time she asks “Why are you so angry?”, the question is so inappropriate that he asks her to repeat it — and she declines, hopefully out of embarrassment.

Interestingly, the Times now has tried twice to get his goat, and for the second time, they’ve wound up with egg on their face.

That's a reference to the McCain lobbying smear. This isn't the last round, to be sure.

Natalie Portman Gets Results!

This post is mainly just a chance to write about Natalie Portman. I mean she personifies eye candy!

She's also an extremely interesting young woman (a Harvard graduate who was initially rejected for her first movie role - in The Professional - but persisted until offered the part).

Well it turns out Portman's got a little lobbying muscle up on Capitol Hill. She's been working on microfinance issues, and made a splash in recent congressional testimony.

The New York Times has the story:

In 2004, Natalie Portman, then a 22-year-old fresh from college, went to Capitol Hill to talk to Congress on behalf of the Foundation for International Community Assistance, or Finca, a microfinance organization for which she served as “ambassador.” She found herself wondering what she was doing there, but her colleagues assured her: “We got the meetings because of you.” For lawmakers, Natalie Portman was not simply a young woman — she was the beautiful Padmé from “Star Wars.” “And I was like, ‘That seems totally nuts to me,’ ” Portman told me recently. It’s the way it works, I guess. I’m not particularly proud that in our country I can get a meeting with a representative more easily than the head of a nonprofit can.”

Well, who is? But it is the way it works. Stars — movie stars, rock stars, sports stars — exercise a ludicrous influence over the public consciousness. Many are happy to exploit that power; others are wrecked by it. In recent years, stars have learned that their intense presentness in people’s daily lives and their access to the uppermost realms of politics, business and the media offer them a peculiar kind of moral position, should they care to use it. And many of those with the most leverage — Bono and Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt and George Clooney and, yes, Natalie Portman — have increasingly chosen to mount that pedestal. Hollywood celebrities have become central players on deeply political issues like development aid, refugees and government-sponsored violence in Darfur.

Portman's made her celebrity impact in microlending, small-scale credit financing in Third World countries, whereby the world's poor get loans for start-up businesses.

(Microlending's a great thing in principle, although unscrupulous lenders in the developing world have turned microfinance opportunities into the next subprime frontier).

Perhaps Portman will join Angelina Jolie in backing a long-term American commitment to Iraq. Now that'd be a great use of Hollywood firepower!

Photo Credit: Los Angeles Times

Israel's War for Survival - And Ours

Gaza poses an existential threat to Israel, argues Daniel Doron at the Wall Street Journal:

The massacre of rabbinical students Thursday at a Jerusalem seminary highlights the failure of the powerful Israeli military to stop the assaults of Palestinian terrorists. It also reveals serious deficiencies in Israel's strategy and tactics.

These have cost Israel dearly. They also harm the world-wide war on terror, of which Israel is on the forefront.

You can't stop every suicide bomber of course. But for seven years now, Hamas terrorists have been rocketing southern Israeli towns from Gaza. Israeli governments headed by Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert have all vowed to put an end to the attacks. Despite Israel's overwhelming military superiority, its governments have failed to do so....

Israeli governments have done little to stop the massive rearmament of Hamas in Gaza with Iranian weapons, bought with Saudi money and transported into Gaza with the connivance of Egypt. Israel did not even press its great ally, the U.S., to lean on Egypt and put an end to this flagrant violation of its peace agreement with Israel -- a peace agreement for which Egypt is rewarded by billions in U.S. aid.

But the worst failures stem from adoption of a no-win strategy. Many in Israel's top political and military echelons have convinced themselves that terrorism cannot be defeated by force, that to stop it one must compromise and accept some of its demands. But how do you "compromise" with a terrorist organization sworn to destroy you?

The Israeli leadership's lack of determination to win, and its chronic political weakness, have prevented it from resisting pressure from Europe and certain American circles (mostly the State Department and the CIA) to accommodate Hamas and strengthen the allegedly peace-loving Palestinian Authority. Amazingly, Israel keeps supplying Hamas, for "humanitarian reasons," with subsidized electricity and materiel including the steel and chemicals needed to produce the rockets that attack it. It keeps providing money and weapons to prop up the hopelessly corrupt Palestinian Authority.

So what is the one strategy that can win? History has shown time and again that military confrontation does work. Israel could achieve military victory by eliminating or incarcerating Hamas's leadership, not two or three a month (so that they are replaceable) but a few hundred at once. By breaking its command structure and its logistical apparatus, Hamas can be rendered inoperative.

But for this to happen, Israel and Western democracies must treat the terrorists' mortal challenge as a war for survival, not as a series of skirmishes. And in war, you must fight to win, by all traditional means.

Hmm, a mortal challenge? That's a phrase that doesn't go over very well with antiwar nihilists here at home, who naturally take the other side in America's battles with the world's villians.

Doron's got his head on straight, in any case. Notice how he indicates that the challenge is not just Israel's, but Israel and the Western democracies too.

Israel's fight is our own.

The Coming Battle for the Democratic Party

It's a long way off until the Pennsylvania primary, but if this week's left-wing handwringing is any sign of things to come, the Democratic Party's truly going to tear itself to pieces in the interim.

Andrew Sullivan's got a big crush on Barack Obama, but I still think he nails some of the basic fundamentals of the Clinton campaign's Machiavellianism:

The new meme is that politics has returned to normal and that this election will now be run by Clinton rules. Many are relieved by this. You could sense the palpable discomfort among many in Washington that their world might actually shift a little next year. But if elections are primarily about fear and mud, and who best operates in a street fight, Beltway comfort returns. This we know. This we understand. This we already have the language to describe. And, the feeling goes, the Clintons can win back the White House in this atmosphere. What she is doing to Obama she can try to do to McCain. Maybe Limbaugh will help her out again.

What I think this misses are the cultural and social consequences of beating Obama (or McCain) this way. I don't mean beating Obama because the Clintons' message is more persuasive, or because the Clintons' healthcare plan is better, or because she has a better approach to Iraq. I mean: beating him by a barrage of petty attacks, by impugning his clear ability to be commander-in-chief, by toying with questions about his "Muslim past", by subtle invocation of the race card, by intermittent reliance on gender identity politics, by taking faux offense to keep the news cycle busy ("shame on you, Barack Obama!") and so on. If the Clintons beat Obama this way, I have a simple prediction. It will mean a mass flight from the process. It will alter the political consciousness of an entire generation of young voters - against any positive interaction with the political process for the foreseeable future. I'm not sure that Washington yet understands the risk the Clintons are taking with their own party and the future of American politics.

