Somewhere in an Iraqi prison, Saddam's famous "up is down" spin king Tariq Aziz is watching HRC's West Virginia "victory" speech with considerable professional respect and saying, "Not bad." This is becoming silly. The Clintons have always seen the truth as a sort of Silly Putty, something easily stretched, bent and twisted at whim. No shame at all in pretending that an alternate reality based on ego is the same as the truth. Amazing really. It's almost a sort of madness.

Note they had to break out a few acres of extra pipe and drape to cheat the smallish crowd. I might be off a little, but I think Obama picked up twice as many Super Delegates in the last ten days as HRC will get tonight from winning the nothing-burger in West Virginia. Is there a primary on Elba?

Harry Reid and the Democrats promised in 2006

The Frist & Hastert Reform: Prohibit “Dead of Night” Special Interest Provisions. Require that all conference committee meetings be open to the public and that members of the conference committee have a public opportunity to vote on all amendments.

Yesterday Democrats announced agreement on a conference report for the federal budget:

Senate and House budget writers have reached a compromise on a budget resolution that could be taken up by both bodies as soon as next week, said Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad.

"We reached agreement," Conrad said Monday. "We reached agreement on Friday night..."

The compromise clears the way for congressional leaders to name members to a conference committee.

"So we are ready now for the House and Senate to name conferees," Conrad said. "We expect that will be done this week and we could perhaps have a conference either late this week or early next."

In retrospect, the Republicans simply weren't very efficient. Too often they named Democratic conferees and then made key decisions without them. Democrats are far more efficient: making all the decisions before any conferees are even named.

Iran's kook-in-chief is once again rattling his beheading scimitar in Israel's direction:

Tehran - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that Israel would "be soon swept away" from the Palestinian Territories by the Palestinians. It is the second time within less than three years that the Iranian president predicted the eradication of the Jewish state.

The first time was in 2005 when Ahmadinejad hoped that Israel would be eradicated from the Middle East map.

"This terrorist and criminal state is backed by foreign powers, but this regime would soon be swept away by the Palestinians," Ahmadinejad said in a press conference in Tehran.

Referring to worldwide celebrations for the 60th anniversary of Israel's foundation, he said that "it would be futile to hold a birthday ceremony for something which is already dead."

"As far as the regional countries are concerned, this regime does not exist," Ahmadinejad added.

The Iranian president said last week that the anniversary feasts could not save this "rotten and stinking corpse."

It's a good thing that all the presidential candidates now realize that sit-down summits with such a character would be unwise. Thank heavens for small miracles.

If you haven't already, this would be a good time to check out our own Bill Kristol's New York Times piece from yesterday on the existential threats Israel faces and how her struggle belongs to us all:

Even though the security of Israel is very much at risk, the good news is that, unlike in the 1930s, the Jews are able to defend themselves, and the United States is willing to fight for freedom. Americans grasp that Israel’s very existence to some degree embodies the defeat and repudiation of the genocidal totalitarianism of the 20th century. They understand that its defense today is the front line of resistance to the jihadist terror, and the suicidal nihilism, that threaten to deform the 21st.

Reihan Salam has a typically thoughtful take on events in Basra. His bottom line:

At first, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's decision to confront Moqtada al-Sadr's Iranian-backed militas looked like a major strategic misstep. Now it appears to have transformed Iraqi politics, potentially paving the way for real reconciliation between Sunni and Shia...

Unfortunately, few Americans understand what Maliki has accomplished, and how much international assistance he needs to beat back foreign elements that aim to undermine Iraq's fragile democracy--which is, as far as neighboring governments are concerned (particularly those that begin with an "I" and end with an "n"), a profoundly subversive influence.

Read the whole thing.

According to the Financial Times, "Lycos Europe, a vestige of one of the first internet search engines, is touting itself as a possible acquisition target for a US media or telecoms group seeking scale in Europe’s fragmented online markets."

Note to the company that buys Lycos: I just found an article through my WebCrawler that says Infoseek is for sale. Maybe with those two engines combined, you can make a bid for AltaVista or HotBot. Then it will just be you vs. Excite@Home. Good luck!

Variety reports:

Producer Robert Moresco ("Million Dollar Baby," "Crash") has partnered with Artist Relations Group to produce a biopic about Fidel Castro's exiled daughter, Alina Fernandez. Castro recently ceded power to his brother Raul after almost 50 years in power.

Story, set in 1958, begins after Castro seized control of Cuba, with Fernandez as a young girl naive to the fact that the bearded cigar smoker who secretly visits her mother and the man she sees on TV are one and the same.

Fernandez, who fled Cuba disguised as a Spanish tourist in 1993, published her life story, "Castro's Daughter: An Exile's Memoir of Cuba," will consult on the pic. Plot will also interweave other historical perspectives. (Ed. note: Variety apparently isn't a stickler for having highly lyric prose.)

Hollywood’s long, rancid love affair with Castro is no secret. Oliver Stone, Steven Spielberg and Robert Redford have previously lined up to be ravished by Cuba’s prison warden-in-chief. (A while ago, I wrote a piece about Errol Flynn’s wacky docudrama, Cuban Rebel Girls, made with Castro’s OK.) That a producer of two Oscar-winning movies is willing to portray an unflattering side of “the bearded cigar smoker,” even as a subplot, is astonishing.

One possible caveat: That bit about “other historical perspectives.” This could be Hollywood-speak for “American aggression,” with a nod to the botched Bay of Pigs invasion. And the timing of the announcement – months after Castro stepped aside – is worth noting. Still, the movie will be a worthwhile endeavor if one of Ms Fernandez's childhood memories survives the final cut: According to her Wikipedia entry, "[She] remembers Mickey Mouse being replaced on the television with executions ordered by Fidel Castro."

