Why isn't Obama listening to Osama about Iraq?

How far into the land of fantasy and mindless hope has the party of Obama moved?

During their long primary, Dem candidates were not forced to answer simple questions:

What happens if we withdraw from Iraq?

What happens to the price of oil if Iran moves in and closes the Straits of Hormouz? Don't we have to fight then?

What happens if Israel feels threatened and attacks Iran or Syria?

What happens if Israel and Iran go to war and we have to step in to defend our ally?

What happens if we have to return and fight an even bigger war because the poll-reading Dems did not have the courage to fight a smaller war first?

The entire Dem primary season was about getting out of Iraq. It won't be so easy once the general election starts. Obama won't be debating Clinton. He will be sitting across from John McCain, a war hero with substantial national security credentials.

McCain is doing his best to point out that Obama is naive. (McCain Steps Up Criticism of Obama)

This week, Obama made it very easy for those of us who believe that he is indeed very naive.

Obama indicated in the debate that he would be willing to send troops back to Iraq to fight Al Qaeda.

Did he forget that we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq right now?

Where was Zarqawi, the #2 leader of Al Qaeda, discovered and killed by a missile from an F-16?

Hasn't Obama heard Osama say that Iraq is now the central front of the war? (Cut and Run and Then Run Back By James Taranto)

Obama's reply to McCain was even sillier. He said that Al Qaeda went into Iraq because Bush and McCain invaded the country.

Like everything Obama, it was a cute answer. It got all of the "yes we can" fanatics to scream their support.

Unfortunately, Obama is mixed up about this one too. Bill O'Reilly spoke about it tonight:

"OK, here are some facts. According to former CIA Chief George Tenet, Al Qaeda commander Abu Musab al-Zarqawi somehow found his way to Iraq before the war.

O’REILLY: So does Zarqawi go from the battlefield in Afghanistan to Baghdad?

GEORGE TENET, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: Well, he shows up in Baghdad in May of 2002.

OREILLY: He shows up.

TENET: Where he comes from, I don’t know. He shows up. As I say in my book, this part of northeastern Iraq, where a Kurdish Islamist group basically creates a safe haven for Al Qaeda in case Afghanistan falls down.

Also, on March 23, 2006, ABC News reported that documents captured by U.S. forces in Iraq showed contacts between Usama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein on subjects like attacking Saudi Arabia. Those documents have been confirmed by members of the 9/11 commission.

So Barack Obama should be careful about this.

Evidence shows Al Qaeda was in contact with Saddam." (McCain vs. Obama Over Al Qaeda)

Obama just stepped on it but does not realize it. He has exposed his total naivety about the most difficult issue of the campaign.

As a practical matter, who cares about Osama and Hussein? What matters is that Al Qaeda is in Iraq today and we are kicking them out with extraordinary military operations.

Does Obama want to stop our military from destroying Al Qaeda?

Does Pres. Obama want our military to return and do it in the future?

Why did Obama make this mistake? Because the Dems' fantasy land primary did not force candidates to answer such serious national security questions. They were too busy arguing about deductibles and global warming.

Everything was "get out of Iraq" yesterday.

Well, "getting out" of Iraq is easy. What happens when "we get out" of Iraq is the real issue.

Obama is now paying the price of having it so easy in the primaries. Obama wasn't ready for such a question. Therefore, he is not ready for the presidency.

Michael Barone is a great political analyst. He has a message for the Dems based on what Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies wrote in an

opinion article in Sunday's Washington Post:

"It is true that many Democratic primary voters and caucusgoers are slavering at the prospect of American defeat. They want to see us lose.

Cordesman, no fan of George W. Bush, to say the least, wants to see us win.

Someone needs to cite Cordesman's article and conclusions and ask Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton which side they're on."

The Dems' Little League season is over. Based on his recent reply to such a simple question, Obama can't hit major league pitching and will be back in rookie ball very soon.

Thumbs up for Prince Harry!

Yesterday, we learned that Prince Harry is fighting in Afghanistan. For some time, we were told that the prince would not go into war because of the potential for a hostage situation. I understand that.

Prince Harry is not afraid. He is not that kind of a young man! He is in Afghanistan with his fellow soldiers. Last year, I wrote a post about the wonderful work of UK soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. (On Thanksgiving, we say thanks for the great work of UK soldiers in Iraq!)

Thumbs up for the prince. Of course, let's hope that France and Germany hear about the prince's courage. Perhaps they will finally join the war on terror and send their young men to fight!

Whatever happened to the coverage of the Iraq War?

About 14 months ago, Pres. Bush made the incredibly difficult decision to add another 30,000 troops. He was openly supported by another leader, the current presidential candidate Sen. McCain.

This "surge" had two objectives. First, reduce violence. Second, give Iraqis a little more space to accomplish political objectives.

At the time, we had 24/7 news coverage of the violence. Today, it's hard to believe that we have 160,000 troops in Iraq.

Why is news coverage down to zero? The answer is that we are succeeding. The doom and gloom crowd was wrong about Iraq, too.

Fewer U.S. Dead = Less TV Coverage of Iraq By Rich Noyes is worth reading:

"One year later, the President’s surge strategy is well on its way to succeeding. The Iraqi parliament has passed several laws meeting required political reconciliation benchmarks. Attacks in Baghdad have fallen up to 80 percent in the past twelve months, Reuters reported [6] February 16. Deaths among Iraqi military forces and civilians have dropped by more than two-thirds, from more than 2,000 per month in early 2007 to fewer than 600 per month [7] since November.

