Wild Card

We've all heard - incessantly - that Hillary Clinton is THE front-runner for the 2008 presidential nomination. We've all watched as many others have been positioning themselves for a try at the prize. Whether it's Feingold trying for a bit of camera time with a censure measure of John "Hey, I have a hat" Kerry repositioning his last reposition, there's a bunch of people lining up.

Now, just to add a bit of fun to the whole festivities, the Washington Post suggests there is yet another player. Barack Obama.

Obama, a first-term Democratic senator from Illinois, seems to be hitting the right notes these days. During Senate recesses, he has been touring the country at breakneck pace, basking in the sudden fame of a politician turned pop star. Along the way, he has been drawing crowds and campaign cash from Democrats starved for a fresh face and ready to cheer what Obama touts as "a politics of hope instead of a politics of fear."

His office fields more than 300 requests a week for appearances. One Senate Democrat, curious about Obama's charisma, took notes when watching him perform at a recent political event. State parties report breaking fundraising records when Obama is the speaker.

The money he is bringing in for fellow Democrats is shaping up as an important influence on 2006. And the potential Obama is demonstrating as a political performer — less than two years after his elevation from the Illinois state legislature — is prompting some colleagues to urge him to turn his attention to 2008 and a race for the presidency. Obama has made plain he is at least listening.

"I think he is unique," said Illinois's senior senator, Richard J. Durbin (D). "I don't believe there is another candidate I've seen, or an elected official, who really has the appeal that he does." As for the 2008 presidential race, "I said to him, 'Why don't you just kind of move around Iowa and watch what happens?' I know what's going to happen. And I think it's going to rewrite the game plans in a lot of presidential candidates if he makes that decision."

Obama deflects such talk, while not ruling out a presidential candidacy. The speculation is as much a commentary on the state of the party as it is on Obama. The Democrats' most prominent likely contenders — such as Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and John F. Kerry (Mass.) — are figures who have been in the public eye for many years and wear scars from earlier controversies.

At age 44, the former Harvard Law School standout has little baggage. But Obama also has a scant legislative record in the Senate, where some members privately say they view him as drawn to news conferences and speeches more than to the hard details of lawmaking.

He has yet to carve out a distinctive profile on the policy and ideological debates that are central to how Democrats will position themselves in a post-Bush era.

It goes on from there and expresses great optimism for Obama. What little cautionary notes there are in the article are pretty faint. Obama comes across in the article rather well, by the way.

However.

Just to point out the obvious here; as well as he is received right now, that is at gatherings of a few thousand at best. Regardless of his rock star status in the fundraising circles of the party right now, he's still very new and has a fairly low name recognition. More importantly, he's a Senator.

And Senators have dismal track records for getting elected President.

A Hint At What Is Wrong

The Washington Post has a story that shows what is being missed in the illegal immigration debate. It starts off with the arrest of three brothers trying to get into the country. They are caught, brought before a judge and sentenced to 15 days in jail before being deported. One brother had this to say to the judge:

"I'm sorry," Juan Carlos Ordaz-Valtierra, 27, said through an interpreter as he stood before U.S. Magistrate Judge Dennis G. Green. "I didn't think it was this difficult to cross into your country."

He's not sorry he's done something illegal. He's sorry it's hard to do the illegal action.

Believe it or not, this is an improvement - the people caught are actually sent to jail for between 15 and 180 days, then deported. Prior to the crackdown, they were just released.

It wasn't. But this year, a 190-mile stretch of riverbank that includes the small border cities of Eagle Pass and Del Rio became a "zero-tolerance zone." If apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol, illegal immigrants are prosecuted by federal authorities for a misdemeanor, sent to jail for 15 to 180 days and then deported. If they are caught illegally entering the country a second time, they are eligible for a felony charge of illegal entry and as much as two years in federal prison.

"Catch and release" — in which Mexican citizens are returned promptly to Mexico, but citizens of other countries are given a notice to appear in immigration court at a later date, set free and never tracked down by authorities — would end here, said Department of Homeland Security officials at a Washington news conference this year. "Catch and remove" would start. And, officials predicted, as this tough policy became known, immigrants would be discouraged from crossing through this slice of southwest Texas.

We have a bigger problem than a lot of people realize at this point. We have been very tolerant for a lot of years and we are now paying for that with people who are sorry we have made it difficult for them to break our laws. Increasing security at only one point on the border simply shifts the problem elsewhere.

But as with many border enforcement programs, the positive effects are often offset by negative consequences. "It's plugging one hole here and creating holes somewhere else," said one federal official who asked not to be identified because he is involved in enforcing the program. "If it's only done right here, everybody might go elsewhere."

