Election Update

Today is the next big primary day, with Oregon and Kentucky weighing in.  Clinton is heavily favored in Kentucky, with all of the white working class people there, and Obama is slightly favored to win Oregon with all of the fruity liberals out there.  If both states go as expected, all it will mean is that two more states have made their wishes known.  Clinton still isn't dropping out, and Obama still hasn't clinched the nomination.  Denver, here we come!

Now, let's look at a few specific stories about the candidates.  Here is some rare praise for Hillary Clinton from a right-wing think-tank type (Kyle-Anne Shiver), expressing that although she loathes just about everything Hillary has done, the fact that Hillary hasn't quit in the man's world of presidential politics makes her proud to be a woman.

The effects of Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos have become too large to ignore, and the MSM has finally (grudgingly) admitted it.  Of course, it didn't hurt that their golden boy, Obama himself, accused Rush of throwing the Indiana primary to Hillary Clinton.  That's certainly a likelihood, since some say Rush caused a full 7% of the vote to go Hillary's way in a contest she won by just 2%.  The Democrats whined and sputtered about how unfair and unethical it was, but there's really nothing they can do - anyone can exercise their right to vote for anyone they choose for any reason they choose.  And, as Rush pointed out over and over, they (meaning the Left via outlets like the New York Times, and the thousands of Democrats and Independents who voted in the early Rep primaries) helped decide the Rep nominee, so turnabout is fair play.  They just don't like taking their own medicine.

By the way, the so-called 'Dream Ticket' of an Obama/Clinton campaign is not likely to happen.  Insiders say the idea has been nixed by Michelle Obama.  I've also read reports that Nancy Pelosi has done all she can behind the scenes to prevent such a pairing, presumably to remain the top woman in Washington herself.

A couple other items you might find interesting are these articles about Obama's resume and rhetoric, and about how his new pastor may be even worse than Rev. Wright.  Fun stuff.

One of the biggest wild cards this go around is Michelle Obama.  We normally think of the First Lady as a woman of high character, grace, and class, but Michelle is a bit...well, different.  Byron York witnessed one of her campaign speeches, and he called it "an hour-long tale of resentment and anger".  Excerpts:

First, she complained at great length that her husband had been treated unfairly in the Democratic presidential race. Every time he made a move forward, she said, "they" — she never spelled out exactly who "they" were — moved the goalposts a bit farther away from him.

First, "they" said he couldn't raise the money necessary to run a big-league campaign.

But "once he proved that he could raise the money, then all of a sudden money didn't matter," Mrs. Obama told the crowd. "Everybody said, 'Well, money isn't important.' "

Then "they" said the test for Obama would be whether he could build a political organization. But "once it was built, they said it's not an organization — the stakes changed again."

Next, "they" said Obama had to win Iowa. But "once he won Iowa, then all of a sudden Iowa was no longer important."

"They" had moved the bar again. This time, Obama had to win a primary state.

"Then we rolled into South Carolina," Mrs. Obama said. "Then you know what they said? They said South Carolina didn't count, because Barack was supposed to win."

Then came Super Tuesday, and after that Obama's stretch of victories in a series of primary and caucus states.

Still, Mrs. Obama complained, "they" tried to undermine her husband every step of the way.

And so on.  But there was more than just rants about a mysterious 'they':

She's irritated at those people who have suggested that she and Sen. Obama are elitists.

And she appears to be still outraged — at this late date — by the fact that she had to take out loans to attend Princeton and Harvard Law School.

It took her years to pay them back, something she has kvetched about in numerous public appearances.

Imagine that! First she had to borrow money to go to some of the world's most selective and expensive schools — schools whose graduates usually do pretty well in the world — and then they made her pay it back.

Boy, is this the type of person you want as the First Lady, or what?  Michelle Malkin wrote an entire column on the subject of Michelle Obama's negativity, from which she says:

In one of her few (unintentionally) funny moments during a recent sit-down with comedian Stephen Colbert, Mrs. Obama claimed, "Barack and I tend to look at the positives." That's a side-splitter. As Yuval Levin put it, Michelle Obama is "America's unhappiest millionaire." And she has the audacity to extrapolate her misery and her husband's alleged victimization to the "vast majority of Americans."

In South Carolina, she called America "just downright mean" and bemoaned "a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day." And in case you hadn't heard enough of her carping about how hard it is for a seven-figure-earning family to pay for ballet lessons and piano lessons and pay off college loans, Mrs. Oh-Woe-Is-Me was at it again on the campaign trail in Indiana and North Carolina...

Malkin's point is that Michelle Obama is everything people accuse her of being: elitist, whiny, and disgraceful.  At the same time, she tries to play herself off as somehow equal to everyday Americans, and that doesn't resonate with many people outside the hate-America-first crowd.  The message is: get over it.

Rick Moran even goes so far as to call Michelle Obama the GOP's secret weapon for the November election.

A recent campaign ad in Tennessee highlighted Michelle's statement of a few months ago that she was proud of America for the first time in her life once her husband ran for President, then contrasting her lack of pride with the state's GOP candidates' incredible pride in their country.  In response, Barack Obama called the ad 'low class' and suggested they lay off his wife.  I heard an interview with Newt Gingrich the other day about this, and he put it in very understandable terms.  Some First Ladies (like Laura Bush) are only First Lady to support their husbands, and they have no desire to play in politics or policy.  Other First Ladies (like Hillary Clinton) take an active role in the administration, and are thus perfectly valid targets for policy criticism.  The Obamas are trying to have it both ways, with Michelle out there making political speeches but Barack saying she can't be commented upon.