And U.S. military deaths have also declined [8], falling from 126 in May 2007 to 40 in January 2008 and just 29 so far in February, with two days left in the month. Yet this good news seems to have diminished the media elite’s interest in broadcasting any news from Iraq."

Of course, this is all a big coincidence. Success in Iraq equals less coverage. Again, this is all a big coincidence.

A word about William F Buckley!

Like many of you, I became a conservative because of Milton Friedman, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley.

Today, we lost Buckley. (William F. Buckley Jr. Is Dead at 82)

In the mid 1970's, many of us young conservatives were recovering from Watergate.

In my case, I found Buckley's "Firing Line" show a wonderful place to see a conservative with wit, grace and a wonderful command of the language. In fact, I would often jot down words and check them in the dictionary later.

Then I got hooked on his columns, National Review and some of his books. I must confess that I did not read most of Buckley's books. I did enjoy one called "Overdrive" from the early 80s.

Buckley's legacy is National Review, the magazine and wonderful website, and all of us conservative bloggers.

Buckley was a pre-blog conservative. However, he certainly inspired all of us to blog conservative ideas.

WF Buckley had a wonderful life. Thanks for everything! Can you imagine the meeting in heaven tonight? Reagan, Friedman, Goldwater and now Buckley!

We love you, Mr. Buckley!

The week that McCain moved ahead to stay!

OK. I agree that February's polls are not always predictable. Yet, we do see them trending McCain! In other words, McCain is now beating Obama and Clinton.

Better than polls, McCain is beating them badly on leadership issues. See McCain has edge over Democrats:

"The findings underscore the difficulties ahead for Democrats as they hope to retake the White House during a time of war, with voters giving McCain far higher marks when it comes to experience, fighting terrorism and dealing with the situation in Iraq."

I guess that experience matters after all! Rasmussen Reports has the same conclusion! (McCain is trusted more than Obama when it comes to National Security, the War in Iraq, and the Economy.)

On the Dems side, it's the same old song debate after debate.

They want to end the war in Iraq but do not tell us how. Iraq is a lot more complicated than simply withdrawing troops. There is an entire region to consider! As Obama learned in the last debate, withdrawing troops may mean that we have to go back because Iran walks in. Why not finish it now when we are clearly succeeding? As Obama will learn, the world is a lot different in the Oval Office than before kids chanting "yes we can"! (Democrats in Utter Denial on Iraq by Charles Krauthammer)

The Dems promise universal care to a nation that doesn't want government care. The public is clearly frustrated with high premiums but no one is calling for turning the problem over to the federal government. The Dems are missing the boat here big time! (Free Health Care? Not If It Means Switching Insurance Coverage!)

They want comprehensive immigration reform but no one has outlined the details. As McCain has said, he will do the border first and put everything else on hold. McCain is right. There won't be a resolution to the illegal immigration issue until the border is secured. Also, let's see how all of those rural and suburban Dems react to the reality that Obama supports licenses for illegal immigrants. This issue won't play well in all of those counties between LA and NY. It won't play well with blacks either!

The Dems are now shamefully beating up NAFTA to pander for votes in Ohio. In their last debate, Obama and Clinton promised to renegotiate NAFTA. This is not playing well in Mexico or Canada. (Democrats Rile Canada, Mexico) This is not going to play well with the booming export industry in the US either.

The bottom line is that Mexico is more than a cheap labor destination. It is also a consumer of US goods. Mexico's northern states are looking a lot like a middle class economy. In Tijuana, Juarez, Torreon, and other cities, Mexicans are shopping at WalMarts, their kids are buying computers and "e-mailing" their friends. Where does that technology come from?

Up north, Canada's middle class economy depends on exports to the US. We export to Canada as well. Once again, Obama will learn that free trade is lot more complicated in the real world than before kids screaming "yes we can"!

Looking forward, Clinton will hang around but the nomination is getting very difficult. She may win Texas and Ohio and still trail Obama in the delegate count. It appears that Clinton's best shot is a brokered convention, which will blow up the party. How much trouble do the Clintons want to create? Time will tell.

Obama's worst nightmare is around the corner. He will be the only pony on stage in a few weeks. BO can't get away with generalities anymore. The media was embarrassed by Saturday Night Live's hilarious opening act. The media has a lot of ground to make up on Obama and they will go after him to restore their credibility.

As the world turns, and Obama is brought down to earth, McCain will continue to take shots at the candidate's lack of experience and leftist positions. After all, isn't Obama the most liberal senator in Washington? (Obama's Big-Government Vision: A Commentary by Lawrence Kudlow )

Is McCain the luckiest guy on earth or what? How do the Dems nominate a total novice to run against one of the strongest national security candidates in US history? Should I ask: Is McCain lucky or are the Dems stupid?

By the way, I was happy to see McCain beat up Billy Cunningham for using Obama's middle name of "Hussein".

Frankly, we don't have to do this. The Clinton people are doing a pretty good job of putting out photos and bringing up dirt on Obama.

Let the Clintons do it. Keep McCain out of it.