The reason so many people have re-engaged with politics this year is because many sense their country is in a desperate state and because only one candidate has articulated a vision and a politics big enough to address it without dividing the country down the middle again. For the first time in decades, a candidate has emerged who seems able to address the country's and the world's needs with a message that does not rely on Clintonian parsing or Rovian sleaze. For the first time since the 1960s, we have a potential president able to transcend the victim-mongering identity politics so skillfully used by the Clintons. If this promise is eclipsed because the old political system conspires to strangle it at birth, the reaction from the new influx of voters will be severe. The Clintons will all but guarantee they will lose a hefty amount of it in the fall, as they richly deserve to. Some will gravitate to McCain; others will be so disillusioned they will withdraw from politics for another generation. If the Clintons grind up and kill the most promising young leader since Kennedy, and if they do it not on the strength of their arguments, but by the kind of politics we have seen them deploy, the backlash will be deep and severe and long. As it should be.

Unfortunately for Sullivan, he's naive to think what the Clintons are doing is anything new. I mean, hello! Does the name Tom Delay ring a bell? Ever heard of Jesse Helms? Shoot, you'd think slash-and-burn politics was as new as the latest envelope laptop sleeve.

No, Hillary Clinton's doing exactly what she should be doing: Fighting to the finish against a candidate of which she's eminently more qualified. If Obama lets himself get beat up by the Clintonian old-guard, you have to wonder how really talented a politician he is.

But what to think, in any case. Are these good developments?

Perhaps not. Certainly Obama's captured the hopes and sentiment of a new generation of Americans, and I think the upsurge of youth mobilization is geniune and potentially long-lasting. Yet, should Obama be essentially robbed the party's nomination by extra-instituational means (leveraging-in Michigan and Florida delegates, browbeating the party elite to shift superdelegate ballots), then yes, we could be in for some severe political conflict, and not necessarily on the convention floor.

Remember my post from this morning, "Riots in Denver? Radicals May Seek "Direct Action" Against Democrats"?

Well if you check the links there you'll find the Rick Pearlstein's entry at Huffington Post. Pearlstein argues that some lefties are plotting a bit of serious unconventional particpation for Denver in August. Some leftist Iraq veterans are looking to provide operations intelligence to the radicals' game plan of political mayhem. But read the comments to the post, where you can see a real battle developing between members of the Democratic Party's old guard and those who would seek to rescue the party through revolutionary direct action:

Oh I see. So we're being threatened with violence if the voters continute speak out for Hillary? Is that how it goes? We're supposed to be afraid of thugs now? Get off your high horses and stop deluding yourself into believeing that this is the freakin' American Revoltion. It's not. It's a bunch of people raised on video game and movie violence, who just registered to vote, and think they know what America needs.

Your candidate is a fraud. Plain and simple. You're all willing to go to jail or die for a guy that gets his words from a middle-aged white media consultant. Yeah, that's really revolutionary. These nutjob comments that are featured here are not the only ones out there.. they're multiplying all over the internet. I'm sorry, but I have a hard time thinking these people are so devoted to democracy as to threaten violence to get their weak candidate in office.

Movement? Yeah, right. It's be so impressive to hear these 'give me obama or give me death' types if he actually stood for something. Which he does not. I think that the Obama supporters that were caught on tape screaming at people during the caucuses, and the threats by these thugs, are only going to guarantee that NO ONE will vote for him even if you manage to strongarm the nomination. He can't win the General Election with a handful of his little army (or whatever the hell you call yourselves now.) You can kiss even the slightest bit moderate voter behind.

We will not be intimidated. You're underestimating the Super Delegates and the voters, and America. Obama needs to rein his supporters in, pronto.

This is a true internecine battle erupting, and the stakes entail the very future of the Democratic Party. Andrew Sullivan knows this, of course, so look for more Obama victimology posts that serve mostly to further embolden those young Seattle-style youths hoping to revive the 1960s.

McCain: Americans Will Never Surrender

Here's John McCain's new web advertisement, "Man in the Arena" (via YouTube):

Recall that I've been talkin' up McCain's Churchillian enigma, a theme powerfully presented in the ad.

Smart move too, as it turns out that McCain's national security creds are getting some play in public opinion. See Rasmussen's new survey, "42% Want McCain to Answer 3:00 a.m. Phone Call."

Americans Want McCain in White House for 3:00am Call

Rasmussen's got a nifty poll finding indicating that a plurality of Americans wants John McCain to answer the 3:00am phone call the Clinton campaign highlighted a couple of weeks back:

Before Hillary Clinton was declared the winner in Texas, most American voters had read, seen, or heard about her 3:00 a.m. telephone commercial. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 43% had seen at least part of the commercial which was played incessantly on news networks and other outlets for days. Another 16% had heard something about it and the overwhelming majority (81%) correctly identified Hillary Clinton as the candidate whose campaign ran the commercial (see the commercial).

The commercial was credited as one factor enabling Clinton to turn her campaign around in Texas last week. But, 42% of all voters said the person they’d most want to answer the phone was John McCain. Among all voters, 25% picked Clinton and another 25% named Obama as the person they’d want in the White House when a foreign policy crisis call arrived.

The Rasmussen results provide an initial statistical answer to the issue raised in my earlier post, "Tough and Ready: How Will McCain's Defense Message Sell?"

So far, McCain's experience and national security credentials appear to be selling pretty well.

Huffington Post Closes Comments in Wake of Terrorist Attacks

Nice Deb reports that the Huffington Post has shut down comments to its posts on the Jerusalem murders and the Times Square bombing (seen here on YouTube):

Here's Nice Deb:

What does it say about your blog, and its readership, when you have to close down comments because of their embarrassing, mortifying, and anti-semitic content every time there is a terrorist attack? Or a Republican gets hurt, sick, or dies, or any number of other things? It seems that comments are being closed on a fairly regular basis, over there.

How unfortunate to be afraid of your own commenters.

Indeed, it must be an utter disaster to realize that the high-brow anti-Americanism peddled at HuffPo and other radical blogs has its must fundamental appeal for the most implacable domestic enemies of the United States

(Note: I need to second Deb's point on the nature of these comments, which are indeed the most vile racist and anti-semitic screeds imaginable, truly extremist in essence).

Recall in my post yesterday I noted that Daily Kos sloughed off the attack as another salvo in an alleged Rovian smear campaign against the Democratic Party's "good works."

Has anyone seen a major left-wing bloggers' statement of renunciation on the attacks in Jerusalem (where Hamas applauded the murders of 8 Israeli youths) and New York?

I don't see one at FireDogLake. Indeed, Newshoggers is attacking conservative bloggers for even making the connection between radical left-wing ideology and the recent political violence against the institutions and symbols of American military power.

Huffington Post turned off comments to two entries, "7 Die in Shooting at Jerusalem Seminary," and "Police Release Footage of NYC Blast."

If actions are louder than words, that says a lot.

See also my earlier posts, "Blast Damages Times Square Military Recruiting Station," and "Times Square Recruiting Bombing: An Update."