It's received relatively little attention, but even more information is emerging from FARC leader Paul Reyes's computers, which were recovered by the Colombian government after his death. And the evidence suggests that Chavez was working hard to upgrade FARC's weaponry and reach:

The documents--more than a dozen internal rebel messages--detail several years of close cooperation between top officials in Venezuela's government and military and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, including the construction of rebel training facilities on Venezuelan soil.

They also suggest Venezuela was preparing to loan the rebels at least US$250 million (euro190 million), provide them with Russian weapons and possibly even help them obtain surface-to-air missiles for use against Colombian military aircraft.

Most importantly, they outline a joint strategic project between Venezuela and the Colombian rebels, with Venezuela even seeking rebel training in "asymmetrical warfare" in preparation for a feared U.S. invasion.

HT: Counterterrorism Blog

The authenticity of the documents is challenged by Venezuela and FARC (but you could have guessed that without reading the article). Interpol will soon render its opinion on whether they are legitimate, but one government has already conducted a raid on a FARC facility identified in the documents--further bolstering their veracity (more on that at the Wall Street Journal). If the U.S. concludes they're legitimate, there will be serious pressure to name Venezuela a state sponsor of terror and cut off all trade with one of this nation's largest oil suppliers.

Beyond that, Democrats will have to answer for coddling this dictator. Joe Kennedy runs around extolling Chavez's virtues, Jimmy Carter disregards evidence that Chavez stole his 2004 victory, liberal actors kowtow to him for money, and Speaker Pelosi delivers on his top priority: defeat of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. And all this occurs while FARC--with Chavez's help--is expanding its terrorist operations into Switzerland, Germany, and 15 other nations.

The Chavez cloud is starting to look like a gathering storm--one that could arrive before the November elections. When will Democrats confront the danger that Chavez poses?

Primary election enthusiasm doesn’t guarantee general election wins. A general election win requires hard work, organization, and an effective primary follow-up plan to keep excitement stoked–-and even then there are no sure things. This piece by Donald Lambro in yesterday’s Washington Times sums it up well:

The Democrats are claiming that record voter turnout in their party primaries will translate into winning the White House in November, but election studies show there is no correlation between the two in modern presidential history.

Lambro highlights some academic research that reveals no connection between primary turnout numbers and general election results. Back in March at Real Clear Politics, Jay Cost produced similar analysis demonstrating no correlation between primary turnout and electoral performance in November.

It all comes down to execution--and the political pros know it. That’s why the Democrats and their outside interest group allies are putting so much emphasis on Obama’s 50-state registration drive. They know the key to victory in November lies with better-than-usual turnout among younger voters and African Americans. Without a heavy dose of increased participation among these groups, Obama has no chance of winning.

If you want to read an interesting scenario of what increased youth and African-American turnout might mean for Obama in November, read this by blogger Poblano at Fivethirtyeight.com. Using 2004 turnout as a baseline and current polling data to distribute the hypothetical vote, he estimates, for example, that every 10 percent boost in African-American turnout will increase Obama’s popular vote by another 1 percent. One could quibble with the methodology. For example, his estimates don’t account for a counter-mobilization by the McCain forces. But it’s one of the few attempts I’ve seen that puts real numbers behind the prospects of translating the primary turnout surge into general election results.

Poblano concludes with this observation:

The ability to bring new voters to the polls remains Barack Obama's most significant electoral advantage, both relative to Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Indeed, current polling may already be underestimating Obama's strength against McCain if it does not account for improved turnout among Democratic-leaning groups like young voters and African-Americans, who have participated in record numbers in this year's primaries. If Obama can parlay that advantage with a strong ground game, he very much could redraw the electoral map.

Democratic operatives claim to be pushing the ground game harder than ever. The hype in liberal circles about the April 25 Obama campaign conference call on voter registration is just the latest example.

I wonder if the McCain campaign and the RNC have identified similar target groups for voter mobilization efforts?

Newsweek hearts Obama

Bloggers have been buzzing about Newsweek's startlingly biased cover story, "Sit Back, Relax, Get Ready to Rumble" by Richard Wolffe and Evan Thomas. The article explains "how Obama and his team will battle the GOP onslaught." Bloggers agree that Newsweek is now officially shilling for the Obama campaign.

Just how biased is the article? At the Corner, Rich Lowry posts comments from McCain adviser Steve Schmidt: "It's one of the top five most biased pieces of journalism ever written. It's a broad attack on the Republican party. It deliberately fails to mention the increasing negative energy on the MoveOn.org side and the 527's on the left. It tries to define issues of great importance as illegitimate." Hot Air's Ed Morrissey further dissects the article and concludes, "That’s a lot of propaganda to pack into such a small space, but Wolfe and Thomas are pros." And the STANDARD's own Sonny Bunch, blogging at Doublethink, explains, "Just in case Newsweek didn’t spell it out for you in stark enough terms: Obama=America’s last great hope; McCain=Worse than Nixon."

And Newsweek might as well be considered part of the Obama campaign. At Newsbusters, Noel Sheppard calls it "a truly disgraceful Newsweek article which continued to demonstrate just how in the tank media are for Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama." At Contentions, Pete Wehner says that Obama is lucky: "Few people are fortunate enough to receive the kind of love and tenderness we find in the Newsweek story." And The Corner's Kathryn Lopez discusses the moving black-and-white cover: "Nothing like the MSM driving home the 'historic moment' (you want to be a part of! Yes We Can!) point."

Luckily, Mark Salter wrote a sharp letter to the Newsweek editor, calling out the authors on their misleading statements. But, as Goldfarb noted here, "It's also worth noting what Salter does not say. After furiously denying that the campaign will make an issue out of Obama's race or religion, Salter makes no mention of whether hanging around with America-haters is fair game. But the GOP won't need to 'paint' anything to make that case." As the Gateway Pundit agrees and says of Obama's friends, the truth will "speak for itself." And no adoring Newsweek profile can stop that.