The 2008 election will be history someday. We will look back at the last week of February. It was the week that McCain moved ahead to stay.

Between now and Labor Day, McCain will enjoy a small but consistent lead over BO. After Labor Day, McCain's lead will grow to 7-10 points.

On election day, it won't be close. McCain's victory won't be a Reagan landslide. It will be similar to the first Bush's 1988 solid but not gigantic victory over Dukakis.

And the winner was McCain!

Go ahead and call me a partisan Republican. I am. I also have a pretty good eye and ear for these presidential debates. I also read David Kahane's liberal remorse a few days ago. I'd recommend all of my Dem friends to read it! My guess is that there is going to be huge liberal remorse across the country over the next few months.

Let me say it with flair: They had a debate and the winner was McCain.

Clinton came out strong and then fizzled. Obama is too smooth and too cute. I think that the country will grow very weary of a guy who is so cute and inexperienced. He'd better put some specifics on the table or the Republicans will define him as a lightweight who speaks smoothly. Obama is too good to be true.

The first question was on health care plans. The answers were pure "wonk". I can't follow this nonsense. Why are presidential candidates spending almost 20 minutes on this? I don't get it.

On NAFTA, Hillary Clinton danced around the issue again. I hope that Pres. Calderon heard Obama and Clinton want to renegotiate NAFTA.

On Iraq, both candidates displayed their naivety and dishonesty.

Obama said that he reserves the right to go back to Iraq. Really? So Pres. Obama will go back to Iraq to fight who? Al Qaeda? Why not stay and beat them now? In fact, we are beating them now!

Why did they stop talking about Iraq all of a sudden? No questions about Iran.

Question: Did BO say that Germans won’t fight in Afghanistan because we're fighting in Iraq.....that's insane!

Did BO forget that we went into Afghanistan on Oct '01 and into Iraq on Mar '03? Where were the Germans and French during those months? They weren't fighting in Afghanistan.

The big problem in Afghanistan is that NATO won't fight. We are doing our part. The UK and Canada are doing their parts. The rest of NATO isn't!

The Dems blame everything on Iraq. They should blame the French and the Germans. They are the ones who aren't carrying their fair share in Afghanistan.

Question: Did Dick Cheney have an energy bill? Clinton said that she voted against it. I missed that one.

Obama supports Israel. Why does he want to destabilize the Middle East by pulling out of Iraq? You can't say that you support Israel and dance around the Iraq War or taking a tough line against Iran.

Israel is threatened by Iran. Is Obama willing to go to war to defend Israel? How long is he willing to fight? Will he stay the distance? Or, will he quit when the polls go south or when the Europeans go wimpy?

Overall, both candidates were very cautious and did not go for the long ball.

Clinton needed a KO and did not score one. Obama wins another technical KO.

The real winner was McCain. He will have the good luck of running against the most liberal senator in the Senate. Obama is also a senator without any foreign policy and zero executive experience.

Let me close with this by Jim Geraghty:

"Obama has been floating on a cloud since Iowa, but he won't be able to do that in the general election; he's got too many far-left votes and positions for McCain to spotlight."

Again, the winner was McCain!

The Dems are really going insane!

In terms of dirty tricks, this one is rather unique.

Our media is full of this Obama photo. (Kenya Photo Worth Several Sharp Words From Clinton, Obama Camps)

What does it mean? It means that the Clintons will do whatever it takes to win.

Let me give Obama the benefit of the doubt here. I'm sure that Obama did not mean anything by this photo. I believe Obama a lot more than I'd believe the Clintons!

Frankly, I'm enjoying this Clinton-Obama episode a great deal. It's so funny to see the party of "love and diversity" engage in these tactics.

Keep it up Dems. We enjoy it a lot! To say the least, the Dems' August convention could turn into a first rate circus! Who is going to tell the Clintons that it's over?

The Dems at war with Mexico?

In tonight's debate, Clinton and Obama will declare that NAFTA is a threat to the US worker. In fact, they will spend more time talking about Mexico than the war on terror.

They believe in progress except for Mexico.

Can you believe how Mexico has become a silly excuse for Ohio's economy?

Michigan, Ohio and others have been losing manufacturing jobs for 30 years:

"To blame NAFTA for the long-standing trajectory of U.S. manufacturing — the sector has been losing jobs since 1979 — is the politics of scapegoating.

What is Obama going to do if elected? Browbeat Mexican President Felipe Calderón to return his country to the statist and autarkic policies of the 1970s?

Bizarrely, Obama lately has directed more barbs toward Mexico than Iran, whose offense is only killing American servicemen and pursuing an illicit nuclear program rather than sending us imports and welcoming our investment." (Trading in Fear)

Isn't that true? Obama and Clinton see Mexico as a bigger threat than Iran or Al Qaeda.

Ohio and Michigan are like France and Germany. They are over taxed, over regulated and older population states.

In other words, they can't compete with younger and low tax southern states.

This is why Ohio and Michigan and New York and New Jersey and Pennsylvania are losing jobs to Texas and Alabama and the Carolinas.

Why? Because we do not have state income taxes. Also, the South has "right to work" laws which makes it easier to do business with unions.

What can you say about the modern Dem party? They are more concerned with Mexico than Iran.

Welcome to what they used to call the Dem party.