McCain Personnel Memo: Avoid Not-So-Smart FP Advisors

John McCain's ramping up his political organization in the wake of President Bush's endorsement Wednesday.

So here's a tip for the McCain campaign's director of personnel: Avoid not-so-smart foreign policy adivisors.

It turns out that Samantha Power, a left-wing international relations big-shot at Harvard University, and the author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning A Problem From Hell, has just submitted her resignation as foreign policy advisor to the Barack Obama campaign after she called Hillary Clinton a "monster."

The Associated Press has a short take:

A Barack Obama adviser has resigned after calling rival Hillary Rodham Clinton "a monster."

A campaign official told The Associated Press Friday that Samantha Power's resignation is effective immediately.

Power told The Scotsman that Clinton is a "monster" who will stoop to anything to win. She tried to make the remark off the record, but the Scottish newspaper printed it anyway. She apologized in a statement and the campaign decried the remark.

Power is a foreign policy adviser to Obama and a Pulitzer Prize winner.

Power's a big advocate of humanitarian intervention - she's apparently known as "the genocide chick" - but she might do well to audit some of the political communications seminars offered at her own public policy institute, JFK School of Government.

This is a colossal mistake. Power was positioning herself for a major post in an Obama administration, perhaps Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights.

Apparenty, Power likes to play basketball, to which George Clooney - a comrade-in-arms - is said to have remarked, "She's the best I've ever played against."

Here's Frank James on Clooney's endorsement:

With all due respect to Clooney and his assessment of her basketball skills, we'll have to see her crossover move before we can determine if she's really got game. It's fair to say, however, when it comes to her political footwork, she needs more practice.

See more analysis at Memeorandum; and CNN, "Obama Adviser Resigns Over Comment."

Times Square Recruiting Bombing: An Update

Here's the New York Times's mainstream media analysis on developments in yesterday's Times Square military recruiting center bombing:

The British Consulate in 2005. The Mexican Consulate last year. And on Thursday, the Times Square military recruiting station.

Three bombings with similar devices at three high-profile locations in Manhattan, each occurring at nearly the same time of day, in the predawn hours; each inflicting little damage; none injuring people.

And in each case, someone — most likely a man — seen pedaling away on a bicycle with a hooded jacket or sweatshirt hiding his face.

These are the similarities that police detectives and federal agents are exploring as they investigate whether these blasts, so seemingly similar, were the work of the same person or group, and what the motive was.

Law enforcement officials stopped short on Thursday of definitively linking the explosions — or of trying to divine the significance of the latest, most visible target: the island at the center of the pinball-game brightness of Times Square....

Late Thursday, investigators analyzed letters received by members of Congress with pictures taken before the blast of someone in front of the recruiting station with the words “We did it. Happy New Year.” As the night wore on, investigators increasingly believed the letters had no connection to the bombing, but were probably a strange coincidence, one official said.

This is obviously a clinical take on things.

For sharp contrast, see Michelle Makin, "Special Report: Tracing the Left’s Escalating War on Military Recruiters."

Also, Chris Hill, from Gathering of Eagles, puts things in perspective:

We will gather at 1230hrs until 1600hrs, this Saturday, 8 March in Times Square to serve notice that our troops do not cut and run, and neither do we. We recognize that most of you do not live within easy driving distance of NYC, so we are asking that everyone else don your military or patriotic garb and visit your local recruiter station. It is important for them to know we love and respect them, and will stand with them always. New York City has, once again, been the victim of terrorism; this time of the homegrown brand it appears. This despicable act can be laid right at the feet of the vehement anti-American groups we have countered so often. They have made it okay in the minds of some to attack recruiter stations and deface our war memorials. We must not allow this to continue!

Meanwhile, New York City anarchists are cheering the attack:

Bringing the war home, a hooded bicyclist bombed the Times Square Armed Forces recruiting station this morning. There has been no statement regarding this thus far, and perhaps there will not be, although in this case, perhaps the medium is the message. Unlike the bombs dropped by the US armed forces on various brown people around the world, no one was hurt.

Check back for more updates.

Limbaugh in Texas: Did He Put Hillary Over the Top?

Did Rush Limbaugh's call for conservatives to crossover and vote Hillary in the Texas primary put the New York Senator over the top?

Allahpundit considers it, "More Exit polls: Did Rush Win it for Hillary?"

But check out this post from the Washington Wire:

Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh led a campaign to have his Republican followers in Texas cross party lines and vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton in the state’s open primary last Tuesday. Why? Because Limbaugh thinks Republicans can defeat Clinton in a general election. Plus, watching Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama bloody each other in a nomination fight is pure sport for Limbaugh conservatives.

According to exit polls, Clinton won a notably higher number of Republican voters than she has in past open primary contests. Of the 9% of voters who identified themselves as Republicans in the Democratic Primary, Obama still edged Clinton 53%-46%. However, that margin is significantly slimmer than earlier contests. In Wisconsin’s open primary, for instance, Republicans broke 72%-28% for Obama. Similarly, in Virginia’s open primary, Obama was favored 72%-23%.

Clinton unquestionably secured a Texas victory, but some locals are convinced it was a false win bolstered by dirty politics. Laura Jean Kreissl, an accounting professor at West Texas A&M University, served as an election official in Canyon, Texas on Tuesday. She contacted the Wall Street Journal to report the hijinks she observed at the four precincts that voted at her polling location.

Of the 181 voters she personally dealt with, 70 offered that they were “Rush Limbaugh voters” who were there to cast ballots for Clinton. “I’m here to vote for Hillary Clinton, I want to see the Democratic Party implode,” one voter told Kreissl, she recounted in an interview. “I was just stunned,” she said. “As an election official we can’t say anything. We just jot them down and let them vote.”

Kreissl, an Obama supporter, said she kept rough counts, but her fellow poll worker, a Clinton supporter, both estimated that as many as two-thirds of the voters were Limbaugh Republicans turned Clinton voters. About 800 ballots were cast in total there. “I’m an accounting professor, I know numbers pretty well,” she said.

Kreissl worked a 19 hour day to also help organize the caucus event later that night. Similarly, she said she personally checked in 20 Obama supporters and 17 Clinton supporters. Of Clinton’s 17, 10 identified themselves as Rush Limbaugh voters, she said.

She’s convinced the Limbaugh voters turned the tide in favor of Clinton. “I don’t think we were an isolated case by any means,” she said. “I think it was very widespread across the state.”

The grassroots group, Republicans for Obama, agrees. “Hillary Clinton owes her political life to Rush Limbaugh,” they wrote on their web site Wednesday.

Rush Limbaugh is also convinced. “Don’t Doubt the Limbaugh Effect,” he boasts on his web site.