In the course of Obama's winding interview with Jeffrey Goldberg yesterday, there was very little discussion of the substantive issues that impede a comprehensive settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians. Obama briefly touched on Israeli settlements, which "at this juncture are not helpful" he said, but made no mention of the security fence, or right of return, or the final status of Jerusalem. What are his positions on these issues? Another Obama advisor speaks out:

Daniel Kurtzer, former ambassador to Israel and advisor of U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama, said Tuesday that Jerusalem must be included in peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

"It will be impossible to make progress on serious peace talks without putting the future of Jerusalem on the table," Kurtzer said in a conference organized by the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute (JPPPI).

Kurtzer, who has been appointed Obama's advisor for the Middle East, said that future governments will have to deal with the issue of Jerusalem, as opposed to the current Israeli administration which is not.

JPPPI head and Winograd war panel member Yechezkel Dror said that Jerusalem must become the cultural center of the Jewish people.

Kurtzer said in response that "before we do that, we must first accept a number of facts and the political reality of Arabs who live in East Jerusalem who do not feel part of the city."

Jerusalem, by Israeli law, is the undivided capital of Israel, and there's no reason to believe the next government will be any more willing to deal on this point than the last. The J Street contingent will be thrilled to hear that Obama's advisors have plans to force that government into making painful concessions regardless, but it's unclear whether Obama shares these views. Would an Obama administration redraw the map of Jerusalem on its own? What if that was the only way to heal the "constant sore" that "infects all of our foreign policy"?

Each day seems to bring another step backwards in the effort of Congressional Republicans to make up ground against the Democratic majority. Today the question is whether GOP Congressman Vito Fossella of Staten Island will be forced to step down in the wake of his DWI arrest, and the revelation of his extra-marital affair and out-of-wedlock child:

After waves of conflicting reports over the weekend — he’s resigning, he’s staying, he hasn’t decided — Fossella made no public statement Monday, even as his lawyers appeared in Alexandria to handle his DWI case, which was put off until late June.

As a confirmed believer that the glass is half-full, it falls on me to point up the silver lining: if Fossella does not seek re-election, the leading Republican contender for his seat could be New York City Councilman James Oddo. You will remember Oddo from this clip, which was a minor internet sensation.

This being New York, Oddo's tirade probably helped his political career more than hurt it. And given the level of anger toward Washington, Staten Islanders might see this incident as proof that Oddo's exactly what Congress needs.

Spencer Ackerman posts an IM conversation he had yesterday with a friend who lives in Iraqi Kurdistan:

Bilal Wahab: my point is that Obama and Clinton are not clear on Iraq, at least from here

Ackerman: you think they’re saying “end the war, but not immediately”? or …? or just not thinking about what comes after withdrawal?

Bilal Wahab: more of the latter. But people fill in teh blanks… “America can’t be taht stupid”

Ackerman: hahahaha sorry to say but YES WE CAN

The whole thing is interesting, and revealing. At one point Ackerman senses that his buddy isn't exactly on board the Obama bandwagon. Wahab tells him, "Iraq and Middle Eastern politics are very complicated for Obama to try to learn and get hold of now." To which Ackerman responds, "you sounded somewhat sympathetic to him earlier." Wahab insists he is still sympathetic, but "the fear of cut and run is devastating."

It sounds like Ackerman's friend has a pretty clear understanding of Obama's Iraq policy.

From THE WEEKLY STANDARD: The War Over the War, by Reihan Salam.

From National Review: Obama Rules, by Rich Lowry.

From TNR: The Big Race, by John B. Judis.

From Contentions: The World's Largest Trope, by John Podhoretz.

From the Los Angeles Times: Why We Need Nukes and Gitmo, by Jonah Goldberg.

The cult of Obama gets creepier, via Andrew Sullivan.

With the denouement of Spygate mercifully near, a fascinating piece appeared on an ESPN chat board. Written by a guy styling himself “NEInsider,” it ostensibly gave the Patriots’ side of the story. A sample:

We were wrong and made a mistake. We as an organization failed and it will never happen again…

Here are the simple facts I know about Spygate and WalkthruGate:

1. We taped defensive signals and offensive formation signals and we still have video of other teams taping us. They are of little value since no team uses the same signals even from game to game, quarter to quarter, and sometimes from series to series. We do it to FORCE the opposition to stay on their toes and change signals hoping they mix up signals and have a bad play that results in a big play for us. There are no offensive signals only formation signals which are useless and they were taped at the same time as offensive signals and WERE possibly even on the Spygate tape. Any claims are baseless on this…

3. We did not want the tapes destroyed. We preferred they be released since they basically proved we did nothing since some of the tapes destroyed were processed tapes that prove there was little value to us other than aggravating the other team . Several showed coaches waving to our videographer, several other with obscene gestures, coaches laughing at us, and some hot cheerleader video for the enjoyment of those given the boring job of processing video that had zero intrinsic value.

Interestingly, the word in the Boston sports media last night was that after Matt Walsh has his moment in the sun today, the Patriots would hit back and begin telling their side of the story. Obviously, after a year of mea culpas, the Patriots have begun talking to the media and are readying themselves to put this matter in perspective.

And then there was this shot across the commissioner’s bow:

5. Goodell has serious issues within the NFL ownership. He has not made friends with his inability to keep his mouth shut before issues are resolved within the framework of the NFL structure. The Niners organization is livid at him for the sanction they received over free agent contact since they never initiated the contact and in this case everyone really does it.

6. The Kraft family was a Goodell supporter and will never openly criticize him but they are livid over the way Spygate was handled and the fact Goodell hung them out as "Cheaters" when he absolutely knew it never helped during a game and then on national TV aknowledged frivilous accusations like phone tampering etc. when he stated more punishment would be added if necessary instead of doing the right thing and stating such claims were baseless without proof since he knew we could never tamper with phones since we never knew what system or what frequency was availbale to us until game time. A little clue on this one. Not having Robert and Jonathon Kraft on your side makes job security an issue since they are the deal makers and the ownership most willing to compromise to help the smaller market teams. In other words they have lots of friends in the NFL ownership circle.