P.S. Here is a little checklist for tonight's pander-fest. The USA Today puts the Obama/Clinton's promises in some perspective: Dems Promise a Lot, but Who Will Pay the Bill?

Is McCain starting to break away from Clinton and Obama?

February's polls are February's polls. However, I have picked up a little trend that may be significant.

McCain continues to lead Clinton. The RCP average is McCain plus 4. The current Gallup is great news for McCain: McCain 50, Clinton 46

McCain has now led Obama in the last two polls. The RCP average is Obama plus 3, or a margin of error result. Yet, Rasmussen has McCain up by 4 and Gallup has McCain up too: McCain 48, Obama 47

What this means is that McCain is gaining on Clinton and Obama.

Also, do not underestimate the impact of The NY Times story. It has energized Republicans and angered some fair minded independents.

It's only February. However, you have to like McCain's position.

Memo to media: Ask Dems real world questions about national security!

We saw this movie before.

Carter ran in '76 saying that he would be a domestic president. He was consumed, and eventually destroyed, by foreign affairs.

Clinton was going to be a domestic president, too.

Remember? Clinton blasted the first Bush for spending too much time on foreign affairs!

Like Carter, Clinton spent much of his two terms on Iraq, Bosnia, China, etc.

During Clinton's presidency, terrorists tried to blow up the WTC towers in '93, successfully blew up two embassies in '98 and attacked the USS Cole in '00.

Want a domestic president? Move to Costa Rica.

The US is a superpower. From Truman to the current Bush, our presidencies are defined by foreign affairs.

Again, do you want a domestic president? Move to Costa Rica.

The Dems' Austin debate was so silly. Our next president is not going to spend his/her time working on health care, education or building bridges.

Don't get me wrong. I want a public/private sector approach to health care along the lines of what Gov. Romney did in Massachusetts.

On education, we need to break the monopoly of public education.

On developing infrastructure, I am in favor of that too. Let's fix our bridges and streets. Isn't that done by cities and states, too?

However, this is not what will consume our next president.

He/she will spend most of his/her time reading intelligence briefings and fighting Al Qaeda.

Add Russia, North Korea, Iran, the potential changes in Cuba, and China's Navy.

So far, the Dems' debates do not reflect any of that.

Obama and Clinton are not living in the real world.

It's time for the media to get over Obama-mania and start asking them about national security.

Again, this is real world not the kind of "liberal feel good" stuff that we hear at the debates.

My point is that Obama or Clinton will spend much of his/her time on foreign affairs.

The US is a superpower. Our presidents are usually consumed by world events rather domestic issues.

Let me suggest this to the media. They should start the next debate by referring to Two Winnable Wars By Anthony H. Cordesman:

"No one can return from the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, as I recently did, without believing that these are wars that can still be won.

They are also clearly wars that can still be lost, but visits to the battlefield show that these conflicts are very different from the wars being described in American political campaigns and most of the debates outside the United States."

Mr. Cordesman holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He recently returned from the front lines in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It's time for Dems to get over their silly class warfare, attacks on NAFTA and get real about the world that they may be inheriting in less than a year:

"Any American political leader who cannot face these realities, now or in the future, will ensure defeat in both Iraq and Afghanistan."

So let's get real. The Dems have avoided national security because their supporters are living in a fantasy land that everything is Bush's fault.

It's time for these Dem debates to get real!

The Dems' NAFTA charade goes on in Ohio

Obama is right and wrong in Ohio.

Obama is right that Hillary Clinton has danced around NAFTA. Once upon a time, Clinton was for the Iraq War and NAFTA. In today's populist and leftist Dem party, Hillary Clinton's support for free trade and the war are poison.

The China trade deal and NAFTA were two of the most significant parts of Clinton's legacy. These trade deals were two of the biggest reasons that 4 million liberals voted for Nader in 2000! One of these voters was Michael Moore, who wrote a nasty letter to VP Gore in 2000 about the impact of these trade deals. Read the letter! He sounds a lot like Obama!

This weekend, Obama is hitting Clinton really hard on NAFTA. (Obama Hits Clinton on NAFTA Support)

Obama is wrong in pandering for votes by beating up NAFTA. Today, The NY Times hit Obama and Clinton hard on their attacks against NAFTA:

"In a review in 2003, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that Nafta had slightly increased growth in the United States and that any disruptive effects on employment were small. Trade opens foreign markets for American producers and gives consumers more choices, while competition spurs productivity growth at home." (It Must Be Ohio)

Once in a while, I agree with The NY Times. They are right here, at least in the paragraph about NAFTA. I disagree with some parts of the editorial.

Beyond the facts, Obama has nailed Clinton again. Like her husband, Clinton wants to be on both sides of every issue. (Obama Attacks Clintons on NAFTA) What's the difference? Bill Clinton had Ross Perot to divide the middle class in '92. Hillary Clinton has Barack Obama to divide the Dems. Bill had every ounce of luck in '92. Hillary doesn't in '08!

Hillary Clinton is fighting back. She senses that the end is near. Don't be surprised if Hillary screams for Ross Perot to get in the race.

Where is Ross Perot when the Clintons really need him?

Beyond Ohio, are they listening to these Democrats in Mexico? I hope so. I hope that Mexicans in Mexico will encourage their relatives and friends in the US to vote for McCain. At least, McCain understands how free trade is serving both countries. The Dems' war on NAFTA is pathetic!