Clinton won Texas 50.9%-47.4%, earning roughly 100,000 more votes than Obama. However, Texas’s two-part system of a same day primary and a caucus is expected to end up netting Obama more delegates when the caucus delegates are allotted.

I need to take a deeper look at the data, but with Hillary's small margin of victory, the Rush-bots might have done some Texas "Hillraising" magic.

Riots in Denver? Radicals May Seek "Direct Action" Against Democrats

Will the Democratic Party see rioting at their summer nominating convention in Denver?

In an earlier post I predicted "Seattle-style" youth mobilization (riots) in the event that Barack Obama is denied the nomination. Heidi from Big Girls Pants had some doubts about such developments, so maybe my musings were over the top. Here's my prediction:

I'm of the opinion that a leveraged nomination for Clinton - with the crowbar of superdelegates squeezing her in - will likely result in street riots, and not just a few scuffles between some antiwar protesters and police outside the Denver convention hall. I'm talking 1999 Seattle-style total mobilization protests - in cities around the nation - among a coalition of outraged groups hoping to take down the Democratic Party establishment once and for all.

Is that a bit unhinged? Maybe not?

Check this post from Allahpundit at Hot Air, "Far Left Ready to Blow the Lid Off the Democratic Convention, Maybe Literally."

Allah cites Rick Pearlstein's entry at Huffington Post, "Some Apocalyptic Observations on the Democratic Nomination Fight from Here on Out," for example:

Rick, if the Machine tries to give the Clintons the victory at the convention, I swear to God, Chicago’s going to look like a Sadie Hawkins dance. People my age are going to be throwing stones. We all have transportation — cell phones — disposable income — the Internet — free time — and Seattle as our example. Part of me is scared of a riot. Part of me isn’t. The nomination belongs to Obama. Do you think we’re going to let the Democratic Leadership Council take it? “God gave Noah the rainbow sign. No more water, fire next time.”

Now, call me crazy, but I'm not putting significant unconventional mobilization past people like this.

Maybe it's just a bunch of hippie wannabes mouthing-off anonymously in the comments section of a lefty blog.

But as we're seeing more extremely violent acts of domestic terrorism - with this week's Seattle ecoterrorism case and the Times Square bombing - maybe things could indeed move beyond seemingly idle online chatter to a few copy-cat attacks, and then perhaps a more serious hard-left conspiracy of violence?

See also the Weekly Standard, which provides information on the left's "Recreate '68" movement, activities that include plans for "direct action" (i.e., revolutionary violence).

Don't forget my earlier post, "Antiwar Left Seeks to Recreate Protests of 1968."

I'll be posting on these developments moving forward.

Blast Damages Times Square Military Recruiting Station

It was a small explosive device, and there were no casualties from the blast, but this morning's Times Square bombing is both deeply troubling and extremely fascinating. Here's the background, from the Associated Press:

A small bomb caused minor damage to an empty military recruiting station in Times Square early Thursday, shaking guests in hotel rooms high above "the crossroads of the world."

The blast, which happened around 3:45 a.m., left a gaping hole in the front window and shattered a glass door, twisting and blackening its metal frame. No one was hurt. But Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said the device, though unsophisticated, could have caused "injury and even death."

A witness saw a person on a bicycle wearing a backpack and a hood and acting suspiciously, but no one saw the device being placed in front of the recruiting center, authorities said at a news conference.

"If it is something that's directed toward American troops then it's something that's taken very seriously and is pretty unfortunate," said Army Capt. Charlie Jaquillard, who is the commander of Army recruiting in Manhattan.

He said no one was inside the station, where the Marines, Air Force and Navy also recruit.

The New York Times provided updates on the story throughout the day. Here's the latest:

The police said the explosive device involved in the Times Square blast this morning was “roughly similar” to the devices used in two earlier bombings at foreign consulates in Manhattan, in 2005 and 2007, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said at an afternoon news conference. The device had been placed in an ammunition box like the kind that can be bought at a military supply store. Officials said that in today’s attack, a man bundled in a gray hooded jacket or sweatshirt and wearing a backpack was seen riding a bicycle around the recruiting station and acting suspiciously moments before the explosion. Video footage from a surveillance camera showed a bicyclist dismounting, approaching the recruitment center, then returning to the bike and riding away before the explosion occurs. (See related slide show.)

Be sure to check out the video (from WNBC) and the NYT slide show.

Should we read any "larger truths" into this story, that perhaps there's a seed of anarchist nihilism germanating in our midst? Probably not, although it's hard to dismiss the powerful symbolism of an attack on a prominent armed forces recruiting center in the heart of America's financial capital.

Captain Ed provides his analysis:

Given the escalating protests over military recruitment, it seems inevitable that people would bomb those who seek to protect the nation and fight our enemies....

Melanie Morgan just wrote about the escalating attacks on military recruiters a week ago. She lists several cities where recruitment centers have been attacked in varying degrees, usually limited to vandalism and threats of violence. These operations have not hurt military recruiting at all. Michelle wrote about this two years ago (and many times since), and quite obviously the attackers have grown frustrated that they haven’t frightened off enough people to slow down the flow of recruits.

Now the movement has decided to morph into domestic terrorism. Of course, the people responsible will claim that they bombed the office during the night to keep anyone from being hurt. That’s exactly the same kind of rationalization that people like the Weather Underground and the SLA used at first, anyway — that terrorism was justified by their politics. In fact, a few like William Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn still claim that.

And what exactly are the politics behind this? The US does not have a draft any longer. The only people joining the military are those who volunteer to do so. The Code Pink protesters who throw paint, rocks, and the unknown terrorists who throw bombs want to disarm the nation while it’s under attack by radical jihadists, and at the same time want to stop young men and women from exercisig their own choices. Since the Code Pink contingent and the nutcases who throw bombs can’t possibly win through the democratic process, they want to engage in intimidation — and now terrorism — to frighten people into acquiescence.

When this fails to achieve their goals, expect bombs to find human targets.

The Captain notes that that Daily Kos has called the bombing a Karl Rove, fear-mongering-style attack, designed to sow confusion and destabilization as part of an effort to tear down all the "good work" being done by John Edward and Barack Obama.

Right...

Note how the Kos piece fails to denounce the attack.

Again, while it's good not to read too much into this, it is fascinating - and informative - that recent incidents of domestic terrorism have been perpetrated by suspects associated with far left-wing ideologies (recall this week's ecoterrorist new-home burnings in Seattle).

Photo Credit: New York Times

Bear Any Burden? The U.S. Can Afford Iraq

There's increasing buzz on Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes' new book, The Three Trillion Dollar War.

Here's a Houston Chronicle synopsis:

When U.S. troops invaded Iraq in March 2003, the Bush administration predicted that the war would be self-financing and rebuilding the nation would cost less than $2 billion.