Of course, this chat board post could have been written by a psychotic living in his parents’ basement. Even so, every word in it rings true to me, especially the part about Goodell really making a misstep in having irritated the wrong guys.

In a short while, Goodell will appear before the media, fresh from being enlightened by Matt Walsh. Hopefully that press conference will end the official part of this affair, and the Patriots will finally be able to make their case.

Reacting to the news that Barack Obama has indicated a willingness to appear with John McCain at town halls over the course of the campaign, Dean Barnett calls Obama "the king of the teleprompter" and further argues that "Obama does poorly at debates, and is a weak extemporaneous speaker."

Dean's got a keen eye and likes golf, so it's rare that I disagree with him. But he's wrong on this. I saw nearly all of the 47,342 Democratic debates. Obama won a few, lost a few and was average in others. Even if his performances were uneven (and I thought he had more good ones than bad), I'm not convinced most viewers would agree that he "does poorly" as a matter of course.

But most of my difference with Dean comes in his assessment of Obama as "a weak extemporaneous speaker." Not true. When I followed him around Iowa for a week-plus back in December, Obama participated in numerous town halls. He already had a reputation as an excellent orator -- the king of the teleprompter -- and that was certainly in evidence on that trip. But I came away from the trip surprised at how good he was in less formal settings. Obama was best in the routine exchanges with voters and students that dominated his schedule that week -- answering difficult questions with the ease and sophistication of a politician with much greater experience. Yes, he makes the occasional gaffe -- 57 states -- but over time his style will be more an asset than a drawback.

I have long thought there was a risk in dismissing Obama as a lightweight or as merely a good speaker. I still think that's true.

But there is good reason for McCain to draw Obama out in these public settings: The more he talks, the more he will reveal his far-left politics. Obama will say things that would elicit nods of approval among his spiritual mentors in Chicago or in the Senate Democratic cloakroom or from his wife. (See his moral preening on the issue of the flag lapel pin, for instance.) Engage terrorist-supporting dictators without conditions? For most of the country, that's crazy. In left-wing intellectual circles it's not controversial. It's why, when controversy first surfaced over the mad rantings of Reverend Wright, Obama thought they could be best understood in context. It never occurred to him that such context was as offensive as the stray quotes that made news.

McCain's campaign is confident -- maybe overconfident -- about his chances in head-to-head debates/town halls with Obama. This is why.

The indefatigable Jake Tapper has tallied ten times where Barack Obama has blamed his staff for some sort of foul-up. A sample:

(Sunday), in an interesting New York Times look at Obama's rise in Chicago politics, we learned that in 2004 some Jewish supporters became alarmed to learn that in a questionnaire Obama refrained from denouncing Yasir Arafat, or from expressing strong support for Israel's security fence.

Reports the Times: "In an e-mail message, Mr. Obama blamed a staff member for the oversight, and expressed the hope that 'none of this has raised any questions on your part regarding my fundamental commitment to Israel’s security.'"

One will want to bear in mind this serial buck-passing the next time Obama mentions his illustrious Democratic forebear, Harry S. Truman. Even more relevant is Obama’s obvious ineffectiveness at getting his staff to perform at an adequate level. The man by his own telling hires and retains a bunch of irretrievable stumble-bums, and yet we’re supposed to trust him with the entire Executive Branch?

Of course, there’s nothing here that will enjoin the Obama campaign from continuing to make his “excellent judgment” argument. Unless the conversation turns to hiring decisions.

You’ve heard about Obama’s Atlantic interview. You’ve witnessed some House Republicans’ painfully lame effort to distort his “sore” comment. But here’s a nugget that I haven’t seen commented on anywhere else. Quoth the presumptive nominee:

“You know, when I think about the Zionist idea, I think about how my feelings about Israel were shaped as a young man -- as a child, in fact. I had a camp counselor when I was in sixth grade who was Jewish-American but who had spent time in Israel, and during the course of this two-week camp he shared with me the idea of returning to a homeland and what that meant for people who had suffered from the Holocaust, and he talked about the idea of preserving a culture when a people had been uprooted with the view of eventually returning home.”

As I was raised in a Skinnerian box until the age of 24, I never got the opportunity to attend overnight camp. Still, I do have a mental image of what overnight camp must have been like, especially overnight camp in Hawaii. And, I must confess, my mental image doesn’t involve having soulful conversations about Zionism as a pre-teen. And, unlike Obama, I’m Jewish (or rather a Jewish-American as I henceforth will think of myself). Obviously this wasn’t one of those camps where they played capture the flag, huh? This little anecdote does nothing to dispel the growing perception of Obama as a pointy-headed elitist.

Now, to be a mite serious for a moment, I spent 14 years teaching "gifted and talented" sixth graders on Saturdays at a Boston area prep school (that I won’t embarrass by naming). There’s something about this anecdote that doesn’t ring true – namely everything. Even the most precocious 6th grader would have trouble absorbing complex ideas like culture preservation in the Diaspora. Quite frankly, it’s also difficult to imagine a teenage counselor even considering such an idea let alone holding forth on it to an 11 year-old unless of course it was one of those specialty camps that existed for just such a purpose.

As with the likely apocryphal reminisces about Obama’s drug use in “Dreams from My Father,” there’s something a little too convenient about this story. Obama often uses the writer’s technique of making larger points via anecdote. Think of “Betty No-Health-Insurance came up to me at a rally in Des Moines…”

In our era, all politicians speak this way. Still, it’s a fundamentally disingenuous way to argue. It elevates anecdotes over analysis, and seeks to manipulate the listener’s emotions rather than to persuade the listener with logic. Sure, it’s swell to imagine 11 year-old Barack Obama having his “feelings about Israel shaped as a child” by a “Jewish-American” camp counselor “who had spent time in Israel.” But really now – who cares? As the Kennedys often say, it’s not where you come from but where you stand.

