BEST OF THE WEB TODAY
The Permanent Campaign
By JAMES TARANTO
June 4, 2008
Last night, as Barack Obama was donning the mantle of Democratic nominee presumptive, this story appeared on WorldNetDaily.com1:
Sen. Barack Obama employed and continues to employ senior staffers who belong to the Nation of Islam, and the presidential candidate has some "worrying" ties to the controversial group headed by Louis Farrakhan, a former key Obama insider told WND.
The former insider, who spoke on condition of anonymity, expressed particular concerned that Obama employed at least two Nation members in his early days as a state senator, when his office was staffed by only a handful of workers. . . .
The former insider confirmed Obama is directly aware of the Nation of Islam members on his staff.
"A key constituency for Obama was Hyde Park, where Farrakhan lives. To be successful politically in that area, you need to be involved with Farrakhan, since he's a strong power in the district," said the former insider.
A day earlier, London's Times2 reported that the Obama campaign "refused to comment on allegations that have surfaced in right-wing blogs that Mr Obama has employed a number of Nation of Islam members."
This reminded us of "The Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce," a 331-page memo produced by Clinton adviser Mark Fabiani over a decade ago. As David Plotz3 explained in a 1997 Slate piece:
According to the Clinton administration, this is how the Stream of Conspiracy courses its way through the media: "Well-funded right-wing think tanks and individuals" subsidize fringe media such as the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and the Western Journalism Center, which publish outlandish charges against Clinton. . . . These stories are "bounced all over the world" on the Internet and reprinted in British newspapers before they filter up to conservative American publications such as the Washington Times, the New York Post, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page. The news generated by their appearance prompts congressional investigations; congressional investigations lead to articles in mainstream newspapers; and voilà, we have a manufactured scandal!
Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Not exactly the same, of course: Since Obama is not president yet and his party runs Congress, there will be no congressional investigations. But as with other aspects of the Chicago South Side freak show--Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger--it seems only a matter of time before an Obama-Nation of Islam connection, if true, draws the attention of the mainstream media.
The Clintons, who once anathematized the vast right-wing conspiracy, seem to have taken an if-you-can't-beat-'em-join-'em approach. As we noted in March4, Hillary Clinton held a friendly meeting with Pittsburgh Tribune-Review publisher Dick Scaife. The paper later endorsed her ahead of the Pennsylvania primary. Her campaign also distributed a piece critical of Obama from The American Spectator, a magazine on which the Clinton administration once sicced a federal grand jury.
The WND piece about Obama and the Nation of Islam certainly looks like the product of Clinton opposition research. It could be Republican in origin, we suppose, but the timing--five months before the general election--does not seem ideal for John McCain. Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton has made clear that she is not throwing in the towel. Last night, after polls closed in the final two primaries (South Dakota, which Mrs. Clinton won, and Montana, which Obama won), she sent the following email to supporters:
Over the course of this campaign, I have seen the promise of America in your courage and character, your energy and ingenuity, and your compassion and faith.
Your spirit has inspired me every day in this race. While I traveled this country talking about how I wanted to help you--time and again, you reached out to help me. To grab my hand or grip my arm, to look me in my eyes and tell me, don't quit, keep fighting, stay in this race for us. There were days when I had strength enough for the both of us--and on the days I didn't, I leaned on you.
This has always been your campaign, and tonight, there's no one I want to hear from more than you. I hope you're as proud as I am of what we've done and that you'll take a moment to share your thoughts with me now at my website.5
I want to congratulate Senator Obama and his supporters on the extraordinary race that they have run. Senator Obama has inspired so many Americans to care about politics and empowered so many more to get involved, and our party and our democracy are stronger and more vibrant as a result.
Whatever path I travel next, I promise I will keep faith with you and everyone I have met across this good and great country. There is no possible way to thank you enough for everything you have done throughout this primary season, and you will always be in my heart.
Click on the link, and it takes you to a page where you can send this message to New York's junior senator: "I'm with you Hillary, and I'm proud of everything we are fighting for."
Note the verb tenses: perfect when describing the campaign, present when referring to the "fight." The Clintons are nothing if not precise in their choice of words.
The Associated Press6 reports that Mrs. Clinton "has told congressional colleagues she would be open to becoming Barack Obama's vice presidential nominee," and Maureen Dowd7 speculates on her motives:
Clintonologists know that Hillary is up to something, but they aren't sure what. Theory No. 1 is that it's the Cassandra "I told you so" gambit: She believes intensely that he's too black, too weak and too elitist--with all his salmon and organic tea and steamed broccoli--to beat her pal John McCain. But she has to pretend she'll do "whatever it takes," even accept the vice presidency, a job she's already had and doesn't want again, so that nobody will blame her when he loses on Nov. 4. Then she can power on to 2012.