Coming up on the five-year anniversary of the invasion, a new estimate from a Nobel laureate puts the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at more than $3 trillion.

That estimate from Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz also serves as the title of his new book, The Three Trillion Dollar War, which hit store shelves Friday.

The book, co-authored with Harvard University professor Linda Bilmes, builds on previous research published in January 2006. The two argued then and now that the cost to America of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is wildly underestimated.

When other factors are added — such as interest on debt, future borrowing for war expenses, continued military presence in Iraq and lifetime health care and counseling for veterans — they think that the wars' costs range from $5 trillion to $7 trillion.

"I think we really have learned that the long-term costs of taking care of the wounded and injured in this war and the long-term costs of rebuilding the military to its previous strength is going to far eclipse the cost of waging this war," Bilmes said in an interview.

The Chronicle article suggests the Stiglitz/Bilmes claims are controversial in Washington. The article also reviews how the administration allegedly underestimated the "social costs" of the conflict.

Stiglitz and Bilmes summarize their work in this piece from the Times of London:

The Bush Administration was wrong about the benefits of the war and it was wrong about the costs of the war. The president and his advisers expected a quick, inexpensive conflict. Instead, we have a war that is costing more than anyone could have imagined.

The cost of direct US military operations - not even including long-term costs such as taking care of wounded veterans - already exceeds the cost of the 12-year war in Vietnam and is more than double the cost of the Korean War.

And, even in the best case scenario, these costs are projected to be almost ten times the cost of the first Gulf War, almost a third more than the cost of the Vietnam War, and twice that of the First World War. The only war in our history which cost more was the Second World War, when 16.3 million U.S. troops fought in a campaign lasting four years, at a total cost (in 2007 dollars, after adjusting for inflation) of about $5 trillion (that's $5 million million, or £2.5 million million). With virtually the entire armed forces committed to fighting the Germans and Japanese, the cost per troop (in today's dollars) was less than $100,000 in 2007 dollars. By contrast, the Iraq war is costing upward of $400,000 per troop.

Most Americans have yet to feel these costs. The price in blood has been paid by our voluntary military and by hired contractors. The price in treasure has, in a sense, been financed entirely by borrowing. Taxes have not been raised to pay for it - in fact, taxes on the rich have actually fallen. Deficit spending gives the illusion that the laws of economics can be repealed, that we can have both guns and butter. But of course the laws are not repealed. The costs of the war are real even if they have been deferred, possibly to another generation.

The war is expensive, however, Stiglitz and Blimes' analysis lacks comparative and historical rigor. As Amity Shlaes argues, it's just not the case that the U.S. cannot afford to fight this war:

In their best-case scenario, under which the U.S. presence in Iraq drops to 55,000 non-combat troops by 2012, the total budgetary costs for the conflict add up to $1.7 trillion. They posit that a more realistic figure would be $2.65 trillion.

When a U.S. soldier dies, the authors write, the Pentagon pays something like $500,000 to families in insurance and death benefits. Stiglitz and Bilmes claim that a more accurate price would be $7 million -- the Pentagon fails to consider the lifetime earning and spending power lost when a soldier dies.

``Instead of paying for the war in Iraq, we could have fixed the Social Security problem for the next half-century,'' the authors say, and America would have had ``a smaller mountain of debt.''

In their best-case scenario, under which the U.S. presence in Iraq drops to 55,000 non-combat troops by 2012, the total budgetary costs for the conflict add up to $1.7 trillion. They posit that a more realistic figure would be $2.65 trillion.

When a U.S. soldier dies, the authors write, the Pentagon pays something like $500,000 to families in insurance and death benefits. Stiglitz and Bilmes claim that a more accurate price would be $7 million -- the Pentagon fails to consider the lifetime earning and spending power lost when a soldier dies.

``Instead of paying for the war in Iraq, we could have fixed the Social Security problem for the next half-century,'' the authors say, and America would have had ``a smaller mountain of debt.''

`Vast and Huge' Cost

Non-budgetary and interest costs are an important part of the Stiglitz calculation. The authors worry about the deficit. The conflict's costs, they say, ``are certain to be vast and huge and will continue for generations.''

The rebuttal to this argument starts with oil. Professor Steven J. Davis of the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business challenges as ``unwarranted'' their argument that even $5-$10 of the per barrel increase is because of the war.

The 2003 drop in oil production by Iraq accounted for less than 1 percent of world production. Overall, world oil output went up from 2002 to 2006.

The authors' description of the war's cost as ``vast'' or ``huge,'' conjures images of unprecedented financial sacrifice. But by the standard method of calculating costs of wars, defense spending as a share of gross domestic product, Iraq's price is improbably modest.

Back in 1986, the year before Ronald Reagan threw out his ``tear down this wall'' challenge to Mikhail Gorbachev, defense spending was 6.2 percent of the U.S. economy, according to the Congressional Budget Office. In 1968, the year of the Tet Offensive in Vietnam, it was 9.5 percent.

`Peace Dividend'

In 2005, 2006, and 2007, defense spending was about 4 percent of GDP -- as low as during the early 1990s, when the U.S. was enjoying the ``peace dividend'' after the Soviet Union's collapse.

As for the budget deficit, it is likely to range between 2 percent and 3 percent of GDP this year, a humdrum level nothing like the heroic 30 percent deficit Washington ran as it prepared for D-Day.

Yet it is the Stiglitz-Bilmes ``what-would-have-been'' argument that will prove most contentious. Back in 2006, Davis and two colleagues made their own counterfactual case, seeking to analyze the costs of the theoretical alternative to war against Iraq: containment of Saddam.

Davis found that the costs of containment in Iraq would have been big. In certain situations, they even would have been ``in the same ballpark as the likely costs of the Iraq intervention.''

Good News

In a phone request for an update of his paper this week, Davis said sending additional U.S. troops last year, the ``surge,'' increased costs enough to make the war yet more expensive -- but not by trillions of dollars.

And where in the ``Three Trillion'' calculus does the new good news fit in, such as the International Monetary Fund's prediction that Iraq's GDP will increase by 7 percent this year?

The message of this book is that the war can be blamed for America's failure to reform domestically. If this is true, then Washington would have used the period of 1991 to 2001 to rewrite Social Security and Medicare. It didn't.

Democrats and Republicans will both find the Iraq-as- budget-buster argument convenient. That doesn't make it compelling. It is also disingenuous. There are a number of reasons to oppose the war in Iraq. Just don't say we can't afford it.

Stiglitz and Bilmes' research will likely get huge play, as Shlaes suggests, but their work's not to be trusted.

Tough and Ready: How Will McCain's Defense Message Sell?

How will John McCain's beefy tough-on-defense message resonate with voters? Are hawkish credentials an asset this year?