Listen to Henry Kissinger

For some time, we have argued that the war on terror is not a choice. We are fighting to save our way of life, whether the "yes we can" Obama-istas believe it or not. Over the weekend, former Sec. of State Kissinger spoke and said this:

"Terrorism, what we call terrorism, refers to a method.

What terrorism represents is an assault by radical Islam on the political structure of the Islamic world, but in a deeper sense on the secular structure and international structure of anything, any society, within reach of Islam, which means almost every part of the world.

That is a fundamental challenge.

Therefore, to talk about withdrawal from any battlefield is to describe defeat.

There is no way to escape the conflict with Islam by leaving Afghanistan or leaving Iraq.

Now that is not only delusion and it is not something that will have long term consequences, it is something that would have almost immediate consequences.

That is the fundamental problem of our period. That this is a war against radical Islam that has to be won." (Kissinger on Islamic Terrorism)

Again, the fundamental problem of our period.

We can pretend all we want. We can blame Bush all we want. Yet, our next president will have to fight or we will be back to face an even greater threat.

I'm sorry to break so many "yes we can" hearts.

Hillary Clinton was right when she signed on years ago. It's a shame that she got off the cause to appeal to her party's left wing. Barack Obama has been wrong on this one from the very beginning.

I should add that McCain has been along for the whole ride. He understands the threat. He shares Kissinger's view that this is the fundamental problem of our period.

SNL and Obama-mania

Saturday Night Live did it again. On Saturday, they did a hilarious take on the CNN debate. Does the media love Obama? Watch the video!

This is funny because there is a lot of truth in it. The media is in love with Obama and it shows in their lack of serious coverage.

Will the media get the message? I don't know but Obama needs more scrutiny. See Rick Moran's OBAMA AND THE RADICALS: SOULMATES?!

Miss Dowd and Dems who tap into their inner chick

Maureen Dowd of The NY Times has a theory for Hillary Clinton's collapse. Miss Dowd believes that Hillary Clinton tried to be too much of a man, or "macho" as she calls it. She thinks that Hillary Clinton voted for the war to show that she was tough enough to be president.

Remember the days when Dems were rushing to the microphones to support the war? I guess those were the days when Dems were trying to be too "macho"!

Check this out:

"After so many years when W. and Cheney stomped on the world and the world glared back, many Americans would like to see their government focus more on those staples of female fiction: relationships and conversation." (¿Quién Es Less Macho?)

Bush and Cheney stomped all over the world? I love this line because there are US, UK, Australian, Japanese and quite a few other troops in Iraq.

They liberated Afghanistan and millions of women now vote. US troops serve with UK and Canadian troops in that country. So far, the French and Germans do not allow their troops to fight in Afghanistan!

They overthrew Saddam Hussein and million of women actually voted for the first time and will vote again in the fall. Don't you remember all of those smiling women with their blue thumbs? It was a beautiful sight, unless you are still counting votes in Florida like Miss Dowd.

The Bush-Cheney administration has provided billions of assistance to Africa.

The US Navy protects the oil sea lanes so that millions of European women can drive their cars.

During the Cold War (from Democrat Truman to the first Bush), it was US tanks that kept USSR tanks from running all over men, women and children in Germany, France, Austria, etc.

Would Miss Dowd's "conversational approach" have removed the Taliban? or beaten Al Qaeda in Iraq? Or kept Soviet tanks from Western Europe?

Conversation is great. I don't believe that it will work with the 9-11 terrorists. Madrid. London.

Miss Dowd wrote this about Obama:

"Obama tapped into his inner chick....."

Do you understand now why the modern Dems have lost 7 of the last 10 elections? They are in touch with their "inner chick"!

My guess is that most US women want a man who shows a little sensitivity from time to time. However, they do not want a president who "taps into his inner chick" when he is dealing with people who fly airplanes into buildings.

Miss Dowd needs to date a Republican. I think that all of those "inner chick" liberals are messing up her views of manhood and the presidency.

It was a very bad week for The NY Times

This is a grand slam quote from Paul Mirengoff:

"In McCain’s case, the Times originated the story without an evidentiary basis sufficient to persuade even its fellow liberal organs that there is anything there.

Thus, this is not an instance of a liberal news outlet seeing an existing story through the prism of its bias.

It is an instance of a liberal news outlet going out of its way to assault a candidate it would prefer not to see become president." (Repeat offender)

Today, The NY Times' public editor said this about the article:

"The newspaper found itself in the uncomfortable position of being the story as much as publishing the story, in large part because, although it raised one of the most toxic subjects in politics — sex — it offered readers no proof that McCain and Iseman had a romance." (What That McCain Article Didn’t Say By CLARK HOYT)

It was a very bad week for The New York Times! This is not going to make the shareholders very happy. The investors are already fit to be tied because of declining readership and advertising revenues.

Obama, Raul Castro and McCain

BO is in love with that JFK quote about negotiation and fear. As I recall, it was a line from JFK's memorable inauguration speech: "We should never negotiate out of fear....we should never fear to negotiate"!

Of course, JFK would probably be shocked to hear that BO is using the line in the context of talking to Iran or Raul Castro.

McCain did not pass the opportunity to fight back:

"''Meet, talk and hope may be a sound approach in a state Legislature,'' McCain said in a dig at Obama's experience as a state senator before his 2004 Senate election. ``But it is dangerously naive in international diplomacy. . . .''