Theory No. 2 is that it's a "Bad stuff happens" maneuver, exemplified in her gaffe about the R.F.K. assassination, that she figures that at least if she moves a few blocks from Embassy Row to the Naval Observatory, she'll be a heartbeat away from the job she's always wanted.
Actually, though, these are not competing theories, just multiple contingencies. Mrs. Clinton wants above all to be president. The easiest way to accomplish that would be for her to get the nomination this year. She has more or less blown her chances--but any small hope she still has rests in the possibility of Obama's being so damaged by the time of the convention that superdelegates, whose votes are decisive, switch back to her. This would be consistent with planting the Nation of Islam stories, and who knows what else to come.
If Obama is the nominee, Mrs. Clinton's prospects of becoming president would be greatly diminished if he won the general election. If Obama loses, then in 2012 Mrs. Clinton will be able to compete in a wide-open field to challenge President McCain: the oldest major-party presidential nominee in history, seeking his party's fourth term.
If Obama wins, things look much worse for Mrs. Clinton. In 2012 President Obama would be sure to seek re-election: The last incumbent president to pass up a run for a second term was Chester Arthur in 1884. Mrs. Clinton could mount an intraparty challenge to Obama, but even unpopular incumbents (Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter) generally win such fights.
If Obama wins re-election, the field would again be open in 2016. But if past is prologue, Obama's vice president would be the favorite for the Democratic nomination. Thus if Obama does win this November, Mrs. Clinton is more likely to become president if she is on the ticket with him.
What's more, Mrs. Clinton's open quest for the No. 2 spot is harmful to Obama whether it succeeds or not. Whatever he decides, someone is going to be unhappy about it.
To summarize, Mrs. Clinton maximizes her chances of becoming president if she (1) does enough damage to Obama to snatch the nomination away from him, (2) failing that, does enough damage to him to bring about his defeat in November, and (3) gets herself on the ticket, whether he wins in November or not.
Some will say Mrs. Clinton is being disloyal to her party if she undermines Obama's chances of winning in November. But maybe she just practices a different kind of party loyalty. After all, if you can be a patriot while hoping your country loses a war, why can't you be a loyal Democrat while hoping your party loses an election?
Keep It on the Down-Low8
Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mary Mitchell--last seen disapproving9 of Barack Obama's rejection of Jeremiah Wright's crackpot views--now defends Father Michael Pfleger, who became famous last week for his racist rant against Hillary Clinton:
Pfleger . . . has been a modern-day John Brown.
For those who are fuzzy about history, in 1859, Brown was the white abolitionist who led an attack on the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia, trying to arm blacks for an assault on slaveholders. . . .
Brown was hanged, but not before he challenged slaveholders with these poignant words:
"I pity the poor in bondage that have none to help them; that is why I am here; not to gratify any personal animosity, revenge or vindictive spirit. It is my sympathy with the oppressed and wronged, that are as good as you and as precious in the sight of God. . . . You may dispose of me easily, but this question is still to be settled--the negro question--the end of that is not yet." . . .
Because Obama is running as the post-racial candidate, there is little tolerance for painful conversations about racial wrongs, let alone the angry rhetoric by Wright or the mocking condemnation by Pfleger.
Indeed, until this thing is over, black activists, especially those even remotely associated with Obama, better not get caught saying a negative word about white people.
Pfleger himself gave an interview to Sun-Times religion columnist Cathleen Falsani10:
How, as a friend and passionate supporter of Obama's campaign for president, could he do what he did, with cameras rolling?
Pfleger's short answer? He didn't think the service and his "conversation"--a more casual address than a classic sermon, he explained--were being broadcast live online, as Trinity often does.
"They told me it was down," Pfleger said. "Their live streaming had been down all day, and they didn't know whether it was back up. . . . I regret the dramatization that I was naive enough to believe was just going to be kept among that church."
Some of Obama's hometown supporters seem to have the attitude that their own racial bigotry is just fine, even if it is unwise to express it publicly just now. Hey, didn't Obama give a big speech a few months ago introducing a big new initiative to reconcile the races? How's that coming along, Senator?
