Appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, this speech may prove highly useful. If Senator McCain loses the election to Senator Obama, we can return to it for consolation.

UPDATE: Holman Jenkins has a good column on Senator McCain's speech in today's Wall Street Journal. Jenkins writes:

In his climate speech on Monday, Mr. McCain exhibited (as the press usually does) a complete lack of consciousness of the fact that evidence of warming is not evidence of what causes warming. Yet policy must be a matter of costs and benefits, adjusted for the uncertainties involved. Which brings us to today's irony: He who finds a six-figure earmark an affront to humanity is prepared to wave through a trillion-dollar climate bill without, as far as anyone can tell, a single systematic thought about costs and benefits.

[E]very journalistic tendril senses that the fuss over warming is about to cool. Global mean temperatures have been flat for a decade. The biofuel folly has chased away any easy belief that we can centrally plan our way out of reliance on fossil fuels. Voters seem more concerned with high gas prices. Even the town criers of global warming acknowledge that we will be stuck adapting to whatever climate comes along.

To comment on this post go here.

As in all of these recent Republican defeats, analysts will be able to point to factors unique to the particular race. But my takeaway is that the Republican brand is in such bad shape that the Dems can win virtually anywhere if they nominate a candidate whose position on key issues is, or can be made to seem, close to that of the Republican.

Fortunately, the Democrats will not nominate such a candidate for president. And the Republican nominee, whether we feel comfortable about it or not, isn't necessarily seen as intimately associated with the Republican brand. Even so, I think that Republican nominee is running uphill.

To comment on this post go here.

This effort to undermine Lebanon’s elected government needs to stop, and all those who have influence with Hezbollah must press them to stand down immediately. . . It’s time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment.

Obama may well fail to comprehend the first point and believe the second, just as naive leftists of an earlier generation thought that Ho Chi Minh was, at root, an agrarian reformer. In any case, Pollak is correct that "Obama is rhetorically cornered; since his only prescription for the Middle East is diplomatic engagement, every disease gets re-diagnosed as something curable through talking."

No wonder he's Hamas's man.

To comment on this post go here.

Nonetheless, the margin in the West Virginia primary suggests real resistance to Obama among Democrats in that state. Now, Obama doesn't need to win West Virginia in November any more than he needs to win Kentucky, where he's scheduled to be trounced next week. But there are many Democratic voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania who fit the West Virginia and/or Kentucky profile. Obama may need to do reasonably well with such voters to carry these two crucial states.

Democratic superdelegates probably believe the risk that Obama won't do well enough with white rural and working class voters to win in Pennsylvania and Ohio is smaller than the risk that a great many black voters will stay at home if the Democrats nominate Clinton. These superdelegates may be right. But that doesn't mean the risk associated with nominating Obama isn't quite real.

UPDATE: In the end, Clinton's lead approached 40 percent. The analysis remains the same only more so.

To comment on this post go here.

Al Jazeera reports on one precinct that can safely be chalked up to Barack Obama. Hint: It's in close proximity to the state of Israel. Al Jazeera apparently hasn't gotten the memo that this kind of report has been ruled off-limits in the United States.

The most important issue, currently, is the economy, where the Dems enjoy a 14-point margin. What's odd about this is that the Democrats' actual policies are not preferred by many of these same respondents. Rasmussen also reports that 60% of likely voters say that tax increases will hurt the economy. Interestingly, this sentiment is strongest among young voters, 70% of whom think tax increases will damage the economy. Presumably a large majority of voters realize that the Democrats are yearning to raise taxes, so it is hard to reconcile this finding with respondents' expressed preference for Democrats on this issue.

While I can't support the proposition with poll data, I'm pretty sure the same principle would hold with regard to national security and terrorism, where the Democrats now hold an advantage. I'm confident that most voters, if you laid out the parties' approaches on this issue and asked which they prefer, would choose Republican policies, i.e., security through strength rather than security through conversation.

So, what is going on here? I think it's noteworthy that Rasmussen finds that the Dems' generic advantage on the issues does not carry over to the Presidential race:

While voters tend to prefer Democrats over Republicans on a generic basis, John McCain consistently outperforms the GOP brand. In fact, polling shows that he is trusted more than either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton on key issues such as the economy and national security.