Good line. Very good point. Get ready for that word "naive"!

In the meantime, check this one about dissidents in Cuba! (A Look Into Fidel Castro's Cuba)

McCain is gaining and the Dems are mad at each other!

According to the experts, Hillary Clinton has to win in Texas and Ohio. It's true that she needs to win something to reverse 10 in a row!

However, the super delegates won't be deciding this or next month. They don't have to cast their ballots until the end of August.

If they voted today, then Obama will get their support. Again, they are not voting today. By August, Clinton may turn out to be a more viable candidate against McCain.

Rasmussen Reports has some interesting polling data. McCain continues to lead Clinton. McCain is now leading Obama, too.

What happened to the great Dem year? It's only February but McCain is showing unbelievable strength:

"Rasmussen numbers are a 4 day sample, so the last two nights must be overwhelming for McCain -- 10% or greater leads, to reverse a 4% deficit versus Obama on Thursday (42-46, then 44-44 Friday, and 46-43 today).

Hillary can now make the case that only she can be beat McCain in the key states of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.

Right now, she runs better than Obama against McCain in all three.

She may have an ounce of life left if she wins both contests on March 4.

Still a long shot, and the mainstream media is totally clueless about this new trend." (Presidential race polling may be shifting)

Better than nationwide numbers, McCain is polling very well in Pennsylvania, a state that the Dems can not lose at all. Take PA's 21 electoral votes and the election is over as soon as the southern and western states check in for McCain around 10pm central time.

The Dems have no margin of error in the electoral college. They won't get to 270 if McCain wins PA, Minnesota or Wisconsin. As of today, McCain is doing very well in those 3 states carried by Kerry and Gore!

Again, it's early. However, there are two interesting things happening out there:

1) Democrats are fighting with each other. I guess that the Dems were happy as long as they sat in the bleachers blaming everything on Bush. They are not friendly when they have to sit down and select a leader; and,

2) McCain is showing strength with independents, and specially men. The Dems have not won the male vote since LBJ in '64. McCain should also do very well with military veterans, too. Let me add that McCain will do very well with Hispanics if the Dems nominate Obama.

The great Dem tsunami of 2008 may still arrive. However, don't be surprised if it misses us!

I like our chances in 2008 because John McCain is exactly the kind of Republican that appeals to independents! Last, but not least, Michelle Obama's outrageous comments and The NY Times's hit piece on McCain have lit a fire under conservatives.

Obama-mania is what happens to a party that isn't serious anymore!

Hillary Clinton is right. Obama needs to get more specific. Bill Clinton is right. Obama is a fairy tale.

Is everybody in love with BO? I don't know but David Kahane is having a little liberal remorse. Check it out. It's funny and interesting.

How is the oldest party in the US about to nominate a candidate with zero executive experience? This is a man who was totally unknown 4 years ago!

We have not nominated such a stranger since Carter in '76. To be fair, Carter was the governor of Georgia, a Navy Officer and businessman.

What has Obama done beyond promise us hope and change?

Don't blame BO for the state of the party. Blame the Dems. The Dems created Obama-mania.

They created the culture in which Obama-mania could prosper. For too many years, the "out of power" Dems have specialized in mindless Bush bashing rather proposing serious alternatives.

They have become a party of crazy conspiracies (Bush planned 9-11), stupid ideas (Bush lied about WMDs), stupid connections (we went to war because of Halliburton), etc etc etc. This stuff is repeated every day in fundraisers, the media, the blogs, etc etc etc.

Everything was, is and will be Bush's fault. To them, Bush is the source and cause of every evil in the world! It's amazing what can happen to the world because Al Gore couldn't win his home state of Tennessee!

Let's take Iraq. The Dems overwhelmingly supported the war. During the Clinton presidency, the Dems told us that Saddam was a threat and had WMDs. Clinton bombed Iraq for 4 days in '98 without consulting with the UN! Watch the speech!

In fact, there was no difference between Dems and Reps over Iraq for 12 years----from 1991 to Howard Dean in '03. Both sides looked at the evidence and concluded the same thing!

Today, the Dems can not even acknowledge progress in Iraq. They are so afraid of giving Bush any credit that they can't see the obvious military and political success in Iraq. See Democrats Dug In For Retreat By Charles Krauthammer!

The Dems hate Bush so much that they actually think that an Iraq defeat is a Bush defeat. They can't see the national security implications of Al Qaeda jumping up and down cheering that they kicked the US out of the region.

This is stupid. This is reckless. This is a party that lacks maturity. This is exactly the dishonest, childish and stupid climate that produces a Barack Obama!

Let's take Social Security or immigration. The same. No serious proposals just Bush bashing.

On another issue, take a look at the House and FISA. The Dems are holding up FISA because they want to take care of the trial lawyers. Is that pathetic or what? (Playing Politics With National Security)

Again, the Dems are not a serious party. They've been out of power so long that they do not understand that we elect people to govern not to bash Bush! (Democrats Should Read Kipling By WILLIAM KRISTOL)

Obama-mania is what happens when you don't have serious people saying serious things.

Why are all of these Dems going silly over a guy who hasn't done anything? The answer is that the Dems are not a serious party.