The Wall Street Journal has an analysis:

In his victory speech Tuesday night, John McCain ticked off his muscular foreign-policy plans and then, with clenched jaw, urged the rowdy crowd to "stand up and fight for America."

The Republican presidential nominee's resolve will now be tested on a national stage. His record in Congress suggests that a McCain White House could assume a tougher posture overseas than has the current administration, which has itself often been criticized as too bellicose. Sen. McCain has joked about bombing Iran, ruled out talks with North Korea and, earlier this week, condemned the new leader of Russia....

His worldview will likely pose a contrast to his opponent, be it Illinois Sen. Barack Obama or New York Sen. Hillary Clinton. Sen. McCain and his Republican allies are preparing a campaign built around the assertion that either Democrat would be too soft. The Democratic nominee will likely portray Sen. McCain as a reckless saber-rattler....

In a recent Pew Research Center survey, 47% of respondents said they thought Sen. McCain was "tough enough" on foreign policy, compared with 39% for Sen. Obama and 44% for Sen. Clinton. One in four thought Sen. McCain was "too tough" -- compared with only 3% for Sen. Obama and 9% for Sen. Clinton.

Sen. McCain has a long record of urging the use of force during crises from North Korea to Iran. In 1994, he accused President Clinton of trying to appease North Korea over its nuclear program. "To get a mule to move, you must show it the carrot and hit it with a stick at the same time," he wrote in the Los Angeles Times.

Five years later, when the Clinton administration led a North Atlantic Treaty Organization bombing campaign against then-Yugoslavia, Sen. McCain was one of the loudest voices in the Senate urging the White House to prepare for a potential ground invasion. "The credibility of America as a superpower is at stake," he said.

A decade later, during the Iraq war, U.S. credibility has again emerged as a big issue. The top Democratic contenders frequently promise to restore America's image overseas. But Randy Scheunemann, Sen. McCain's chief foreign-policy adviser, said the McCain campaign sees no similar need. "At the end of the day, people are happy to engage with Americans," he said. "They know we're the sole superpower."

Several of Mr. McCain's original advisers, including Mr. Scheunemann, fell firmly in the camp of neoconservatives, the hawkish group that encouraged President Bush to invade Iraq. But as the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. McCain has since attracted support from nearly all of the party's foreign-policy luminaries, including staunch realists like former Secretary of State James Baker.

Sen. McCain and his aides have devised a foreign-policy strategy that recommends pushing for tougher economic sanctions on Iran -- including a possible gasoline embargo -- outside the auspices of the United Nations, a policy the Bush administration has eschewed as impractical. Sen. McCain wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine last fall that when it comes to Iran, "military action, although not the preferred option, must remain on the table."

Read the whole thing.

WSJ notes that President Ronald Reagan came to office with a similar bellicose reputation, but then mellowed while in office and achieved great success in foreign policy.

Further, McCain's toughness puts our enemies on watch not to fool around (recall Max Boot's argument as well that the terrorists fear most a McCain presidency), and a reputation for firmness may even position McCain favorably to resolve international crises, like those with Iran.

The quesion is wheter these assets will sell with the general electorate in November. I think they will.

Washington Post Survey is Poor Snapshot of Voter Preferences

Well, we're certainly seeing a trial-heat horse race in the general elections matchups.

A new Washington Post poll finds both Democratic Party hopefuls leading GOP nominee John McCain in the November election:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) kicks off his general-election campaign trailing both potential Democratic nominees in hypothetical matchups, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) leads McCain, who captured the delegates needed to claim the Republican nomination Tuesday night, by 12 percentage points among all adults in the poll; Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) holds a six-point lead over the GOP nominee. Both Democrats are buoyed by moderates and independents when going head to head with McCain and benefit from sustained negative public assessments of President Bush and the war in Iraq.

About two-thirds of Americans disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job and think the war was not worth fighting, and most hold those positions "strongly." A slim majority also doubt that the United States is making progress toward restoring civil order in Iraq, even as McCain and others extol recent successes there.

These views are closely related to voters' choices: McCain does poorly against Clinton and Obama among those who disapprove of the president and those opposing the war.

Note something funny about these results: Just last week the Los Angeles Times found McCain leading both candidates, with the Arizona Sentator holding a six-point lead over Hillary Clinton.

So here the poll's likely oversampled Democrats, or the intense coverage of the Democratic Party race heading in the Texas and Ohio primaries has created a media effect favorable to Clinton and Obama.

Morover, the survey was conducted before McCain secured the GOP nomination and President Bush's endorsement (which will alientate Democrats and rally Republicans).

So, it's just a snapshot.

As things continue to improve in Iraq, and as the Democrats continue with their long drawn-out nonination contest, the lead in public opinion will float up and down between McCain and his potential rivals.

I'm excited for the Dems to wrap up their primaries. It's going to be a very close race, even with the presumption of favorable Democratic election trends this year. McCain's going to do some heavy pounding, especially on national security and patriotic values.

See more analysis at Memeorandum, and especially the ejaculatory Daily Kos (which is attacking McCain's age, his Iraq support, and the economy as in "recession).

Discussion Question: Are the Democrats in the driver's seat heading into November?

**********

UPDATE: This really is a flawed poll, or at the least is just already out of date, considering developments in the presidential primaries since Tuesday.

A new, post-Texas and Ohio survey conducted by SurveyUSA finds statistical dead heats in trial-run matchups between McCain and both the Democratic hopefuls:

1,041 registered voters interviewed by SurveyUSA 03/05/08, following Clinton victories in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island on 03/04/08.

Pairing #1:

* Clinton 48%
* McCain 46%

Pairing #2:

* Obama 46%
* McCain 46%

Complete results posted here Thursday morning 03/06/08.

Also, regarding the Washington Post, check out Flopping Aces, "What A Shocking Poll!

It turns out that the Post's sample was composed of 55 percent identified or leaned Democratic (net), so it's no wonder that support for Clinton and Obama was so skewed.

As I said earlier, the race will be close, and frankly the longer the Democrats delay in selecting a nominee, the better for the GOP in terms of fundraising and voter mobilization (but see Karl Rove's qualifications of this point).

Public Opinion on Iraq Continues to Improve

As I've noted many times, public sentiment on the Iraq war continues to improve as a result of increased security in the country and the reduction in casualties.

The Wall Street Journal has a report on the public's bulked-up opinions surrounding the war, which is one of the most underreported developments of the last year:

The perception that the U.S. troop surge in Iraq has succeeded is changing some public views of the war, potentially blunting Democrats' political edge on the issue.

Americans continue to judge the nearly five-year-old U.S. invasion of Iraq as a mistake, by margins that have barely budged. But in a notable shift, public perceptions of the current U.S. military effort there "have become significantly more positive over the past several months," says a recent report from the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. It shows that almost half of Americans think the war effort is going well, and that the U.S. should keep its troops there, at least for the time being. Other polls echo the trend to varying degrees.