It isn't news that McCain outpolls the Republican brand, but why? The reasons are complex, but I would offer this partial explanation: in the American media, which is to say American public life, Republicans are a despised group, much like used car salesmen, Congressmen, lawyers, or, in former times, certain ethnic and religious minorities. Anyone who watches NBC, CBS, ABC, MTV, CNN, MSNBC, or almost any other television outlet, or who reads the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, or virtually any other daily newspaper, or who reads Time or Newsweek, is exposed to a steady diet of Republican-caricaturing and Republican-bashing. We have had partisan media in this country before, but I don't believe we have ever experienced such a unanimously one-party media at any time in our history.

Americans are certainly influenced by this barrage, but there is a silver lining of sorts. People who subscribe to stereotypes have long been willing to make exceptions based on their own observation and experience. Thus: most Congressmen are crooks, but mine is a good guy; most lawyers are shysters, but mine is honest; most [fill in the blank] are no good, but my friend/nanny/gardener/doctor/employee is a good person.

I think this phenomenon partly explains why McCain outruns the party's brand, and why just about any specific Republican whom the public gets to know will do so--albeit, most likely, to a lesser degree than McCain. That's the good news. The bad news is that all Republicans, from the Presidential nominee on down, are running against a headwind that is approaching hurricane force.

Which brings us back to the weird reality that a great many Americans who know that raising taxes is a bad idea are poised to vote for the party that intends to do just that. The title of this post is not ironic; consistency is not required of voters, and it appears that lots of Americans are willing to turn the reins of power over to the Democrats even though they know that the Democrats' ideas and policies are bad.

The complainants alleged that Maclean's committed actionable hate speech when it published an excerpt of Steyn's America Alone. The commission found Steyn guilty of Islamaphobia, but dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Its decision is accessible here. I'm not sure that even Steyn himself could have conjured a more absurd outcome.

During his interview at the outset of the show, Steyn challenged the complainants to debate him on the air. The complainants demand 15 minutes alone with Paikin, and then Steyn is brought in from the wings to save the show, a sort of Steyn ex machina. There follows an instructive discussion bearing on the fate of free speech up against determined opponents seeking in the best Orwellian style to exploit the language of human rights superimposed on the legal machinery of the administrative state.

To comment on this post go here.

Generally unremarked, however, was what Obama actually said about Hamas. Here is the key exchange:

JG: Why do you think Ahmed Yousef of Hamas said what he said about you?

BO: My position on Hamas is indistinguishable from the position of Hillary Clinton or John McCain. I said they are a terrorist organization and I’ve repeatedly condemned them. I’ve repeatedly said, and I mean what I say: since they are a terrorist organization, we should not be dealing with them until they recognize Israel, renounce terrorism, and abide by previous agreements.

JG: Were you flummoxed by it?

BO: I wasn’t flummoxed. I think what is going on there is the same reason why there are some suspicions of me in the Jewish community. Look, we don’t do nuance well in politics and especially don’t do it well on Middle East policy. We look at things as black and white, and not gray. It’s conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, “This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein, and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he’s not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush,” and that’s something they’re hopeful about.

Note how senseless Obama's response is. He is asked specifically about Hamas's endorsement of him. He responds that he "wasn't flummoxed" because he can understand that "there are those in the Arab world" who may like him because of his experiences in Indonesia, his Muslim middle name, the fact that he is "worldly" and "has called for talks" and won't engage in "cowboy diplomacy" like George Bush.

But Obama wasn't asked about some hypothetical Arab-in-the-street. He was asked specifically about Hamas. Does Obama seriously believe that Hamas endorses his candidacy because he is "worldly," has a Muslim middle name and won't be a "cowboy?" If so, he is even more out of touch with reality than we thought. If not, he completely ducked the interviewer's question (not that the interviewer, another Obama fan, noticed) and has yet to explain why he thinks Islamic terrorists want him to win.

As noted above, this obvious omission hasn't prevented liberal columnists from leaping to Obama's defense and denouncing John McCain for mentioning the Hamas endorsement. One of the silliest such columns was by Richard Cohen in the Washington Post. You can catch Cohen's drift from the title of his piece: "McCain in the Mud." Cohen writes:

[McCain's] campaign has sent out an e-mail showing how guilt by association really works. "Barack Obama's foreign policy plans have even won him praise from Hamas leaders," it said. The message went on to claim that Obama's foreign policy positions have earned him "kind words" from Hamas.

Never mind that this was the sort of campaigning that McCain vowed to eschew. More to the point is what McCain said in his own defense. Not only was Yousef's praise of Obama "a legitimate point of discussion," he said, but everyone should understand that McCain himself will be "Hamas's worst nightmare." This aspect of McCain is my worst nightmare.