In other words, as a supporter of Israel, I’d much rather know the candidate’s concrete plans for dealing with Israel’s hostile neighborhood than hear misty-water colored memories from his youth.

John Boehner puts out a statement in response to Obama's interview with Jeffrey Goldberg:

“Israel is a critical American ally and a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, not a ‘constant sore’ as Barack Obama claims. Obama’s latest remark, and his commitment to ‘opening a dialogue’ with sponsors of terrorism, echoes past statements by Jimmy Carter who once called Israel an ‘apartheid state.'...

That's a bit of a stretch. There are a lot of problems with Obama's comments to Goldberg, but he wasn't calling Israel a 'constant sore.' It's pretty clear he meant that the conflict was a 'constant sore.' He's also quite explicit in denouncing Carter's labeling of Israel as an apartheid state. David Frum does a better job of getting into this, noting that Obama's answers are "verbose and evasive - and yet in their way, curiously illuminating." On the matter of the Hamas endorsement, Frum makes the key point:

Obama's words are unexceptionable so far as they go. What's striking here is what is not said: There is no revulsion, no affront that Hamas would name him as its preferred candidate.

This has always been the problem with the Hamas endorsement--the Obama camp never once got their backs up at the notion that Hamas would welcome an Obama presidency. It would have been just as easy for Axelrod or Obama to turn this to their advantage--to say that Hamas clearly doesn't know anything about Obama or John Kennedy if they think an Obama administration will be a friend to Hamas. But instead they said they were "flattered" by the comparison to JFK, and have since taken to repeating that Obama's policy with regard to Hamas is no different than Clinton's or McCain's--which is a tough sell given that his whole foreign policy approach centers on talking to tyrants and terrorists. More Frum here.

Elsewhere, Ed Morrissey fixes on Obama's lame response to continued questions about his commitment to Israel, which boils down to the fact that 'some of his best friends are Jewish.' Obama says that these questions are "curious" given that when he "started organizing, the two fellow organizers in Chicago were Jews, and I was attacked for associating with them. So I’ve been in the foxhole with my Jewish friends." Of course, these questions stem from his close association with people who are not fond of Jews--people with names, like Rev. Wright and William Ayres and Robert Malley and Tony McPeak. So which is it? Do we judge him based on who he hangs around with or not?

From Matt Duss at Think Progress:

The attacks of 9/11 made bin Laden a major figure in Arab media and culture; the decision by Bush and the neocons to cast him as the sinister leader of a global Islamofascist movement made him a legend. Simply put, Bush’s policy response to 9/11 has done more to promote bin Laden’s ideology than a hundred 9/11s.

If Bush and those nefarious neocons made bin Laden a legend, they sure did a lousy job--his poll numbers in the Arab world have tanked since 9/11 according to Pew. Bin Laden and bin Ladenism have been marginalized, and we haven't had another 9/11, let alone a hundred. Simply put, this is hysterical nonsense that portrays Bush as an ally of al Qaeda--of course it's a "smear" to suggest that terrorists might prefer a Democrat (even when they've expressed that preference in the form of an official endorsement).

Dan McLaughlin (who blogs as the Baseball Crank) has written what may well be the seminal essay to date on Barack Obama’s experience, or what little there is of it. By all means take a few minutes and read the whole thing, but here’s a sample:

He's never run anything at all, not even a small law practice like John Edwards. Besides his campaign, probably the biggest thing he's ever run was the Harvard Law Review.

He has nothing resembling national security experience or even particularly sustained advocacy on the issue before announcing his candidacy in 2007. The man has apparently hardly even traveled to Europe, to pick one example.

He is running in a contested election outside the insular world of Chicago politics for the first time and has never had any sort of responsibility for political leadership.

He's never served in the military and seems to have scarcely any experience even knowing people who served in the military.

His private-sector business background is negligible.

Are any of these things disqualifying from the Presidency? No. But electing a man who is so seriously lacking in all of them is indeed unprecedented. And that is and should be a central issue in this campaign.

I would add to the Crank’s list a related point that I blogged on this morning: It often doesn’t seem like Obama has even seriously considered serious presidential-level matters as an outside observer the way most readers of this magazine have. The lack of literacy he has displayed on issues such as the capital gains tax and FDR’s shuttle diplomacy with Hitler are jarring coming from such an intelligent guy.

But hey – he has great judgment, right? And that should compensate for everything else.

Once you put it together with Jennifer Chou's details about the religious crackdown in China in advance of the Olympics, does this mean Beijing is pursuing a 'good cop/bad cop' strategy?

A senior Chinese official has asked whether Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama would agree to attend the Beijing Olympics to ease recent tensions, a Tibet government-in-exile legislator said on Monday.

Tibet's spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, would consider going to Beijing for the Summer Olympics if an invitation were to be extended, according to a Tibetan legislator.

The Dalai Lama would consider going, the lawmaker said.

A leader of Tibet's parliament-in-exile suggests that the overture is probably nothing but a feint on the part of the Chinese government. I fail to see what Beijing gains from the move, however. If the Dalai Lama makes clear that he would attend, then doesn't Beijing look worse if they don't ultimately extend an invite?

And does he know that golf -- one of his favorite sports -- is again not being played at the Olympic games this year.

In light of today's New York Times story on the success in Basra ("In a rare success, forces loyal to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki have largely quieted the city, to the initial surprise and growing delight of many inhabitants who only a month ago shuddered under deadly clashes between Iraqi troops and Shiite militias."), a little trip down defeatist lane:

"I hope we don't hear any glorification of what happened in Basra,” House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi, 4/3/08. [I guess the NYT didn’t get the memo.]