The results suggest that -- barring another reversal in conditions -- Democrats' ability to use the war as a political weapon could be somewhat curtailed, particularly when the general-election campaign begins....

In the most in-depth picture of the trend, the Pew report says that about half the public (48%) now says the Iraq war effort is going either very well or fairly well. That compares to a more than 2-1 majority who said it was going badly a year ago. Nearly half (47%) say the U.S. should keep its troops in Iraq until the situation there has stabilized -- roughly the same as those (49%) who favor bringing troops home as soon as possible. A year ago, 53% favored rapid withdrawal versus 42% who favored keeping the troops in Iraq.

Pollsters first noticed an uptick in public perceptions of the war in the fall. But the change in February "struck me as, 'Wow,'" said Andrew Kohut, the Pew Research Center director. The U.S. troop surge during 2007 sent 30,000 additional combat troops to Iraq to help quell growing violence. The last of the surge troops are scheduled to be withdrawn this summer.

Obviously, the public hasn't done an about-face in its levels of support for the war, but as I've reported earlier, a majority of Americans now sees the U.S. likely to win in Iraq, and a large majority opposes an immediate troop withdrawal from the country.

I'll will say once again, though: We're winning this war: The administration sees it, the military sees it, the American people see it, and Iraqis themselves see it - as they increasingly renounce their own religion's fight against the historic forces of freedom.

Now if the media would just start to really see it, then we'd be getting somewhere (the antiwar left will never see it).

(Discussion Question: Should the administration and the presidential candidates talk-up success in Iraq more substantially, or would such public relations efforts create a public backlash in the case of dramatic military setbacks? On this exact point, see James Willbanks, "Winning the Battle, Losing the War," at the New York Times).

CNN is Back on Top with Primary Election Coverage

CNN's comprehensive coverage of the 2008 presidential primaries has vaulted the network back to the top of the cable news channel hierarchy:

The morning after the Democratic primary debate on Feb. 21, while both sides argued over who had come out ahead, there was one clear winner: CNN. The debate, broadcast by CNN and Univision, the Spanish-language network, drew 7.6 million viewers, one of the biggest audiences ever for a primary debate on a cable network.

The debate was held at the University of Texas, Austin, but Jim Walton, president of the CNN news group, was savoring the victory a long way off — in his 21st floor office at the Time Warner Center in New York. For Mr. Walton, the high ratings from this year’s presidential race are an indication of a broader achievement.

In his five years at the helm, Mr. Walton has taken a network beaten down from its competition with the Fox News Channel and managed to streamline top management, raise its profits and increase its audience.

“It was a combination of a lot of things,” Mr. Walton said, commenting on the low morale at the network when he took over. “CNN had gone for 15 years without competition. Profits of the company were not where they should have been. There were management changes. It was like the perfect storm.”

After a long malaise, CNN is finally getting its swagger back. In the last four years CNN, which includes not just the flagship American network, but Headline News, CNN International and CNN.com, doubled its profits. “There are not a lot of 27-year-old companies in America that can make that claim,” Mr. Walton said.

All three cable news networks — CNN, Fox News and MSNBC — have enjoyed ratings bumps during the primaries. But CNN is able to brag about something it had not been able to since 2001: it topped Fox News in the prime-time ratings for a single month in the 25 to 54 age category, the group most coveted by advertisers.

In February, CNN attracted an average of 750,000 viewers in that category during prime time, compared with 550,000 for Fox News and 363,000 for MSNBC, according to Nielsen. (Across all age groups Fox News remained No. 1, with an average of 2.2 million viewers in prime time, compared with 2 million for CNN.)

“If you look at the ratings, in 2006 they stopped the bleeding,” said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. “In 2007, that continued, and there was some overall growth at CNN.”

I've been watching CNN quite a bit thoughout this primary season, including some days where I watch the "Ballot Bowl" segments pretty much all day (especially for the weekend primaries, like South Carolina's).

For all of CNN's liberal bias (which is substantial), I appreciate the networks considerable resources, which facilitate large-scale and multifaceted coverage of events.

And not only that, to be perfectly honest, CNN's got a few "Ballot Bowl" hotties who make the coverage simply irresistable (in my book, Suzanne Malveaux and Jessica Yellin are tied for most genuinely smart and attractive schoolboy-crush reporting).

Clinton's Endgame: The Superdelegate Plot

The New York Times reports in a conspiratorial tone that the Clinton camp is "plotting" its campaign endgame, which is to secure enough addtional victories and superdelegate to win the Democratic nomination:

Advisers to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today began plotting a ground game, advertising budgets and a confidence-brimming outreach strategy in hopes of both scoring a big victory in April’s Pennsylvania primary and accumulating enough superdelegates over time to even the nomination fight against Senator Barack Obama.
Mr. Obama, who had 11 straight primary and caucus victories in February, has enjoyed momentum lately in picking off superdelegates, the party leaders who have a vote in the nomination. Mrs. Clinton and her advisers now believe that with her victories in Texas and Ohio last night, she can convince superdelegates to stand with her after a Pennsylvania victory.

She also believes that a strong showing in Pennsylvania, which has 188 delegates at stake, could set up a powerful one-two punch two weeks later in the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, which have a combined 218 delegates. Her team believes she has an especially good shot at winning Indiana, where the state’s influential Democratic senator, Evan Bayh, a former two-term governor, was one of Mrs. Clinton’s earliest supporters.

The "big question" now among bloggers on both the left and right is whether Democratic primary battles will sink the party this year, either in a riotous August nominating convention or through internecine battles so severe that a victory for either candidate can only by Pyrrhic.

**********

Revised: Please this comment thread.

Americans Dissatisfied with U.S. Global Position

I'm having a little debate with Gayle from Dragon Lady's Den on the hypothesized representativeness of Barack Obama's lack of patriotism.

Recall my earlier post, where we find more evidence of anti-Americanism in Obama's rhetoric, "Obama: No Pride in Saying "I Am an American" (the debate in the comment thread is here).

Well it turns out, that a huge majority of Americans, in a new Gallup poll, indicates that they are dissatisfied with America's position in the world.

Now, this is obviously not evidence of anti-Americanism, per se: For someone to say they're "dissatisfied" with America's global position is not the same as claiming that young people traveling abroad can't say they're proud to be an American (which is what Obama asserted).

So, to be clear, I'm not claiming this substantiates any larger claim about the generalizability of Obama's lack of pride in country.

Still, personally, such expressions of shame are shocking to me, as it can be argued that such sentiment goes beyond disapproval of a particular administration or set of public polcies to a loathing of the United States itself. If true, that's not a healthy trend for the democracy.