That appears to be happening. While border crossings are down in Del Rio and Eagle Pass, Border Patrol spokeswoman Maria Valencia said apprehensions between Oct. 1 and Wednesday increased by 9 percent in Laredo, the neighboring sector. Apprehensions for the same period increased by 24 percent in the San Diego and El Centro, Calif., sectors and by 20 percent in El Paso. "Everything has shifted over," she said.

Back to the same, old argument then. We must get control of the entire border first and foremost. Everything else is  negotiable after that - but close the border - now.

Word From The Street In Iraq

Omar from Iraq The Model reports that the first part of the crackdown in Baghdad did indeed slow the violence. Then the terrorists figured out how to adjust and pulled off more attacks. I suspect this is going to continue in this pattern for a while. Security forces will make a move, terrorists will figure out a way around that move and resume attacks.

My guess is that the terrorists/insurgents were frightened by the size of the operation and the amount of troops deployed but they were able to check the pulse of the new security measures and adjust accordingly, thus was the period of relative calm we had in Baghdad during the first two or three days between Wednesday and Friday.

The terrorists apparently were able to study the geographic distribution of checkpoints and a)find safe routes to move around and carry out their attacks without passing through checkpoints, and b)make the checkpoints themselves targets for their attacks.

I will not say Forward Together has failed as it's still early to make judgments but we will be waiting for the next phases of the operation which is the announced plans to disarm the city and attack the terrorists in their safe homes because that is the way to reduce violence.

The important thing is that there are a lot fewer terrorists than security forces.

I agree with Omar, the security forces need to adjust and keep adjusting and, more importantly, they must initiate actions. They must be the ones who force the terrorists to react. Put the bad guys on the defense and the superior numbers will drive them under. Some things will work pretty well, others won't. But the security forces have to seize the initiative and hold on to it.

The Iraqi government has proof, from the intelligence taken from Zarqawi's house, that wearing the terrorists down is working. Keep up the pressure and they will fail.

Storm

Weird Sky

This is something I don't recall ever seeing before. A scrap of rainbow directly overhead. It had not been raining, and it was just a streak that lasted a few minutes. I fooled with the contrast to make the rainbow stand out.

Argument By Motive

Tigerhawk has an interesting analysis on the latest diatribe by Juan Cole. I think it pretty well describes Cole's normal tactics.

American hawks tied to the Israeli Likud Party, such as Michael Ledeen and Michael Rubin, who are also trying to get up an American war on Iran, turn out to have the same goal as Zarqawi!
I'm not sure what "tied to the Israeli Likud Party" is supposed to mean — that Ledeen and Rubin have friends who support Likud? — but I do know that Michael Ledeen has never advocated war with Iran. He absolutely believes that Iran has been waging war on the United States directly and by proxy since 1979, and he also believes that we should be supporting Iranians who resist, or would resist, the regime of the Islamic Republic. There is no evidence, however, that Ledeen supports war with Iran, however extensive our moral or legal justification for war might be. Worried that I might have missed a call for war in Ledeen's voluminous writings, I confirmed his position by email this morning, something that Cole, who takes great umbrage when others (allegedly) mischaracterize his position, obviously did not do.

Cole would be vastly more persuasive if he did not mingle ad hominem attacks — false or otherwise — with his analysis. Unfortunately, Cole often impugns the motives of others rather than engaging them on the merits.

The funniest thing is the description of Cole's belief that there is some Rovian conspiracy to attack him on his "strengths".

Now, the last time I had cause to mention Cole, I received an odd little comment that frankly sounded like a sock puppet (the phrasing was interesting, shall we say) and that traced back to a Michigan ISP. Let's see what I get this time.

Shuttle To Launch July 1st

NASA announced today that STS-121 will be launched on July 1st. The much delayed launch of Discovery was finally agreed to after several days worth of meetings.

The most contentious debate at the meeting focused on whether the shuttle's external tank should undergo further changes in 34 areas called ice-frost ramps. About 35 pounds of foam already have been removed from an area of the tank where a 1-pound piece of foam fell off during last July's launch of Discovery. NASA described it as the aerodynamic change ever made to the shuttle's launch system.

Some members of NASA's safety office said at the meeting that the shuttle shouldn't fly until more foam around the ice-frost ramps are removed. Top managers, however, countered that the shuttle should fly with only one major modification to the tank at a time.

My engineering background says that is the right decision. You don't want to make a whole lot of changes all at once without seeing what other things change when you change one variable.

101st Blog Of The Day

Today my mission to visit one member of the fighting 101st each day took me over to Strata-Sphere. Where A. J. Strata is beating holy heck out of the Democrats new direction. Which as near as I can tell is following a slightly different road to Loserville. But that's only one of many posts.

I Flunk, Therefore I Sue

Leave it to the French to raise entitlements to an unheard of level. Now, students who fail exams can sue for damages. 