Once upon a time, there was a serious party that nominated people like FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ. They used to win elections!

Today, the Dems are the party of Obama. The Dems have gone so far to the left that they have rejected the free trade legacy of the Clinton years.

Mark your calendar. Obama will lead them over the cliff and a big defeat against a very serious man named McCain. All of this stuff about style over substance won't work when real people show up at the voting booths in the general election.

P.S. For more background, take a look at Battle Of The Two Obamas By Clive Crook of The National Journal.

See Obama the Messiah of Generation Narcissism By Kathleen Parker!

Peggy Noonan, a well known speech writer, has a few thoughts about BO's speeches! Try reading one! Turn off the TV and read one.

For more see Barack Obama is a Fake By Ben Shapiro.

For more see The Obama Delusion By Robert Samuelson

Bill Clinton is indeed correct. Thiis is a fairy tale! The prince ain't showing up to kiss Snow White in this one!

The NY Times has done McCain a huge favor!

Rick Moran reports on a very real angle of this story. The nation's newspapers are not supporting what The NY Times did to John McCain. (Thin Story Looks Bad for the Times By Michael Gerson)

I guess that there is decency in the profession:

"If the New York Times had a conscience and a soul, Bill Keller would be fired for this smear job. Instead, he is liable to get a raise. Such is the culture of corruption at the Times." (Even the left questions the accuracy and reasons for the Times story)

Ironically, The NY Times has accomplished the impossible. The conservatives are rushing to McCain's side.

Don Surber is right on with Circling the wagons:

"The story that was not vetted enough. I don’t know if McCain had an affair with Vicki Iseman, but I do know, the New York Times ran with a half-baked story that said they had an affair — a story that the National Enquirer would have rejected.

Who is running the joint? Mary Mapes?"

Of course, Mary Mapes was the lead reporter in the infamous CBS hit piece on Pres. Bush in 2004. The story blew up because it was demonstrated that it was based on forged documents. Eventually, Mapes was fired, Dan Rather was forced into retirement, and Bush was reelected.

The NY Times blew this one big time. The conservatives are outraged and McCain is the beneficiary. Last, but not least, Bill O'Reilly got it right. His message is right on target. Watch the video!

Obama-mania is like any other mania!

What happens when a liberal writes this:

"I’m nervous because too many Obama-philes sound like Moonies, or Hare Krishnas, or the Hale-Bopp-Is-Coming-To-Get-Me nuts.

These true believers “Obama-ize” everything.

They speak Obama-ese.

Knit for Obama. Run for Obama.

Gamble - Hold ’Em Barack! - for Obama.

They make Obama cakes, underwear, jewelry.

They send Valentine cards reading, “I want to Barack your world!”

At campaign rallies people scream, cry, even faint as Obama calmly calls for the EMTs. When supporters pant en masse, “I love you!” (like The Beatles, circa 1964), Barack says, “I love you back” with that deliciously charming, almost cocky smile.

Oh - I’m nervous because it’s all gone to his head and he hasn’t even won yet."

It gets better. Read the full report: When backing Barack feels like joining a cult By Margery Eagan!

Professor VD Hanson has a more rational answer for Obama-mania:

"And all the swooning and fainting at Obama rallies remind me of the 1944 Looney-Tunes Cartoon "Swooner-Crooner," about the chickens being wooed into stupor at first by the frenetic Frank Sinatra chicken — until out of nowhere a softer, more relaxed, and more laid-back, Bing Crosby type rooster appears, steals the audience, and out-sings the now has-been."

We will sit back and let the Dems hitch their wagon to Obama. Let McCain meet Obama after Labor Day! Let's see how Obama-mania feels like when everyone wakes up from the BO orgy!

Memo to Mexicans: Don't do the Obama before you listen to the lyrics!

Barack Obama has a solution for everything, including the Mexican economy. However, his solution is hard to follow.

The guys at Power Line wrote a good post about how Obama the Messiah is going to fix Mexico:

"Nor does Obama's magic end at our borders. Last night, he said he would solve our immigration problem in part by improving the economy of Mexico to the point that illegal immigrants will have no need or desire to enter the paradise Obama will create here.

Most magically of all, Obama will fix Mexico's economy even while refusing to trade with Mexico unless it complies with U.S. labor and environmental standards.

I know the competition is fierce, but Obama may turn out to be the most intellectually dishonest Democratic presidential nominee of my lifetime." (He's good for what ails you, and Mexico too)

Of course, Obama is about as dishonest as Hillary Clinton. She wants to help Mexico by renegotiating NAFTA.

They want the lawyers to arrive in Mexico and make life miserable for our neighbors. Isn't that what Mexico needs? US lawyers telling Mexicans how to run their businesses.

Wonder how that will happen? Wonder how Calderon is going to react to that phone call? ("Hey Felipe, US labor and environmental lawyers are going down to see if you guys meet our standards. After that, we'll come up with a new NAFTA!")

My guess is that most Mexicans are probably rooting for Dems to win the presidency. However, they may want to listen to what the Dems are actually saying.

Don't dance when Obama talks. Don't cry when Hillary Clinton cries.

Listen to what they are saying.

The bottom line is that Mexico is going to suffer a great deal if Obama or Clinton actually implement the protectionist policies preached in this campaign!