In any case, here's a summary of the Gallup findings:

Americans' view of the United States' position in the world has undergone a complete reversal over the course of the Bush administration. Since February 2001, Americans' dissatisfaction with the country's position in the world has more than doubled.

Public dissatisfaction with the United States' global position was 27% in February 2002, shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It rose to 50% during the pre-Iraq war period in 2003 when the United States was actively lobbying its allies and other countries at the United Nations to support military action against Iraq. It then quickly dipped to 29% at the very beginning of the war in Iraq in March 2003, but has risen steadily since.

Today's 68% dissatisfaction rating is the highest Gallup has recorded on this question, including during the Vietnam War era. At three different points in the 1960s, the public was consistently divided in its responses, with about 44% satisfied and 46% dissatisfied. (See table at the end of this report for exact survey dates and results.)

Note something further here, and this is where we can make a tentative tie between popular dissatisfaction with America to Obama's statement of shame in nation:

Gallup's findings are highly partisan, with almost 9 out of 10 Democrats indicating dissatisfaction with America:

Current attitudes about the United States' global position are highly partisan, with a majority of Republicans (60%) saying they are satisfied with the country's position in the world, and the vast majority of Democrats (85%) saying they are dissatisfied. The ratings of political independents tend to be closer to Democrats' ratings than to those of Republicans.

Although the question is implicitly an evaluation of the nation's leadership, Gallup did not find a similarly strong partisan breach at the end of President Bill Clinton's second term. In May 2000, 78% of Democrats were satisfied with the United States' position in the world, along with 57% of Republicans.

The majority of Democrats were satisfied with the U.S. global position in the first two measures of Bush's presidency -- 69% in February 2001 and 61% in February 2002. However, their satisfaction plunged to 30% by February 2003, rebounded to 50% during the start of the Iraq war, and, beginning in 2004, has not registered more than 26%.

The percentage of Democrats currently satisfied on this measure (13%) is similar to what it was two years ago (18%). At the same time, satisfaction among Republicans has dropped by 15 percentage points, from 75% to 60%.

To be really able to link these two sentiments - dissatisfaction with America and unpatriotic attitudes - we'd need survey data with question items measuring these two notions independently (note that polls do find majorities of Americans as patriotic, Democrats less so than Republicans).

It's just fascinating that much of Obama's shame in nation is driven by expressed disagreements with our current foreign policies and our alleged lack of standing in the world.

These are precisely the same views that Gallup taps into in a second set of questions (on the "diminished perceptions of U.S. global image," which declined after 2003 and the Iraq war).

Americans should not be ashamed of their country. Indeed, we have more reasons to be proud of our nation than in any time in history. We are more prosperous and more welcoming than ever. Women and minorities enjoy more opportunities in American society today than any other time in history (meanwhile, people are so absorbed by the long drawn out Democratic primary that they forget to reflect on how awesome is the fact that we are choosing between a woman or black man to be the next Democratic standard-bearer).

Sure, we are facing some challenging times, especially in the economy and the war (which actually is getting much better), but I don't think this is cause for a decline of love of country.

Barack Obama's getting a reputation as unpatriotic, an inclination which I hope does not rub off on his supporters.

Clinton Shows Obama Can't Win When it Counts

John Heilemann has another penetrating analysis of the Hillary Clinton's campaign, over at New York Magazine: "Obama can’t win when it counts:"

So Hillary Clinton did what she had to do yesterday to earn a tomorrow for her candidacy: She won Ohio (decisively) and Texas (by a hair in the popular vote, though Obama is likely to win the caucus portion of that state’s weird-ass system). It’s true that a few weeks ago, this would have seemed no great feat, so great were HRC’s leads in the opinion polls in both places. But in the face of Barack Obama’s monthlong, twelve-contest winning streak, of being massively outspent on the air and out-organized on the ground, of two debates where she did no better than battle her rival to a draw, of a slow and seemingly inexorable drift of superdelegates (and not just any superdelegates, but John Lewis, for chrissakes) to Obama — in the face of all of that, Hillary’s achievement was inarguably considerable.

There are many explanations for what occurred yesterday, but let’s start by giving credit where it’s due. The Clinton campaign earned these victories....

But it wasn’t just the Clinton campaign that had the hopemonger ducking and weaving. After months of treating Obama with kid gloves, the press — perhaps goaded into action by Hillary’s designated media mau-mauer, Howard Wolfson, perhaps shamed by the scamps at SNL — finally began to treat him for what he was (and still is): the front-runner. His response and that of his campaign were fairly underwhelming. On Rezko, the beginning of whose trial this week guaranteed a new round of grilling, their answers were pat and obfuscatory. On the NAFTA-Canada imbroglio, their explanations were misleading. And when the going got a little tough at a press avail in San Antonio, Obama turned whiny. “C’mon guys,” he moaned as he tried to flee the scene. “I just answered, like, eight questions.”

How much did all this hurt Obama? Hard to say, precisely. But the exit polls suggest that Clinton won handily in both Ohio and Texas among those voters who made up their minds in the last three days — when her attacks were hitting him the hardest. They also suggest, perhaps more worryingly for Obama, that Clinton made headway in reassembling the electoral coalition that had held firm for her through Super-Duper Tuesday. She won solidly in both places among blue-collar workers, those without a college education, women, and the elderly. And in Texas, once again, she kicked his ass among Hispanics, 67-31.

The Obama campaign will say — is already saying, in fact — that all of this matters naught. That the only thing that matters now is delegates. And in a sense, of course, they are correct, as even the Clintonites admit. And here it appears that HRC has done little to dent Obama’s formidable advantage....

But as my friend John Dickerson over at Slate observes, “The Democratic race has now come down to a contest of numbers versus narrative.” The Clinton narrative revolves, most obviously, around the fact that Hillary has won all of the biggest and most important states apart from Illinois, Obama’s home. And her team will employ this narrative vociferously in the days ahead to try to keep the 500 or so as yet undecided superdelegates — a portion of which either side will need to reach the magic 2,025 delegates required to nail down the nomination — from siding with their foe.

On a deeper level, however, the Clinton narrative boils down to a blunter, more primal claim: that, in the end, Obama can’t win when it counts. As a senior Clinton official put it to me in an e-mail very late last night, “Here’s the deal on BHO — no one is ever going to have a better month than his February. If you can’t close the deal after that, when can you?”

The argument is patently, glaringly, ostentatiously, unrepentantly self-serving. But for Democrats who want above all a candidate who can indeed close the deal that matters most — the deal that will go down in November — there’s still a chance, however small, that it’s an argument that could cut ice. Especially if, six weeks hence, Clinton wins again in Pennsylvania.

Hillary got tough when she need to, and Obama slackened at the worse possible time. Momentum's a powerful thing, I always say, but it takes some nurturing to build up steam, especially when you're up against Clinton, who's scratching and clawing all the way to the finish line.