Category: The Dish

Hewitt gets excited:

The Clintons must be furious. The superdelegates who throw in with Obama publicly have to think of themselves as political equivalents of Brutus and Cassius –they are striking at the king and queen, and even if they succeed, they can expect the remaining Caesarians to pursue them for a very long time.

But maybe the power-shift has already begun. Obama has just survived, with some aplomb, his first swift-boating from Fox News et al. He has more delegates. He has more of the popular vote; with Michigan and Florida unlikely to give Clinton much of a boost, smart Democratic operatives will begin to side with the rising star rather than the setting sun. Karen Tumulty:

I’m betting Bill Clinton will be watching the Super Bowl with someone else next year.

Doesn’t this also have to be somewhat tinged with Richardson’s hope for a veep pick? Obama is weak with Hispanics; Richardson has sterling foreign policy and executive experience, another perceived (but in my view phony) weakness; Richardson could also help with the West where McCain will be strong. A black-brown ticket? Hmmm.

Ross reacts to Osama’s latest video:

…nearly every pronouncement from Osama bin Laden or his imitators contains something that might be laughable, if it weren’t in deadly earnest.

There’s the incessant nostalgia for the Crusades, heavy-handed enough to embarrass Sir Walter Scott, and the Risk-board view of geopolitics, epitomized by the oft-cited aspiration to reconquer "Al-Andalus" (known to most of us as "Spain") for Islam. There’s the blinkered understanding of American politics, as when Bin Laden criticized George H.W. Bush for "installing" his sons as governors of Texas and Florida, and seemed to suggest (depending on the translation) that he might make a separate peace with any American state that didn’t vote for George W. Bush. And of course, there’s the consistency with which Al Qaeda and its fellow travelers greet perceived insults to Islam with threats and actions that seem designed to, well, vindicate the offending parties.

When a Danish newspaper published cartoons portraying Muhammad as an assassin and a terrorist, Islamists responded to these outrageous insinuations by inciting their co-believers to … assassination and terrorism. When the Pope stirred up controversy by suggesting that Islam might be less compatible with reason and philosophy than Christianity, he was answered with a burst of (no doubt rigorously-reasoned) acts of violence committed on behalf of the faith he had insulted. Now, just in time with Easter, he’s been answered with al Qaeda’s idea of inter-religious dialogue as well. Here’s hoping that the His Holiness enjoys a quiet chuckle while he puts the Swiss Guards on high alert. There’s nothing wrong with laughing at evil, so long as your bodyguards are packing heat.

You may want to sit down, but I read the following Bill Clinton remarks yesterday and didn’t see anything untoward about them:

"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country," said Clinton, who was speaking to a group of veterans Friday in Charlotte, N.C. "And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."

I don’t think he’s implying that Obama doesn’t love his country or is not devoted to the interest of this country (although you could, with some strain, parse it that way). He’s actually hoping for a substantive, non-swift-boating, non-Coulter, non-Hannity campaign. It’s pretty close to my own hope for an Obama-McCain race. Now why Clinton didn’t include Obama, who is the current front-runner, and who has shown an ability to speak and talk constructively and civilly for the entire campaign, is an interesting question, isn’t it? He’s certainly less divisive than he or his wife. And he has just shown an ability to respond to swift-boating not by the usual Clinton defensive crouch but by tackling it head-on and winning the argument.

I think the statement just speaks to Clinton’s staggering sense of ownership of the Democratic party and the unconcious assumption that his wife deserves to be the nominee. I still think the Clintons cannot believe the gall of anyone daring to challenge their power or their specious self-regard. I’ve said it before, but imagine if Clinton had won over a dozen primaries in a row, was ahead in the delegate count, ahead in the popular vote, and way ahead in the number of states won. Don’t you think the pressure on Obama to pull out would be enormous? And wouldn’t Clinton regard his persistence as treachery? And yet Clinton in the exact same situation carries on, with a minimal chance of victory,and actually had the gall to offer Obama a veep slot. Who on earth does she think she is? At best it’s pure Clinton entitlement. At worst it’s white entitlement.

Oh, well, I tried to defend the Clintons and look where I ended up. Better luck next time.

(Photo: Win McNamee/Getty.)