See NAFTA Gets a Bum Rap By Froma Harrop:

"May I suggest a "time out" on bashing free trade with our Canadian and Mexican neighbors? Life would be awfully easy if NAFTA were the problem. All you'd have to do is pull out."

Can Obama and Clinton stop their demagoguery? Can Obama and Clinton speak seriously rather than engage in simplistic solutions about Iraq, taxes and free trade.

Summary: It's all Bush's fault

What can you say about a "pander fest" that lasted almost two hours?

Where was the NHL tonight? My biggest regret is that the Stars played the Flames last night. I missed hockey tonight! It would have been a great night to switch and watch the Stars move the puck on the ice.

Back to the pander fest, a.k.a. as the Dems debate.

My quick impression is that Obama won a technical KO and Clinton's campaign is over.

The Dems indeed got a brand new man!

Regarding the debate. First, everything is Bush's fault. Let me repeat. Everything is Bush's fault.

What are these people going to do when Bush is gone? Maybe they will have to grow up and govern rather simply blame everything on Bush.

Second, and more importantly, Clinton or Obama won't be able to compete with McCain on presidential stature.

Obama is eloquent but there is something phony about him. He is just too cute and the public will pick up on it.

Clinton is smart but frigid. She is starting to look like a woman who won't make it! She looks defeated.

I'm not suggesting that McCain is a charmer but he compensates for that with his awesome life story.

Just think about the media's favorite question: Can you cite a moment when you were tested in your life?

Obama will repeat the worn out story of how he gave up Wall Street to work in the south side of Chicago. Poor guy!

Clinton will remember how Bill humiliated her. Poor girl!

McCain will say that he spent six years in Hanoi! Heck of a hero!

End of stories. End of the election!

Back to the pander-fest.

We do not elect presidents to give us universal health care. This is where Dems always get it wrong. Also, most Americans do not want government health care anyway.

We elect presidents to defend us. This is why the Dems have lost 7 of the last 10 presidential elections. The US public does not feel that Dems have the stomach to defend the country.

This is going to be a national security election not a health care election!

On immigration, both said that they are in favor of comprehensive reform. What's wrong? Nobody can agree on the details. Even Dems can't agree on that!

It was not Republicans who killed comprehensive immigration reform. It was a bi-partisan effort.

How do I know? Because the Pelosi-Reid Congress has not done a darn thing abut immigration reform either!

On taxes, Obama and Clinton are first rate charlatans. This is Lopez-Obrador class warfare! How can any informed person buy all of this class warfare?

On Iraq, Obama and Clinton are still avoiding the real issue. It does not matter what Obama said in 2002 when he was an unknown state senator or what Hillary Clinton said in 2003 or 2006.

Clinton and Obama are not living in the context of what is happening in Iraq. Also, CNN did not ask follow up questions about Iraq.

Obama said that we drove Al Qaeda out of Baghdad. Did I hear that correctly? Is Obama saying that we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq? I'm happy to hear a Dem actually admit that we are doing so.

Let me repeat it. On Iraq, Obama and Clinton are either very naive or lying through their teeth. Let me submit to you that it is the latter!

They are not going to withdraw any troops and their supporters better get ready for it. We will continue in Iraq because Pres. Obama (or Clinton) is not going to project weakness in the Middle East.

Like Pelosi and Reid, Clinton or Obama will make the anti-war groups very angry. Why? Because Iraq is lot more complicated in the Oval Office than at the Dems' "yes we can" pep rally.

It was not a great debate. It's hard to give this debate a grade. Clinton did not score a knockout punch. So she lost because time is not on her side!

Say hello to Pres. McCain!

Why? McCain will do very well with men, married women with children, business owners who are scared of the Dems' class warfare, and military veterans who represent a huge portion of the electorate.

Trust me. It won't be close!

McCain and The NY Times, part 2

The NY Times' attack on Sen. McCain has backfired big time. Why? Because John McCain has a sterling reputation. In Washington, everybody knows who the characters are. Everybody knows who runs around. The bottom line is that everyday knows that John McCain is not that kind of man.

How do you accuse a married man running for president of an affair without evidence?

The answer is that you don't. This is why the story is falling apart.

This is from The Horse's Mouth:

"But if you merely evaluate the words that are on the page of The Times, when it comes to the question of any affair you can't help but conclude, as Matthew Yglesias did, that they just didn't have or couldn't share the goods on an alleged romantic relationship and thus shouldn't have gone there."

Here is Jay Ambrose:

"As evidence of any actual romance, the paper offers nothing. It tells us that eight years ago, during his first run for the presidency, advisers became worried that the woman was around the candidate too much.

According to two unidentified sources, there was apparently fear there could be a romance, that the press would learn of it and that this could be ruinous for their boss, but no one knew anything.

It's on this basis -- a rumor denied by McCain, the woman and others and predicated on nothing but speculation -- that the paper went with the story."

Later on Thursday, The NY Times got angry that McCain got angry. What did they expect?

I agree with Captain Ed that this is a bad day for The NY Times (First We Smear You, Then Any Response Is War).

We knew that The NY Times would go out of its way to help Obama or Clinton. What this story demonstrates is that The NY Times is really concerned that McCain will win.

P.S The guys at Power Line nailed it:

"So, was the original hit piece part of a deliberate strategy by the Times to wage war on the presumed Republican Presidential candidate?

I think we all know the answer to that question."