The Audacity of Hype11
Does Barack Obama actually believe he is the messiah? The Associated Press reports on his preposterous victory speech last night:
"I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless.
"This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth."
New Deal? Great Society? They're nothing! This was the moment when we finally "began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless"! And what is this nonsense about "our planet began to heal"? "Space Mum About Endorsement," reads a headline in the Newark (Ohio) Advocate12. Some people are reading too much science fiction.
Stay Away From Obama Creeps13
"Obama Creeps Past McCain in Opinion Poll"--headline, Agence France-Presse, June 3
'We're Divided!' 'No, We're Not, Damn You!'14
"Dems Split on Whether Party Is Divided, Energized"--headline, Associated Press, June 4
And Then There Were Two15
Remember Cindy Sheehan? Three summers ago, she became a cause célèbre when she reacted to her son's combat death in Iraq by becoming an anti-American activist, staging a goofy protest outside President Bush's Texas ranch. In August 2005 we wrote16:
The journalists will soon move on, and her political allies may do so as well. For them she is a mere instrument. The White House press corps will discard her as soon as they return to Washington where there's real news going on. Serious opponents of the war in Iraq will cast her aside if her foul statements make her an embarrassment. When that happens, we can only hope that someone still cares about Cindy Sheehan--not as a story or a symbol, but as a human being.
Last year Sheehan announced that she plans to run for Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco House seat. The apparently anonymous San Francisco Citizen blog has a photo of Sheehan campaigning outside City Hall. She is joined by a lone supporter, although it is claimed that she has two others.
"One man with courage makes a majority," Andrew Jackson is supposed to have said. He never met Cindy Sheehan. Frankly, we are still worried about her, and we hope that someone is looking after her.
Meet the Beetles17
The Times-Picayune reports on a new New Orleans museum, the Insectarium. A sidebar presents a "grab bag of facts," including these:
• More than 900,000 bugs, dead and alive, are on view.
• Bugs outnumber humans by 1.5 million to 1.
Do the arithmetic, and this comes out to three-fifths of a person--which is rather insensitive given that Louisiana was a slave state.
Life Imitates the Onion
• "Government Report on Illiteracy Copied Straight From Encyclopedia"--headline, Onion18, March 7, 2001
• "Valedictorian's Speech Plagiarized From the Onion"--headline, Naperville (Ill.) Sun19, June 3, 2008
His Salad Days Are Over20
"Sen. Byrd to Remain Hospitalized for Several Smore Days"--headline, Associated Press, June 3
'We Won't Take Any More of Your Briefs,' Justices Rule21
"High Court Limits Laundering Cases"--headline, Philadelphia Inquirer, June 3
Breaking News From 190022
"Researchers Find New Way to Attack Malaria"--headline, Reuters, June 3
News You Can Use23
"Single Boomers Enjoy Sex and Do Not Want to Wed: Poll"--headline, Reuters, June 3
Bottom Stories of the Day
• "Shatner Not Invited to Takei's Wedding"--headline, Internet Broadcasting Systems24, June 3
• "Former President Carter: I Will Endorse Obama"--headline, Associated Press25, June 3
• "Dutch Man Injures Posterior in Mooning Accident"--headline, Associated Press26, June 3
• "Foreign Reaction to Obama's Claim Is Favorable"--headline, New York Times27, June 5
The Dog Ate My Homework28
Actress Tatum O'Neal allegedly made a "bad decision to purchase Crack [cocaine] off a common street dealer," reports MonstersandCritics.com. But she has an excuse:
O'Neal has squarely blamed her arrest in New York on Sunday over the death of her dog, claiming the loss fueled her drug usage.
The actress . . . was arrested by police on Sunday night, after a narcotics team observed her dealing with a known drug dealer three blocks from her home in New York.
First, O'Neal claimed her drug purchase was "research" for a film role, but she has now claimed it was her dog's death three weeks ago that "set her off."
Meanwhile, Cincinnati's Enquirer29 reports on an animal alibi that failed:
A Clermont County man who claimed he tripped and fell onto a sleeping woman while trying to return a dog was sentenced to four years in prison Tuesday for gross sexual imposition and burglary. . . .
[Phillip] Daniel pleaded guilty to the July 3 offense, which occurred in a bedroom where the woman was sleeping with her boyfriend. Daniel claimed he was putting the dog in the bedroom when he tripped and fell on her.
If he wanted to make his story believable, he should have said he was putting the dog in the bedroom because he was concerned that otherwise the victim would end up on drugs.
URL for this article:
online.wsj.com |