"Prime Minister Maliki's action in Basra once again demonstrated Prime Minister Maliki's incompetence." Senator Carl Levin, 4/9/08

"It is my understanding… that really Sadr won politically in terms of the confrontation in Basra." Senator Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, 4/8/08

"On the operation in Basra, which I continue to think was a very ill-thought out enterprise. This was not a broad-based enterprise against militias… And nor was it narrowly focused on the so-called special groups. It was -- let's call it what is was: It was another step in an internal Shiite civil war." Robert Malley, 4/8/08

Robert Malley, of course, was an Obama adviser at the time of that statement, though he was recently relieved of his campaign duties when it became clear that he'd been holding meetings with members of Hamas (organizing the endorsement?). One wonders, though, if this is the kind of analysis Obama will be relying on in order to make military decisions as commander in chief. As for our fearless Democratic Congressmen, what a disgrace.

Andrew Sullivan calls our attention to this essay by John C. Hulsman and A. Wess Mitchell which attempts to view our current politics through the prism of “The Godfather.” While this is of course a noble exercise since “The Godfather” can shed light on all areas of human endeavor, the authors are sadly clueless.

In the authors’ scheme, Tom Hagen “shares a number of philosophical similarities with the liberal institutionalism that dominates the foreign-policy outlook of today’s Democratic Party.” (See? Liberals can make even “The Godfather” boring!) Firebrand Sonny Corleone, meanwhile, is the neocon: “One can imagine that Sonny’s shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later approach would meet with the firm approval of arch-neoconservatives such as Norman Podhoretz and Michael Ledeen, given their stance on how to deal with Iran.”

Michael Corleone is of course the ideal. The authors write, “In today’s foreign-policy terminology, Michael is a realist.” Left unsaid is who represents Fredo. I’m guessing Howard Dean. I’m also guessing that Moe Green is Bill Clinton, lecturing Obama on how he was making his bones while Obama was dating cheerleaders and later bragging to Obama how he had cut a deal with the super delegates, only to have things end rather poorly for him.

You don’t have to parse the essay very closely to discern the authors’ political biases. The crack at the neocons is especially risible. Far from rashly shooting first and asking questions later, people like Norman Podhoretz and Michael Ledeen have spent lifetimes studying foreign affairs. One can disagree with their approach and their conclusions, but to argue that foreign policy for them is anything other than just business and nothing personal is ludicrous. Sonny responded to all provocations viscerally, a well known habit that made the fatal tollbooth ambush of him a reality. Neocons tend to gravitate to a more cerebral decision making process.

Still more ludicrous is lumping in Michael Corleone with the realists. Realists are guys like Warren Christopher, fellows who are forever constricting the definition of what can and what cannot be done. Can you imagine Warren Christopher pining for a meeting with the Turk and Captain McCluskey where he would go into the men’s room, find a hidden gun and then use said gun to – bada-bing! – blow the men’s brains all over his nice Ivy League suit? Even the trigger happy family neocon (Sonny) found that plan ridiculous at first. Or can you imagine Warren Christopher coming up with a plan so audacious that he would settle Christopher family business with all five of New York’s families on one blood-splattered Sunday morning so he could then peaceably consolidate power on the far more lucrative playing fields of Vegas?

In his blog post on the matter, Andrew Sullivan speculates, “I don't know whether Obama fits more the ‘liberal institutionalist’ role or the realist, more Tom or Michael. I'm hoping for a Niebuhrian fusion (Ed. Note – There they go making “The Godfather" boring again!), with the emphasis on Michael's cunning. As I said: hoping.”

Obama acting decisively and cunningly like Michael Corleone? Ah yes, there it is in bright blogging lights – the audacity of hope.

The House Democratic Blue Dogs have enshrined one policy goal above all others: balancing the federal budget. So far this Congress they've rolled over and allowed Democratic leaders to push through legislation to increase spending and maintain existing tax rates, even where such moves have expanded the deficit. Now that it's time to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan however, they say they will not budge:

So far in the 110th Congress, Democrats have added hundreds of billions in unpaid-for spending on the wars, tax cuts and domestic programs while trying to claim credit for reinstituting a PAYGO rule, albeit one that is so weak that Democrats have been able to all but ignore it.

Last year, Democrats forced through an alternative minimum tax relief package without offsets over the objections of Blue Dogs, and this year, they passed a massive bipartisan stimulus package without offsets as well.

To be clear, the Blue Dog objection is not to the war funding itself -- which is almost certain to be approved as emergency spending. Rather, it's to a $52 billion expansion of veterans' benefits that the Democratic leadership is trying to push through without paying for it. Democrats may wind up deeply embarrassed that the 'difficult vote' they had set up for Republicans -- for a clean funding bill, or for more veterans' benefits -- will be short-circuited by their own team.

And as for the funding for our troops? Don't worry -- Congress will get to it eventually...

House Republicans, who will unveil their "Change You Deserve" agenda later this week, released a memo today outlining their plan’s broad principles and rationale. Also included in the memo were a set of legislative proposals called The American Families Agenda. Measures in the package include:

• Health Care. Affordable, high-quality health care for every American by giving families greater choice and control, not through a massive expansion of government health care controlled by bureaucrats;

• Economy. A stronger economy by stopping the largest tax increase in American history, cutting wasteful Washington spending, balancing the budget by 2012, passing serious entitlement reform and strengthening our housing sector.

• Energy. An energy policy that increases the supply of American-made energy – making us more energy independent, helping bring down gasoline and diesel prices, and creating jobs here at home; and

• Security. Security from threats our families face both at home and abroad by securing our borders once and for all, taking on the rising criminal threats in our communities and giving terrorists plotting new attacks no place to hide.

None of these bills will ever see the light of day in the legislative process with a Democratic Congress. But just like the Democrats “Six for ’06” agenda or the Contract with America, it provides Republican lawmakers and challengers worried about their declining party brand a set of substantive proposals around which to rally and communicate as the election nears.

You can see the full memo here.