Another recent scuffle with Barack Obama is that of President Bush's comments to the Knesset for Israel's 60th anniversary.  Bush spoke in general terms of the dangers of appeasing evil regimes, and Obama flew off the handle in a rage about being called an appeaser.  The obvious conclusion is that Obama feels like Bush's general statement hit awfully close to home.  The equally obvious reason for that conclusion is that Obama has pledged to meet with any world leader without preconditions.  Hm, I wonder why he feels defensive about being called an appeaser...?  Anyway, David Limbaugh says this effort by Barack to defend himself falls flat:

Obama was so sure Bush's remarks were aimed at him that he shed his nice-guy facade and gave the nation a little glimpse of his inner anger. For those who insist Obama is all sweet and light, I challenge you to listen to his tantrums in response to the president's non-attack.

Obama shouted: "I'm a strong believer in bipartisan foreign policy, but that cause is not served with dishonest, divisive attacks of the sort that we've seen out of George Bush and John McCain over the last couple days. They aren't telling you the truth."

Let me ask you: Where does Barack Obama get off proclaiming himself the high arbiter of civility and bipartisanship while he is engaged in a sputtering tirade of abject incivility and partisanship? Obama apparently expects us to assess his civility not on the basis of his conduct, but solely on the strength of his distorted self-description.

Like so many other liberals, Obama exempts himself from behavioral accountability through identification with liberal policies, which confer upon him the irrebuttable presumption that he is kind and compassionate. But those not subject to the self-deluding spell of liberalism or Obamaphilia will not be fooled by such hypocrisy. They will judge Obama's claim to civility not on his self-elevating but empty words, but on his self-damning, nasty ones.

Obama's joining with other Democrats to bear false witness against President Bush is a perfect example of the type of incivility for which he disingenuously excoriates President Bush.

Obama also decried the president's remarks as "exactly the kind of appalling attack that's divided our country and alienated us from the rest of the world."

No, Sen. Obama, what have divided this country and alienated us from the rest of the world are the nonstop Democratic assaults against President Bush — assaults that you not only did not condemn as uncivil, dishonest, and divisive but also have embraced and echoed.

Barack Obama is not only an absolute disaster in terms of policy and experience, but he also appears to believe that he is exempt from any criticism -- regardless of how truthful it may be -- and that any statement about him is a vicious, divisive attack...even if it isn't actually a statement about him!  I shudder to think what will happen to this country if Barack Obama becomes President.

Let's switch gears to John McCain.  Lee Cary proposes a 3-legged strategy that could give McCain victory in November:
1. Playing nice with Democrats to project an image of an elder statesman who won't throw a low blow.
2. Redefine his own brand of Republican - not a Reagan conservative, but not a neo-con, either.
3. Use history of crossing the aisle to work with Democrats as a contrast to Obama's track record of a complete lack of bipartisanship.

Read the article for all the details.  It makes sense.

McCain has made a potentially fatal mistake if he wants to secure his base, or even run for a second term if he wins in November.  He snubbed James Dobson:

Sen. John McCain's campaign has so far turned a deaf ear to invitations to meet with politically powerful evangelical leader Dr. James Dobson at his Focus on the Family headquarters in Colorado Springs, Colo., raising the possibility that the nation's sizable evangelical bloc will sit out the presidential race in November.

The move would all but assure the election of Sen. Barack Obama, columnist Robert Novak argues in a recent column.

Noting that Dobson has indicated he can't support McCain for president, Novak writes that Dobson's opposition to McCain "reflects continued resistance to the prospective presidential nominee among Christian conservatives who are unhappy with McCain's current positions on stem-cell research, immigration and global warming, not to mention his past sponsorship of campaign-finance reform."

But conservatives are surprised that, despite the differences between McCain and some key conservatives, McCain hasn't responded to their olive branches and sought meetings.

As a result of their dissatisfaction, Novak reports that many of Dobson's followers "are looking beyond 2008 to seek a new leader of the conservative movement for the 2012 election."

This would be a big, big mistake for McCain to make, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him do it.  Remember the war going on inside the Republican party?  It's conservatives versus big-government moderates, and McCain is making a play to redefine the party with the big-government moderates.  Yet another reason I think this election will be a key turning point (somehow) in American history.

Finally, McCain and Obama have begun trading shots over some comments Obama made about Iran. 

Republican John McCain accused Democrat Barack Obama of inexperience and reckless judgment for saying Iran does not pose the same serious threat to the United States as the Soviet Union did in its day.

McCain made the attack Monday in Chicago, Obama's home turf.

"Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama's inexperience and reckless judgment. These are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess," McCain said in an appearance at the restaurant industry's annual meeting.

He was referring to comments Obama made Sunday in Pendleton, Ore.: "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela - these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, 'We're going to wipe you off the planet.'"

McCain listed the dangers he sees from Iran: It provides deadly explosive devices used to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq, sponsors terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East and is committed to the destruction of Israel.

"The threat the government of Iran poses is anything but tiny," McCain said.

This is one of the few areas in which McCain is hands down the better candidate, so he really needs to knock each opportunity out of the park.  There's no question that McCain will win the battle of foreign policy and national security, as long as he's willing to fight it.  I am somewhat surprised -- given his previous statements -- that he is actually doing that.  Maybe there's hope after all.

So, there's your election update.  I'll post the results from today's primaries later tonight, with analysis to follow in the next few days.

There's my two cents.