Before explaining why McCain is wrong, however, Cohen turned to a more pressing subject--no kidding--McCain's age! This detour seems to have distracted Cohen, as he never did get around to explaining why voters should be unconcerned about Hamas's support of Obama. Instead, he threw up his hands and confessed that he himself has no idea what to do about Hamas, or about terrorism in general:

When McCain says that he would be Hamas's worst nightmare, what in the world is he talking about? Almost on a daily basis, Hamas launches rockets into southern Israel, occasionally killing some poor soul. The latest victim was a woman of about 70 who was killed yesterday. Israel usually retaliates, and Palestinians -- some of them just as innocent as the Israeli victim -- are killed. You would think that Israel would be Hamas's worst nightmare, but aside from the occasional -- and fruitless -- retaliatory raid, it cannot figure out how to stop Hamas's deadly activities. What would McCain do that Israel has not? *** I hate to say it, but Yousef has a point. The Middle East desperately needs supple minds that are not mired in the past. I look at Gaza and don't know what to do. I have supported Israel in its policies there, but I have to admit that nothing has been gained from the non-recognition of Hamas. War doesn't work. Isolation doesn't work. For Israel, leaving Gaza didn't work, and, surely, McCain's threat to Hamas will not give it a headache -- a belly laugh is more like it.

So apparently the situation is hopeless, and Hamas "has a point." Cohen, fortunately, is not running for President. Barack Obama is, and voters will rightly be concerned that our most vicious enemies, whose minds may or may not be "supple," are rooting for him to win.

To comment on this post go here.

Today, Israel remains the region's only democracy, replete with a resoundingly free press and an independent judiciary. It is the only country in the region where Arab women have the right to vote. In 60 years, Israelis have created a modern nation-state, absorbing millions of immigrants, building prestigious educational institutions and making great advances in agriculture, medicine and technology that have helped the world. This has been accomplished in what can only be called a challenging environment.

Efraim Karsh has been something of a one-man truth squad rebutting the mythical Arab and Israeli anti-Zionist accounts of Israel's founding. His work on the subject goes back to his book Fabricating Israeli History and related essays such as "Rewriting Israel's history." Among his most recent writings on the subject are "The 60-year war for Israel's history" and "The fight over '1948.'"

The current issue of Commentary features Karsh's new essay reflecting archival research in London, Jeruslaem, and elsewhere with newly declassified documents from the British Mandate and Israel's early days. If truth had anything to do with it, Karsh's new essay on the events of 1948 would put an end to the notion that Israel intended or acted to displace the Palestinian Arab population. The Commentary site has just posted an enhanced Web-only version of Karsh's essay as "1948, Israel and the Palestinians: Annotated text." Its opening paragraphs address Fedwa Wazwaz and her ilk:

Sixty years after its establishment by an internationally recognized act of self-determination, Israel remains the only state in the world that is subjected to a constant outpouring of the most outlandish conspiracy theories and blood libels; whose policies and actions are obsessively condemned by the international community; and whose right to exist is constantly debated and challenged not only by its Arab enemies but by segments of advanced opinion in the West.

During the past decade or so, the actual elimination of the Jewish state has become a cause célèbre among many of these educated Westerners. The “one-state solution,” as it is called, is a euphemistic formula proposing the replacement of Israel by a state, theoretically comprising the whole of historic Palestine, in which Jews will be reduced to the status of a permanent minority. Only this, it is said, can expiate the “original sin” of Israel’s founding, an act built (in the words of one critic) “on the ruins of Arab Palestine” and achieved through the deliberate and aggressive dispossession of its native population.

This claim of premeditated dispossession and the consequent creation of the longstanding Palestinian “refugee problem” forms, indeed, the central plank in the bill of particulars pressed by Israel’s alleged victims and their Western supporters.

The recent declassification of millions of documents from the period of the British Mandate (1920-1948) and Israel’s early days, documents untapped by earlier generations of writers and ignored or distorted by the “new historians,” paint a much more definitive picture of the historical record. They reveal that the claim of dispossession is not only completely unfounded but the inverse of the truth.

To comment on this post go here.

It sounds like—and it is—an unfair situation; not only unfair, but legally actionable; Mr. Donahoe has brought suit to correct the dilution of his influence; to undo Craigslist’s consolidation of power. Moreover one must confess that the decision by Craigslist executives to shutter outside influence is also bad for the company, which makes it bad for Craigslist shareholders. John Donahoe, understanding all of this, is calling a foul.

To comment on this post go here.