Courtesy of Mary Katherine Ham, who writes:

I've heard about the so-called "Obamacans," Republicans who allegedly fall head over heels for Obama's message of hope.

I'm assuming the sign above, spotted in Durham, is targeting "Obamacoms," the 20-something, untucked, college-educated students of Marx and fans of Che who respond to the red star with a proletariat pang in their little, free hearts.

HT: Geraghty

Craig Crawford points out that West Virginia -- which seems about to reject Barack Obama by an overwhelming margin -- has picked the winner of the White House in every presidential election since 1916:

West Virginia might not matter to Barack Obama’s tightening grip on the Democratic nomination, but no one has been elected president without the Mountain State since Woodrow Wilson's narrow reelection in 1916. Obama’s snub of the state for Tuesday’s primary could endanger his party's hopes for West Virginia in November, unless his message of winning the general election by breaking from the past includes breaking the state’s near 100-year record of backing the White House winner.

Every streak comes to an end eventually, right?

Note: Crawford's point is not quite right; while no Democrat has won the White House without carrying West Virginia since 1916, Democrats have carried the state and lost several times. James McKnight was the first of several to point out the error.

Senate Republicans face a difficult electoral map this November--23 GOP seats up for reelection, compared to only 12 for Democrats. The open GOP seats in Virginia (which most consider already lost to former Democratic Governor Mark Warner), Colorado, and New Mexico look very challenging. Moreover, several other Republican incumbents are also in competitive races.

This Rasmussen poll from North Carolina could signal a new headache. It shows incumbent Republican Senator Elizabeth Dole in an extremely tight race (she’s in a statistical tie 47%-48%) against a relatively unknown state Senator named Kay Hagan, who won the Democratic nomination in last week’s North Carolina primary. Dole led Hagan by 13 points a month ago, according to an earlier Rasmussen poll.

A couple caveats, however, about the survey deserve mention. The political environment in North Carolina specifically and the country in general are short-term factors, both pulling down Dole and helping Hagan for now. For example, the Tar Heel state just witnessed a very spirited Democratic primary--one that captured a great deal of local as well as national attention. I expect this drove up the Democratic identification numbers in the state, which boosts Hagan. Second, slumping GOP identification nationally is most likely translating to North Carolina as well--another source of headwind in early polling. Third, looking at the crosstabs, it’s clear State Senator Hagan is not well known to many North Carolina voters. Among many key subgroups, a significant number of voters say they are "not sure" about whether they are favorable or unfavorable toward Hagan. This could spell trouble for the State Senator if the Dole campaign aggressively paints her as out of step with more moderate-to-conservative North Carolina voters.

But that takes a lot of money and other resources. Given all the races around the country where Republicans will need to invest, a tight race in North Carolina is trouble the GOP had hoped to avoid.

It’s been plenty fun watching what Dean Barrett refers to as the Fall of the House of Clinton (although, as a fan of old horror movies, I lean toward the House of Clintonstein). Still, I urge my fellow righties not to succumb to our own version of Nixon Hatred Syndrome--a disease afflicting many on the left. It’s the unyielding need to focus on a figure long out of office, and its sufferers include John Kerry, who condemned "Richard Nixon’s war" during the 2004 elections, and Al "Tax-Dodger" Franken, whose home has a bathroom dedicated to our 37th president. (The average person spends 30 minutes a day in the bathroom. Only a clinical masochist would spend that time gazing at photos of someone he hates.) Similar diseases involve Joe McCarthy and Newt Gingrich.

Unless Bill Clinton continues to shoot his mouth off like an orangutan with Tourette Syndrome, we should just ignore him after November--as we would Jimmy Carter had he stuck to building houses instead of playing Ambassador Without Portfolio or Shame. Ditto for Hillary if she’s eventually run out of New York on a rail. Don’t be like Andrew Sullivan, who can’t swallow a vanilla petite scone without uttering the phrase "Karl Rove playbook." We have enough targets to occupy our time. Al-Qaeda. Hezbollah. Harry Reid. The San Francisco-Berkley-Los Angeles Axis of Evil. Great gosh almighty, the leading Democratic presidential candidate doesn’t know how many states there are. That’s certainly enough to win an election or two.

With less than 100 days to go before the Beijing Olympics, China has stepped up its crackdown on the country’s underground Christian church. Since the beginning of May, the authorities have conducted at least eight raids on house churches. The latest such incident took place yesterday in Beijing. More than two dozen police, along with officials of the religious affairs bureau, interrupted a gathering at the Shouwang Church and took the names, ID card numbers, home addresses, and phone numbers of all church members present.

A May 8 raid was targeted at a three-day Bible study session in Qingzhou city, in the eastern province of Shandong. That gathering, attended by some 30 house church leaders from across China, was broken up by more than 20 public security personnel. The lead pastor, who is from Taiwan, was deported and banned from visiting the mainland for five years. Zhang Yongliang, a local organizer, and his step-father were detained. Musical instruments and a computer found on the premises were confiscated.

Upon his release the following day, Zhang was informed that his church had been outlawed and its music school disbanded. Zhang also faces a fine of between 10,000 to 30,000 yuan (U$1,430 to $4,290). As of this posting, Zhang’s step-father, who was punched and kicked by police during the raid, remains in custody.

On May 4, in Yanji city in the northeastern province of Jilin, pastor Hao Yuji was taken away by police in the middle of a sermon and ordered to dissolve his church. When Hao questioned the reason for his arrest, he was beaten and sustained injuries to his head and chest.

Also on May 4, authorities in Inner Mongolia shut down the Arong Zhen Ge Er Church and charged its 66-year-old pastor, Guo Jingtian, with "conducting an illegal religious meeting." Three days prior to the raid on Guo’s church, Inner Mongolian police detained two ministers of the Daqing Church and confiscated their video camera, books, and household items.