Sam Harris pens an inimitable essay. Money quote:

The problem of religious fatalism, ignorance, and false hope, while plain to see in most religious contexts, is now especially obvious in the black community. The popularity of "prosperity gospel" is perhaps the most galling example: where unctuous crooks like T.D. Jakes and Creflo Dollar persuade undereducated and underprivileged men and women to pray for wealth, while tithing what little wealth they have to their corrupt and swollen ministries. Men like Jakes and Dollar, whatever occasional good they may do, are unconscionable predators and curators of human ignorance. Is it too soon to say this in American politics? Yes it is.

Despite all that he does not and cannot say, Obama’s candidacy is genuinely thrilling: his heart is clearly in the right place; he is an order of magnitude more intelligent than the current occupant of the Oval Office; and he s till stands a decent chance of becoming the next President of the United States. His election in November really would be a triumph of hope.

But Obama’s candidacy is also depressing, for it demonstrates that even a person of the greatest candor and eloquence must still claim to believe the unbelievable in order to have a political career in this country. We may be ready for the audacity of hope. Will we ever be ready for the audacity of reason?

I don’t disagree with many of my friend Sam’s smaller points; but I do disagree with his largest argument. If you want to know why or how, our long dialogue about faith and reason is here.

The latest CBS News poll on the Wright speech suggests that Obama scored well. 71 percent thought he did a good job explaining his relationship with Wright, with 24 percent saying a poor job. 63 percent mostly agreed with his views on race. The poll shows no real shift from the speech in voters’ intent to vote for him or not vote for him.

Novak:

…the Democratic "nightmare scenario" has gotten even more nightmarish. If Clinton wins on the strength of the super-delegates despite trailing in pledged delegates and the popular vote, then party insiders will have blocked the historic first nomination of a black candidate — and now they will have done so because of racial fears regarding a black preacher.

"I understand how naive it is to read a presidential candidate’€™s speech as if it were anything except political positioning, but that leads me to my final point: It’s about time that people who disagree with Obama’s politics recognize that he is genuinely different. When he talks, he sounds like a real human being, not a politician. I’m not referring to the speechifying, but to the way he comes across all the time. We’ve had lots of charming politicians. I cannot think of another politician in my lifetime who conveys so much sense of talking to individuals, and talking to them in ways that he sees as one side of a dialogue. Conservatives who insist that he’s nothing but an even slicker Bill Clinton are missing a reality about him, and at their peril," – Charles Murray.

Charles cannot vote for Obama on substantive policy grounds. I completely respect that. I have always noted that Obama is much more liberal than I am. But, frankly, after what Bush has done to limited government conservatism and fiscal responsibility, I find it hard to give much lee-way to Republicans (I do not include Murray) who are now suddenly shocked – shocked – that a Democrat supports government as a solution to certain problems. Where have they been these last eight years as Republicans legitimized such liberal nostrums, and even declared that they were the only moral positions to take on many issues? At least Obama proposes taxing rather than borrowing to fund big government. And, McCain, as I need not remind many conservatives, also has a great fondness for government action. As for Ramesh Ponnuru’s absurd notion that Charles has not exhibited charity to his critics, I see no evidence for it whatever.

Dave Barry finds a solution for Florida:

Every day somebody comes up with a new proposed solution. The most recent one is a ”50-50” plan, in which the Jan. 29 primary results would be used as a basis for seating half of the Florida delegates, with the other half being selected by Minnesota. Or something like that. I can’t keep track any more.

I personally think my wife came up with the best solution: Why not hold a texting primary? We already have the technology. At least our children do. We could ask them how to use it.

Now I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking, “Wait a minute, Dave: Florida voters and technology do NOT mix. Many Florida residents can’t operate their turn signals. They would totally screw up a texting primary. Many would injure themselves trying to retrieve their phones from their oatmeal.”

True, but it doesn’t matter. We’re just seeking closure here, to get Florida out of the national-ridicule spotlight. Whatever happens with the Florida Democratic delegation, neither Obama nor Clinton will have enough delegates to win the nomination. They’re locked in a bitter struggle that I predict will continue right through the Democratic convention, and then through the November presidential election. Next January President McCain will be giving his inaugural address, while somewhere else in America, Clinton and Obama will be holding their 1,387th debate, with the hostility level between them having reached the point where the debate consists entirely of spitting.

The Clinton campaign is almost out of cash. Josh:

Once you subtract the other debts her cash on hand number would be in the neighborhood of $3 million. By contrast, Obama has over $30 million on hand for the primary.