When Miracle Ronnie White (of Smokey Robinson and the Miracles) brought Steveland Morris over to the Motown offices in Detroit in 1961, Berry Gordy at first was not impressed. After Morris sang the Miracles' "Lonely Guy" and performed on piano, harmonica and bongo, Gordy signed signed the 11-year-old boy to his label. According to Nelson George's Where Did Our Love Go?, "Berry, in one of his more inspired name changes, decided [Morris] would hereafter be called Little Stevie Wonder." The "little" was the traditional honorific indicating that the kid was a prodigy.

His first hit was "Fingertips--Pt. 2," a one-of-a-kind, chaotic live cut recorded at Chicago's Regal Theater during a Motown Revue show in 1962. The title alludes to his blindness. The performance showed both the good humor and the infectious musicality that became his trademarks. After a break from recording while his voice changed, he resumed his career with "Uptight" in 1965.

When he turned 21, Wonder renegotiated his contract with Motown to secure the kind of artistic freedom that Marvin Gaye had used to produce the groundbreaking "What's Going On" album. Wonder's great 1970's albums followed in due course, with titles that used his blindness as a metaphor for the insights reflected in his music: "Music of My Mind," "Talking Book," "Innervisions," and "Fulfillingness' First Finale." The classic double album "Songs in the Key of Life" summed up his accomplishments.

Among the decade's highlights are many lovely, positive, and haunting songs. To pick just a few of the superb lesser-known tracks from the succession of albums beginning with "Where I'm Coming From," consider "If You Really Loved Me," "Never Dreamed You'd Leave In Summer," "'Until You Come Back To Me (That's What I'm Gonna Do)," "Happier Than the Morning Sun," "Blame It On the Sun," "Lookin' For Another Pure Love," "Don't You Worry 'Bout a Thing," "Heaven is 10 Zillion Light Years Away," "They Won't Go When I Go," "Knocks Me Off My Feet," "As," and "Another Star."

Today Wonder turns 58. Though his creative fire seems to have dimmed, he remains an inspiring live performer. In the video above, Wonder performs "Overjoyed," one of the highlights of 1985's "In Square Circle." In the video below, Wonder supports Aretha Franklin on "Until You Come Back to Me," a song that Wonder originally recorded in the sixties. Franklin's terrific version of the song became a big hit for her in 1973. Wonder's recording of the song was not released until 1977. Together Wonder and Franklin bring something special to the song, even as Aretha blows the lyrics at the end and gives Stevie the giggles.

To comment on this post go here.

Saturday was the fishing opener here in Minnesota, and our Governor is more or less required to trek up north to brave the early-season cold in search of walleyes. Pawlenty is an enthusiastic fisherman, and news reports indicate that he caught at least one lunker, so he was in an ebullient mood when he gave an interview to a local radio station.

In the interview, Pawlenty, who is one of the funniest people I know, waxed rhapsodic on the subject of his wife's enthusiasm for the outdoors and other male-friendly pursuits:

"I have a wife who genuinely loves to fish. I mean, she will take the lead and ask me to go out fishing," he said.

"She loves football, she'll go to hockey games and, I jokingly say:

For the punch line, you'll have to play the clip:

Suffice it to say that John McCain is one politician who will not be put off by Pawlenty's sense of humor. I'm actually going to introduce Mrs. Pawlenty at a dinner Thursday night. I may have to work a reference to the Governor's joke into my introduction. Governor and Mary Pawlenty are shown below, with a nice walleye:

As the Newsweek cover story by Richard Wolffe and Obama demonstrates, it would be absurd to think that the Times story will come close to the worst that the mainstream media will serve up in the course of the campaign. It may nevertheless not be too soon to speculate that the Newsweek cover story will be a contender for the title. Mark Salter eloquently responds to the story here.

Like Rohter's Times story, the Newsweek story also covers for Obama on Hamas's expression of support for him. Jim Geraghty notes that Newsweek forgets to inform readers "what prompted McCain's campaign to suggest that Obama is the candidate of Hamas." Geraghty cruelly adds that "one of [Obama's] advisers, Rob Malley, was holding meetings with Hamas, and Obama's promised to hold unconditional face-to-face presidential summits with the guy who's funding and encouraging Hamas." Geraghty also weighs in on the Newsweek story here.

AFP caption: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president (L) pledges funds to Khaled Meshaal, the leader of Hamas.

Commenting on the distinction that Obama vehemently observes between Iran and Hamas, Geraghty is unconstrained by the norms that Newsweek seeks to impose: "Obama contends a face-to-face summit with the guy on the left is long overdue; a face-to-face summit with the guy on the right is crazy talk."