PARIS (Reuters) - The nephew of a former Socialist minister has successfully sued the French state after failing a philosophy exam because his teacher rarely showed up in class.

In the first ruling of its kind in a country as protective of its public employees as its intellectual roots, the student won his case after his failure to recognise German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer deprived him of a top graduate school place.

Jerome Charasse, whose uncle Michel Charasse served as budget minister under late President Francois Mitterrand, scored a poor 6 out of 20 in philosophy despite getting good grades in the rest of his baccalaureate high school exams.

I'd say 6 out of 20 has a bit more to do with the student than the teacher. But think of the philosophical implications. "We succeed by failing!". Until the whole system fails. Which shouldn't be long now, I imagine.

Lethal Weapon Update

Last week you brought you the scintillating story of the woman who used a dead chihuahua puppy as a weapon to beat another woman over the head. As you may recall, the assailant had bought a puppy from a breeder. The puppy was too young and died before it could be returned. In an attempt to get a replacement puppy, a scuffle ensued and the dead puppy assault weapon was deployed.

Well, the St Louis Post-Dispatch reports that the assailant has been charged with trespassing and third-degree assault. The breeder has returned the money. No word on the weapon.

A Sense Of Peace

The US Navy believes it has found the remains of the World War II submarine USS Lagarto, lost in the last few months of the war. US Navy divers have found strong evidence that the wreck, found by a British diver, is the Lagarto based on several unique design features.

HONOLULU - For 60 years, Nancy Kenney wondered what happened to her father. The submarine that William T. Mabin was in disappeared while he and his crewmates were on a mission to attack a Japanese convoy in the last months of World War II.

Now, the Navy says a wreck found at the bottom of the Gulf of Thailand appears to be the sub, the USS Lagarto.

"I have never in my life, unequivocally, felt such a high," said Kenney, who was 2 years old when her father and the submarine did not return from their mission in May 1945.

"We can just feel a sense of relief and a sense of peace in knowing what happened and where they are," said Kenney, of Lake Leelanau, Mich.

Navy divers on Friday completed a six-day survey of the wreckage site. They took photos and video of the 311-foot, 9-inch submarine for further analysis by naval archeologists.

The divers found twin 5-inch gun mounts on the forward and rear parts of the ship — a feature believed to be unique to the Lagarto.

They also saw the word "Manitowoc" displayed on the submarine's propeller, providing a connection to the Manitowoc, Wis., shipyard that built the Lagarto in the 1940s.

Eighty-six sailors died when the Lagarto sank in May 1945. The Japanese minelayer Hatsutaka reported dropping depth charges and sinking a U.S. sub in the area, though it was never known what ship it destroyed.

The Navy has no plans to disturb the wreck, in keeping with it's traditional belief that the sea is a proper final resting place for those who die at sea. The wreck is about 100 miles off the coast of Thailand and is protected by International agreements.

Here is a picture of the Lagarto underway:

And here is a site dedicated to the Lagarto where you can read more about her and her crew.

"Bless those who serve beneath the deep,
Through lonely hours their vigil keep.
May peace their mission ever be,
Protect each one we ask of thee.
Bless those at home who wait and pray,
For their return by night and day."

(Submariner's verse to the Navy Hymn)

A Far From Safe Bet

Betting on American failure in Iraq. So says Victor Davis Hanson.

Lately, it has become popular to recant on Iraq. When 2,500 Americans are lost, and when the improvised explosive device monopolizes the war coverage, it is easy to see why — especially with elections coming up in November, and presidential primaries not long after.

Pundits now daily equivocate in their understandable exasperation at the apparent lack of quantifiable progress. The ranks of public supporters have thinned as final victory seems elusive. It is hard to find any consistent public advocates of the American effort in Iraq other than the editors and writers here at National Review, the Wall Street Journal, Christopher Hitchens, Charles Krauthammer, Mark Steyn, Norman Podhoretz, and a very few principled others.

But for all the despair, note all the problems for those who have triangulated throughout this war.

First, those who undergo the opportune conversion often fall prey to disingenuousness. Take John Kerry’s recent repudiation of his earlier vote for the war in Iraq. To cheers of Democratic activists, he now laments, “We were misled.”

Misled?

Putting aside the question of weapons of mass destruction and the use of the royal “we,” was the senator suggesting that Iraq did not violate the 1991 armistice accords?

Or that Saddam Hussein did not really gas and murder his own people?

Perhaps he was “misled” into thinking Iraqi agents did not really plan to murder former President George Bush?

Or postfacto have we learned that Saddam did not really shield terrorists?

Apparently the Iraqi regime neither violated U.N. accords nor shot at American planes in the no-fly zones.

Senator Kerry, at least if I remember correctly, voted for the joint congressional resolution of October 11, 2002, authorizing a war against Iraq, on the basis of all these and several other causus belli, well apart from fear of WMDs.

And that's only the warm-up. You should read the rest of the article. I've always been of the opinion that we had more than enough justification to go to war, solely on the cease-fire violations, so the WMD nonsense some people are spouting today is meaningless. That simply was never the sole justification. In the current media forgetfulness, they neglect to mention they were warning of the dangers our troops would be facing because everyone believed Iraq had the weapons. Kerry included.

As to betting on American failure, that's never been a good bet. We only lose when we let ourselves lose. Let's not do that.

More Violence In Iran

Gateway Pundit once again shames the MSM who simply cannot be bothered to look at what is going on inside Iran. There appear to be a number of clashes going on between government forces and protests which seem to be largely ethnic in nature (although not exclusively).

“To Put The National Interest Above Partisan Interest.”

Today's Washington Post has an article about Joe Lieberman and the Connecticut primary. It's quite interesting to read.

"I think we did the right thing in overthrowing Saddam, and I think we are safer as a result," he continued. "Second, while I have been very critical of the Bush foreign policy before the war and the Rumsfeld-Bush policies in Iraq after Saddam was overthrown, I also made a judgment I would not invoke partisan politics on this war."

That was the point of a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece Lieberman wrote last November endorsing the president's announced strategy to defeat the insurgency and establish a democratic government in Iraq. That article infuriated Lamont and launched his candidacy. "It was decisive," Lamont told me in an interview. "Lieberman suggested that the critics were undermining the credibility of the president. I thought he was wrong."

"My opponent says it broke Democratic unity," Lieberman said. "Well, dammit, I wasn't thinking about Democratic unity. It was a moment to put the national interest above partisan interest."

Sources in Connecticut tell me that momentum in the campaign is mostly with Lamont. Lieberman insists he can win the primary. But he has another option. Connecticut law says that he could run as an independent, but he would have to file 7,500 signatures the day after the primary.

He says he knows of no effort to gather signatures now. But he also says, "I want to put my whole record before the whole voting population of Connecticut" — clearly implying an independent run if he loses to Lamont in August.

I've stated all along that this primary was a bad idea for the Democrats. I know that's a position the netroots won't agree with - vehemently. Still, trying to to take a popular Senator out of what should be a safe seat because he doesn't agree with one position is ultimately going to cost the Democrats. By not being able to help other candidates while fighting for his own political life, the other candidates have it that much harder.

In the long run it comes down to Lieberman's last quote:

"I know I'm taking a position that is not popular within the party," Lieberman said, "but that is a challenge for the party — whether it will accept diversity of opinion or is on a kind of crusade or jihad of its own to have everybody toe the line. No successful political party has ever done that."

That says it all, I think.

UPDATE: Captain's Quarters Take is much the same as mine.

“I Don’t See Why People Care About Patriotism.”

Says Natalie Maines, lead singer for the Dixie Chicks in an interview in the Telegraph.

With their origins as bouffant-haired ingénues playing bluegrass music long forgotten, the Chicks are in Miami to attend a Sony BMG conference, where their new album, Taking the Long Way, is high on the corporate agenda. It's their first release since the group weathered the storm of outrage triggered by Maines's expression of shame that President Bush was from her home state of Texas. Although they've sold 30 million albums, the company was concerned about their commercial future.

When Maines made her comment on March 10 2003, 10 days before Operation Iraqi Freedom unleashed "shock and awe" over Baghdad, the Dixie Chicks were probably the biggest act in country music. Yet within days, their music vanished from the charts and the airwaves, apoplectic rednecks crushed piles of their CDs with tractors, and the FBI was feverishly monitoring death threats against the trio. It was the most heinous pop-star outrage since Ozzy Osbourne urinated on the Alamo.

….

The Chicks can't hide their disgust at the lack of support they received from other country performers. "A lot of artists cashed in on being against what we said or what we stood for because that was promoting their career, which was a horrible thing to do," says Robison.

"A lot of pandering started going on, and you'd see soldiers and the American flag in every video. It became a sickening display of ultra-patriotism."

"The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism," Maines resumes, through gritted teeth. "Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don't see why people care about patriotism."

There can be no rational explanation of how Maines's remark came to drive a red-hot poker into America's divided soul, but it's only now that some of the poison has begun to dissipate.

My guess is she just injected a new dose of poison into the whole situation. And this whole interview sums up exactly why, "the company was concerned about their commercial future".

Oh, and you don't have to question her patriotism anymore. She has none.

UPDATE: Others suitably impressed: Bullwinkle Blog, Freedom Watch USA, California Conservative, Below The Beltway, Hillbilly White Trash, Q and O, The Real Ugly American, Tammy Bruce, Sister Toldjah, The American Mind, PrairiePundit, Anti-Idotarian Rottweiler, Cold Fury, Donkey Cons,