On May 2, in Chengdu City in the southwestern province of Sichuan, a gathering of 44 members of the "Bliss of Autumn Rain Church" was raided by police and officials of the religious affairs bureau. Items confiscated include bibles and hymn and prayer books. One of the church members interrogated by the authorities was Wang Yi, a legal scholar and one of three Chinese Christians who met with President Bush in Washington in 2006.

In two separate raids on May 1 and May 3, four out-of-town evangelists were detained by authorities in Jiaxiang County in Shandong province. All four remain in custody, and two of them have been accused of being members of an "evil cult."

While members of China’s underground Christian church have long been subject to persecution, the timing of the intensified campaign against them is somewhat ironic. It coincides with the May 2 release by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom of its annual report, which once again designated China as a "country of particular concern."

Even more troubling is that despite the human rights promises Beijing made when bidding for the Games, the stepped-up crackdown began just as the Olympic clock started its 100-day countdown.

Jeffrey Goldberg scores an interview with Obama on Israel. A few comments jump out, starting with this one:

One of the things that is frustrating about the recent conversations on Israel is the loss of what I think is the natural affinity between the African-American community and the Jewish community, one that was deeply understood by Jewish and black leaders in the early civil-rights movement but has been estranged for a whole host of reasons that you and I don’t need to elaborate.

I thought we were supposed to be having this great, national conversation on race, and yet when push comes to shove, Obama would rather not "elaborate" on the ugly estrangement between Jews and blacks, and this despite the fact that 20 years at Trinity United offers him such unique insight into the problem.

Later in the interview:

JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America’s reputation overseas?

BO: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable.

Now, presumably "this constant sore" Obama is referring to is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not Israel per se. But does he really believe that it "infects all of our foreign policy"? Really? All of it?

Call me naïve, but while solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is unquestionably an admirable and important goal, I’m not sure it "infects" all, or even most, of the challenges we face in the world. The Burmese junta isn’t repressing its people because of Israel. The Sudanese government isn’t massacring the poor inhabitants of Darfur because of Israel. Iran isn’t murdering American troops in Iraq because of Israel. The Russians aren’t saber rattling in Georgia because of Israel. And the Chinese aren’t threatening Taiwan because of Israel.

No, Senator Obama is not a closet anti-Semite. Yes, he genuinely considers himself to be a friend of Israel. But he suffers from the left-wing misconception--heard on university campuses and European foreign ministries--of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the Holy Grail of international relations.

This misconception naturally follows from his claim that "the lack of resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions." But didn't al Qaeda attack us because we had troops on Saudi soil and had imposed sanctions on Iraq, or is it now our occupation of Afghanistan (aka the Good War) and the detention of terrorists at Gitmo? Anti-American militant jihadists will always find an excuse to engage in inexcusable actions, and to blame the problem on the failure of the peace process shows no great nuance in Obama's approach to foreign policy.

The Obama veep discussion yesterday on This Week (via Newsbusters):

COKIE ROBERTS: I don't think that it's good for the Democratic Party to have two liberal Senators from states that are going to go Democratic anyway. I mean, he needs a Bible-thumping, gun-owning, white guy from a swing state. I mean, maybe that's who the party should have nominated.

SAM DONALDSON: You mean, in other words, somebody who disagrees with him on all the issues.

Something makes me think that when Donaldson uses the phrase "all the issues" to describe God, guns, and race, he really means 'all the Republican issues.' After all, for Obama those issues are mere distractions, though the candidate's 'disagreement' with gun-ownership will come as news to Montana's Sportsmen for Obama, a group currently being touted on the front page of the Obama website.

Over the weekend, bloggers discussed a few more of Obama's problems. And as these bloggers note, you have to rely on the blogs to hear about these issues, since the mainstream media just loves him too much.

First, Obama had to get rid of yet another friend. Obama fired Robert Malley, his Middle East policy adviser, because "he had held meetings" and "had been in regular contact with Hamas." (Well, at least Malley isn't a terrorist himself, like other Obama friends, right?) Power Line's Paul Mirengoff notes that Malley, "like several other of his advisers, oozes hostility towards Israel and sympathy for its enemies." And at the Corner, Mark Hemingway has more on Malley. At Contentions, Jennifer Rubin asks, "what did Malley communicate to Hamas and did Malley’s contacts with Hamas have anything to do with the endorsement of Obama by Hamas’ Ahmed Yousef?" And Ace asks, "How do all these terrorist-sympathizing radicals keep mistakenly thinking that Obama is one of them?"

Then, Obama had a bit of a geography problem. You may recall Obama's interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer last Thursday, during which Obama said, "I’ve said [Hamas] a terrorist organization and we should not negotiate with them unless they recognize Israel, renounce violence, and unless they are willing to abide by previous accords between the Palestinians and the Israelis. So for him to toss out comments like that I think is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination."

This was unfortunate timing since Obama was the one who lost his bearings late Friday, when he said he had visited 57 states. Marc Ambinder says that Obama was tired, but adds that "if John McCain did this--if he mistakenly said he'd visited 57 states--the media would be all up in his grill, accusing him of a senior moment." As Newsbusters notes, the media is definitely not "up in his grill." Power Line's John Hinderaker says this gaffe will "be worth keeping in mind in the fall, when every time John McCain misspeaks, the Democrats' whispering campaign will suggest that he's getting senile."

But where exactly are those extra states? At The Corner, Mark Steyn asks, "Is Hillary tossing in new states just to prolong the nomination process? Or is Obama having McCainesque senior moments?" Some bloggers have other ideas. While I'm sure this is just an ill-timed and funny gaffe, I have to agree with a Flopping Aces commenter, who wrote, "Maybe if here weren’t so averse to wearing a flag pin, he’s know how many stars were on it [sic]."

From the New York Times: The Jewish State at 60, by the boss.

From Fox News: Could Obama Be Another Dukakis? by Susan Estrich.

From the Los Angeles Times: