A dolt was manipulated. DUH! Rally 'round Obama!

Edmund Wright blames GW's current grief on GW's belief in his own ability to charm and cites the retention of Scott McClellan as proof.

The WSJ editorial connects McClellan's new book to a publisher with an ax to grind and agenda to mount and Peggy Noonan defends McClellan on the basis that we need more first hand accounts so historians have grist for their mills. I have Doug Feith's book and look forward to reading it. There is no comparison between the intellectual capacity of Feith and McClellan.

As for McClellan's book, he has every right to write a book and make some money assuming his timing is legitimate, which, in this case, I suspect it is not. If it is, he really is a bigger and duller dolt than Wright sees him to be. Why? Because it took McClellan three years to conclude he was duped and manipulated. Hell, the modern press secretary's job, sad as it may be, is all about defending and putting the best face on things. That is subtle manipulation.

FDR was a pro at manipulation as was JFK. Clinton was as well and was ably assisted by an adoring press which has now become increasingly embarrassed so they are now trashing Hillary which is easy to do because she is her own worst enemy. All presidents must resort to manipulation considering the vast array of forces that are arraigned against their succeeding. That is our system for better or worse.

It is ironic that McClellan finally discovered he had become, by his own admission,part of the manipulation process. DUH!(See 1, 1a and 1b.)

Kimberley Strassel advises McCain to run against another "Do Nothing Congress." Truman did it and won and perhaps McCain could as well. Truman also had an opponent whose mustache played a big role in his defeat as well as a picture of him fishing on a boat tied to the dock. Dewey never caught on outside of New York.

Certainly McCain will be blocked at every turn if he should win and then tries to be true to any conservative philosophy still left in his bones. The only way McCain will succeed is to meet Reid and Pelosi more than half way and on their terms because the Republicans probably won't have enough votes, after the election, to shelter him from any philosophical storm.

Congress will most likely continue to rule the next president and in their hands Obama will be putty and sharp left turns will become an ordinary occurrence.

Limbaugh may be correct in suggesting a McCain victory will simply prolong the Republican Party's shift away from Conservatism and make the rebuilding process, if there is to ever be one, longer in coming. Perhaps we are moving towards having two Liberal parties - one for real (Democrats) and one Liberal Light (Republicans).

As I recently pointed out when you accept another person's premise in the mistaken belief you can then massage it and alter it you are dead from the git go. You cannot agree with what someone says if you do not accept the premise on which what they say is based. You cannot buy their tree's leaves and ignore the roots.

Obama talks one way and acts the other when it comes to staffing and support for Israel, but then that seems to be a pattern governing much of what he says and then does. (See 2 below.)

New Polosi strategy is to move for quick nomination. Very Democratic of this Democrat. Avoiding a party brouha is more important than allowing the game to be played to its conclusion . At the same time Democrats are trying to deflect the controversy Obama continues having with ministers from his church's pulpit by typing Hagee to McCain. World of difference but politics is politics.

I suspect Pelosi and Reid will eventually regret their strong arm tactics because it is likely to build more resentment than calm the troubled waters. What Pelosi and Reid are doing is displaying back room politics out in front for all to see.

Obama realizes he in the position of walking a tight rope and is now about taking his message to Hillary supporters while her body is warm and yet to be buried. That might be seen as over-reaching and arrogance on his part and could back-fire but Pelosi and Reid, who have performed so brilliantly in their respective job as evidenced by Congress' rating even below GW's, are certain time will knit the raveled sleeve of care and party faithfuls will rally round Obama's tattered flag.(See 3 below.)

1) Blame Bush for McClellan
By C. Edmund Wright

Has there ever been as much chatter among the pundits about someone as light weight, un-talented, inconsequential (and utterly predictable) as Scott McClellan? I mean, who was he again? Oh yeah, that boring, un-engaged pasty little white dude who mumbled through the daily press briefings after Ari Fleisher and before Tony Snow. I remember him now. I used to wonder how in the world it was that the President found someone so totally unimpressive to help fight his media battles.

Then I remembered: McClellan was a more appropriate as Press Secretary for the New Tone President than either his predecessor or successors. After all, the New Tone (which is short for uni-lateral surrender to your political enemies) logically leads to Presidential front man who is totally ineffective. Allow me to present exhibit A: Scott McClellan.

And now the verdict is in. McClellan and the New Tone can both be declared unequivical disasters. In a 50-50 country, it takes some real doing to have a 26% approval rating. That's sort of like 38 over par on a putt-putt course. It is unimaginably bad and McClellan was part of the team that crafted it.

So bad, in fact, that the Prez actually had to let him "pursue other opportunities." (In the real world, we call that "firing." In Washington, it means writing a vindictive tell all book). For one of the Texas gang to screw up so badly that they had to be jettisoned says something...since this is a President who would ride Texas loyalty straight to the bottom of the political abyss. For some reason he valued that loyalty over his Presidency...and oh by the way the country. Still, McClellan was so ill suited that he was canned anyway.

And now Bush and his inner circle are "shocked" that Scottie would do this to them. And they were shocked that Ted Kennedy did not like them after they let him write the education bill. Shocked that their new tone never did work in charming the likes of Pelosi and Reid and Daschle and Durbin and Schumer, not to mention Matthews and Rather and Williams and Gibson.

They are all shocked because one thing has been consistent about this President: his "misoverstimation" of his own charm and its effect on those around him -- political allies and enemies alike. This misoverstimation is the psychosis behind the New Tone, the Kennedy Education Bill, looking into the soul of Vladimir Putin, the whole misguided concept of "compassionate conservatism"....and the belief that elevating little worms like McClellan to heights far beyond what their talents merit will be repaid with kindness.

I actually did like the President at one time, but started finding him hard to stomach when the New Tone appeared. I was insulted (horrified, actually) that Bush didn't understand that conservatism is compassion and that "compassionate conservatism" is actually liberalism. I never liked Kennedy's education bill or thought he would like us for it. I never trusted Putin as someone we can "do business with."

And I never thought McClellan was worth a damn. I am not surprised that he's now cashing in on his former position with this post defacto "harrmph" of indignation. Afterall, in the real world, folks who are elevated beyond their capabilities do one thing predictablly when they start to slip in stature; they sell whoever and whatever down the river to maintain their status, because they surely cannot do it on their own talent. McClellan may no longer be welcome in the Oval Office, but he's a star in Keith Olbermann's green room.

Consider: this presidency reached a point in 2001 and 2002 where the President was winning battles because his opponents "mis underestimated" him. Now it is crashing and burning at the finish because he is mis-overestimating himself. And an argument can be made that he's taking the party and the country down with him. Frankly, that Texas charm is wearing a bit thin.

1a) DECLARATIONS
By PEGGY NOONAN



But Is It True?
May 30, 2008

Leave him alone. He wrote a book. It is true or untrue, accurately reported or not. If not, this will no doubt be revealed. It is honestly meant and presented, or not. Look to the assertions, argue them, weigh and ponder.

That's my first thought. My second goes back to something William Safire, himself a memoirist of the Nixon years, said to me, a future memoirist of the Reagan years: "The one thing history needs more of is first-person testimony." History needs data, detail, portraits, information; it needs eyewitness. "I was there, this is what I saw." History will sift through, consider and try in its own way to produce something approximating truth.
[But Is It True?]
AP
Scott McLellan, during a daily briefing as White House press secretary, 2005.

In that sense one should always say of memoirs of those who hold or have held power: More, please.

Scott McClellan's book is the focus of such heat, the target of denunciation, because it is a big story when a press secretary breaks with a president. This is like Jody Powell turning on Jimmy Carter, or Marlin Fitzwater turning on Reagan. That is, it's pretty much unthinkable. And it's a bigger story still when such a person breaks with his administration not over many small things but one big thing, in this case its central and defining endeavor, the Iraq war. The book can be seen as a grenade lobbed over the wall. Thus the explosive response. He is a traitor, turncoat, betrayer, sellout. If he'd had any guts he would have spoken up when he was in power.

I want to quote his defenders, but he doesn't have any.

Those in the mainstream media who want to see the president unmasked, who want to see the administration revealed as something dark, do not want to be caught cheering on the unmasker.

The left, while embracing the book's central assertions, will paint him as a weasel who belatedly 'fessed up. They're big on omertà on the left. It's part of how they survive.

The right will—already has—pummel him for disloyalty. But those damning him now would have damned him more if he'd resigned on principle three years ago. They—and the administration—would have beaten him to a pulp, the former from rage, the latter as a lesson: This is what we do when you leave ugly.

And Americans in general have a visceral and instinctive dislike for what Drudge called a snitch. This is our tradition, and also human nature.

So Mr. McClellan defends himself in the same way he defended the administration, awkwardly. He could not speak earlier because he did not oppose earlier; he came to oppose with time and on reflection. He is trying, now, to tell the truth.

He is a man alone, "a pariah," as Matt Lauer put it.

He does not appear to have written his book to bolster his reputation. He paints himself as a loser. "I didn't stay true to myself"; he loved "the theatre of political power" and "found being part of the play exciting"; he tried to play "the Washington game" and "didn't play it very well." But soon the mea culpa becomes a you-a culpa.

He has nothing to say, really, about the world he entered, about what it was to be there. His thoughts present themselves as clichés. Working in the White House is "a wow." Seeing it lit up at night "never got old." He'll never forget where he was on 9/11. He claims he was taught to "communicate" by Karen Hughes. This is all too believable. I did learn that the word visit— "Got a moment to visit?"—is apparently Texan for "I'm about to kill you" or "Let's conspire."

The book is not quite a kiss-and-tell, smooch-and-blab or buss-and-bitch. It is not gossipy, or fun, or lively. It is lumpy, uneven and, when he attempts to share his historical insights—the Constitution, he informs us, doesn't mention the word "party"— embarrassing.

And yet the purpose of the book is a serious one. Mr. McClellan attempts to reveal and expose what he believes, what he came to see as, an inherent dishonesty and hypocrisy within a hardened administration. It is a real denunciation.

He believes the invasion of Iraq was "a serious strategic blunder," that the decision to invade Iraq was "a fateful misstep" born in part of the shock of 9/11 but also of "an air of invincibility" sharpened by the surprisingly and "deceptively" quick initial military success in Afghanistan. He scores President Bush's "certitude" and "self-deceit" and asserts the decision to invade Iraq was tied to the president's lust for legacy, need for boldness, and grandiose notions as to what is possible in the Mideast. He argues that Mr. Bush did not try to change the culture of the capital, that he "chose to play the Washington game the way he found it" and turned "away from candor and honesty."

Mr. McClellan dwells on a point that all in government know, that day-to-day governance now is focused on media manipulation, with a particular eye to "political blogs, popular web sites, paid advertising, talk radio" and news media in general. In the age of the permanent campaign, government has become merely an offshoot of campaigning. All is perception and spin. This mentality can "cripple" an administration as, he says, it crippled the Clinton administration, with which he draws constant parallels. "Like the Clinton administration, we had an elaborate campaign structure within the White House that drove much of what we did."

His primary target is Karl Rove, whose role he says was "political manipulation, plain and simple." He criticizes as destructive the 50-plus-1 strategy that focused on retaining power through appeals to the base at the expense of a larger approach to the nation. He blames Mr. Rove for sundering the brief post-9/11 bipartisan spirit when he went before an open Republican National Committee meeting in Austin, four months after 9/11, and said the GOP would make the war on terror the top issue to win the Senate and keep the House in the 2002 campaign. By the spring the Democratic party and the media were slamming back with charges the administration had been warned before 9/11 of terrorist plans and done nothing. That war has continued ever since.

Mr. McClellan's portrait of Mr. Bush is weird and conflicted, though he does not seem to notice. The president is "charming" and "disarming," humorous and politically gifted. He weeps when Mr. McClellan leaves. Mr. McClellan always puts quotes on his praise. But the implication of his assertions and anecdotes is that Mr. Bush is vain, narrow, out of his depth and coldly dismissive of doubt, of criticism and of critics.

If that's what you think, say it. If it's not, don't suggest it.

When I finished the book I came out not admiring Mr. McClellan or liking him but, in terms of the larger arguments, believing him. One hopes more people who work or worked within the Bush White House will address the book's themes and interpretations. What he says may be inconvenient, and it may be painful, but that's not what matters. What matters is if it's true. Let the debate on the issues, not the man, commence.

What's needed now? More memoirs, more data, more information, more testimony. More serious books, like Doug Feith's. More "this is what I saw" and "this is what is true." Feed history.

1b) Women Scorned
By E. J. Dionne

WASHINGTON -- How much anger is there among women about how Hillary Clinton has been treated during this campaign? Some of the nation's leading female politicians will tell you: quite a lot.

"From the beginning, she's been treated very badly," says Therese Murray, the president of the Massachusetts Senate. "No woman would have run with Obama's resume. She wouldn't have been considered." But Clinton has been "demonized by the press and the talking heads. How do you get away with that?"

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., says she is regularly approached "by women of all races, of all ages, of all faiths. They stop me, grab my hand and say, 'Look what they've done to her, we were so close.' They wanted this for their daughters and granddaughters. ... It's so heartbreaking."

For Rep. Darlene Hooley, D-Ore., the symbol that "sexism reigns supreme" was in the wide availability of offensive anti-Hillary paraphernalia in stores and on the Internet. For Barbara Johnson, president of the Minneapolis City Council, Clinton may have been the victim of "ageism" as much as sexism. The message, she said, was: "Your time is past, it's time for somebody new to take your place."

Many women, said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., "knew we had made many strides. They asked, 'Aren't we past this? What's going on?' They're not happy with what they see as sexism, permitted by the media and in some cases encouraged by the media."

If there is good news for Barack Obama in any of this, it is that the rage felt by Clinton's female supporters is directed in large part toward the media. "The anger is aimed much more at you all," said Lt. Gov. Elizabeth Roberts of Rhode Island. Added Murray: "Obama wouldn't have gotten to where he got today if it weren't for the bias of the male media -- no offense."

It's true that campaigns and political movements use anger as a bargaining chip. The message is: Appease us or we will cause trouble. The Clinton campaign is hoping that such rage will strengthen its hand in the battle to seat pro-Clinton Michigan and Florida delegations at the party's national convention, even though those states held early primaries in violation of party rules.

But the conversations I had this week with prominent female politicians from around the country who support Clinton suggest that the fury and disappointment is about more than short-term maneuvering. In many cases, it is rooted in the empathy of women who themselves broke gender barriers at various levels of politics.

Murray, for example, is the first woman to lead the Massachusetts Senate. Hooley was the first woman on the City Council in West Linn, Ore., and the first woman elected as a commissioner of Clackamas County. Johnson says proudly that she is the second woman to serve as president of the Minneapolis City Council. Her mother was the first.

"She (Clinton) is striking a chord among women who have been involved in politics for a long time and who have been waiting for a long time," said Nancy Kopp, Maryland's treasurer.

Female politicians feel for Clinton as someone who regularly faces questions male politicians would never be asked. When a reporter queried Roberts about "my brand of lipstick and what color was it," she revealed the vital information -- "Revlon Number 235" -- but noted that "some of my supporters were offended that she asked me."

These are professional politicians, so they know that Clinton is on the verge of defeat because of her campaign's organizational mistakes, its failure to take Obama seriously early on, and the difficulties created by her husband's presence. Roberts points to an age split among women, noting that her 19-year-old daughter Kathleen is a staunch Obama supporter. Obama, Kopp said, clearly has a strong appeal "among younger women, though that's true among many older women, too."

Indeed, Obama has the support of many prominent female elected officials, notably Sens. Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, and Govs. Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas. He won significant female support in the primaries, carrying a majority of the women's vote in 13 states and splitting it evenly with Clinton in Wisconsin.

Nonetheless, even these very pragmatic female politicians who very much want a Democrat to win the White House are looking for signs of "understanding and respect," said Kopp.

"It's a campaign, someone wins, someone doesn't win, that's life," she said. "But women don't want to be totally dissed."

2) Bonior Joins Obama Team as Latest Anti-Israel Campaign Official


The Obama campaign announced former Rep. David Bonior will be representing them at the Democratic National Committee meeting this weekend in Washington, D.C. As a Congressman, David Bonior was known for his strong opposition to pro-Israel policies, being called by some "the biggest supporter of the anti-Israel Arab lobby in Congress."[1] Bonior is the latest in a string of advisors and campaign officials to Barack Obama that harbor anti-Israel views.

"Barack Obama's path to strengthening ties with the Jewish community is severely blocked when appointing an anti-Israel figure like David Bonior. While in Congress, Bonior refused to stand by Israel after repeated terrorist attacks, was known as a stalwart opponent to Israel, and is now a representative for Barack Obama. Bonior's appointment is the latest in a series that raises serious questions and doubts about Barack Obama's positions and judgments on the Middle East."

During his Congressional career, David Bonior repeatedly opposed pro-Israel legislation. In 1997, David Bonior was one of 15 Congressmen who signed a letter asking then-President Clinton to pressure Israelis into making concessions to the Palestinians. In 2002, David Bonior was one of only 21 Congressmen who opposed H.R. 392, which publicly affirmed Congress's support of Israel's right to self-defense and called for the dismantling of the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure.[2] In 1990, David Bonior was one of only 34 Congressman to vote against a measure naming Jerusalem as the united capital of Israel.[3] In 1989, Bonior was one of six House members to vote against a bill that prevented US funds from going to UN entities that granted the PLO membership.[4] Throughout his career, Bonior repeatedly opposed US aid to Israel and supported arms sales to Arab states opposed to Israel's existence.

"The appointment of yet another anti-Israel advisor like David Bonior to represent Barack Obama speaks volumes to the Jewish community. The pattern
including Tony McPeak, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Robert Malley continues with
this appointment. It's no wonder the Jewish community remains deeply skeptical and troubled by Barack Obama."


[1] Jonathan Tobin, Jewish World Review, 7/12/99.

[2] H.R. 392, "Expressing Solidarity with Israel in its Fight
against Terrorism", May 2002, 352-21 (29 voting present).

[3] H.R. 290, "In support of a unified Jerusalem", Apr. 1990,
378-34 (6 voting present).

[4] H.R. 2145, "Prohibiting US Contributions to the United
Nations Under Certain Condititons", May 1989, 396-6 (11 voting present).

3) WASHINGTON - Democratic leaders are pushing for a quick end to their party's grueling presidential nomination battle, days ahead of the final primaries and a key party meeting. Supporters of Hillary Rodham Clinton planned a weekend rally in hopes of saving her faltering candidacy.


Barack Obama is now within striking distance of the nomination after a combative months-long campaign that some top Democrats worry could harm the party's chances of winning the White House. Republican John McCain effectively wrapped up the Republican nomination in March.

As Obama worked to mend fences with Clinton and her supporters, he looked to defuse the latest controversy involving a clergyman — a supporter's sermon mocking the former first lady.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that he, House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi and party chairman Howard Dean will urge uncommitted superdelegates — the party leaders and others who may choose whomever they like — to choose sides quickly so that there is not a fight at the August convention.

"By this time next week, it will all be over, give or take a day," Reid said Thursday.

Democratic officials said Pelosi already has begun contacting uncommitted House members urging them to weigh in soon after the primary season ends.

There are just three primaries remaining — Puerto Rico on Sunday and Montana and South Dakota on Tuesday.

Obama picked up two more superdelegates Friday, bringing him within 42 delegates of clinching the nomination, according to The Associated Press tally, and leads Clinton by 200 delegates. He has 1,984, to her 1,782, out of the 2,026 necessary for the nomination.

Obama stands to gain a minimum of roughly 20 delegates in the three remaining primaries under party rules that distribute them in proportion to the popular vote — even if he loses all three.

Both Democrats focused on the remaining primaries Friday. Clinton was meeting with voters in Puerto Rico, and Obama — who earlier in the week campaigned in western states that will be key in the general election — was holding a rally in Montana.

Clinton is now hoping that leaders at a meeting of the party's rules committee on Saturday will decide to seat the delegations from Michigan and Florida, whose primaries were voided when they were moved into January in violation of party rules.

Her supporters are mobilizing for protests outside the Washington hotel where the committee is meeting. Clinton has threatened to campaign to the convention if she is not satisfied with the meeting results.

At least several busloads of Clinton supporters were anticipated from Florida and perhaps scores of people from Michigan as well as demonstrators from various parts of the United States. Barack Obama's campaign discouraged a counterprotest, although his supporters vied with Clinton backers for the limited public seats inside the meeting. People in those seats cannot bring in signs or banners or disrupt the meeting, party officials said.

The party must handle the situation delicately. It wants to enforce discipline and not shift the campaign's momentum, but must avoid alienating Clinton's supporters and lose a chance at capturing two swing states that have the potential to go Republican.

Obama's campaign is willing to give Clinton the major share of delegates from Florida and Michigan, but is stopping short of her demand to fully recognize the two renegade states. Clinton won both, but both Obama and Clinton agreed not to campaign for the Florida primary and Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan.

Nationally, Obama has developed a clear lead over Clinton — 54 percent to 41 percent, a Pew Research Center poll conducted May 21-25 shows. That is a change from April, when the same poll found he and Clinton were running about even.

When matched against McCain, Obama is now running about even among all voters; he has had a narrow advantage over McCain most of the year.

McCain, a decorated Navy pilot and former Vietnam prisoner of war, has built much of his candidacy on his foreign policy and national security experience. While he supports continued U.S. military involvement in Iraq, Obama has called for a quick withdrawal of the troops. He made his only trip to Iraq in January 2006 as part of a congressional delegation.

In the latest campaign controversy to involve a clergyman, Obama said he was "deeply disappointed" by a priest's sermon at his church that mocked Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The Rev. Michael Pfleger, a Chicago activist who supports Obama, also apologized for last Sunday's sermon at Obama's church, in which he said Clinton's eyes welled with tears before the New Hampshire primary because she felt "entitled" to the Democratic nomination and because "there's a black man stealing my show."

Obama has cut ties with his former pastor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who was blasted for his sermons blaming U.S. policies for the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks and calls of "God damn America" for its racism.

McCain rejected endorsements from two evangelicals. The Rev. John Hagee has been criticized as anti-Catholic, but McCain rejected his endorsement only after a Web site unearthed a sermon Hagee gave portraying Hitler as a tool God used to deliver Jews to the promised land. McCain disowned the Rev. Ron Parsley's endorsement after ABC News reported that he had called Islam an "anti-Christ" religion.