From MadTV and Boston Legal: two great, funny, and pointed videos on Obama and Clinton to lighten up your evening.

After that witty clip, I may have to start watching Boston Legal…

Mike Allen of The Politico reports that former United States Senator Fred Thompson will likely enter the 2008 presidential race in the next month or two, and run a different and?unconventional type of campaign.

This is pretty unbelievable:

“What I believe is the starting place is to go back to the Clinton levels,” Mr. Edwards told reporters after addressing the 2,000 delegates to California’s state Democratic Party convention.

Edwards explained that raising taxes “back to their levels under the Clinton administration is a floor, not a ceiling, and he would consider even higher tax increases.”

Just as a reminder to everyone… here’s what the tax brackets looked like before Clinton got his hands on them:

15% – $0 to $35,800
28% – $35,800 to $86,500
31% – above $86,500

Oh, to return to the simpler times of tax brackets… *sigh* Here’s Clinton’s idea of good tax rates:

15% – $0 to $36,900
28% – $36,900 to $89,150
31% – $89,150 to $140,000
36% – $140,000 to $250,000
39.6% – above $250,000

And Edwards wants rates even higher than those! And finally, here’s what we’ve managed to do with the brackets currently:

10% – $0 to $15,650
15% – $15,650 to $63,700
25% – $63,700 to $128,500
28% – $128,500 to $195,850
33% – $195,850 to $349,700
35% – above $349,700

You can see how devastating going back to the Clinton tax brackets would be. For example, a family making $40 grand a year (pretty close to national average) would fall in the 15% bracket currently, but the 28% bracket under Edwards’ plan! Small businesses that are in the 33% bracket currently would fall into the 39.6% bracket under an Edwards administration.

Of course, I’ve gotta give credit to John Edwards for being up front with his plans and letting everyone know what he intends to do. We know all the Democrats (with the possible exception of Bill Richardson) would raise our taxes but most of them just lie about it. So kudos to Edwards for being honest. And for showing us exactly why we cannot elect him President.

Nothing really new from this latest critical article about Rudy Giuliani by Michael Wolff in Vanity Fair magazine – unless one hasn’t done their homework?when it comes to?the Mayor.

In the first quarter, Tommy Thompson loaned himself $75,000 of his own money to finance his campaign. Now, a campaign spokesman says that Thompson has loaned himself another $50,000 after funds continued to be slow coming in at the start of this second quarter.

This certainly isn’t a death knell for Thompson’s campaign – remember when a certain Mr. Kerry once had to loan his campaign $850,000 one month before the Iowa caucus – but it’s going to be tough spinning this in a positive light. Thompson has publicly declared he is putting all of his hopes on the Ames Straw Poll, and it’s hard to see how he can compete in the top tier with that kind of cash and that kind of trouble fund raising.

Makes one wonder if that $125,000 wouldn’t have been better spent on a Governor or Senate race in 2006…

Via Pollster.com, who evidently got the exclusive scoop (numbers in parentheses are from the end of March):

Giuliani – 28% (34)
McCain – 21% (17)
Romney – 11% (6)
F Thompson – 10% (10)
Gingrich – 6% (9)
All others – Less than 2%

In less than one month, Giuliani’s lead over McCain dropped from 17 points to just 7. Mitt nearly doubled his support, but is still far back from Rudy and J-Mac, and none of the second- or third-tier candidates are making any noise whatsoever.

On the Dem side, a similar narrowing is taking place:

Clinton – 36% (41)
Obama – 26% (17)
Edwards – 18% (19)
All others – low single digits

Well, well, well. I’ve been wondering for some time why I hadn’t heard much from Bernstein in the past several years and now I have my answer. If this book is as explosive as it sounds, it could have a huge effect on Hillary and the entire 2008 race:

Drawing on a trove of private papers from Hillary Clinton’s best friend, the legendary Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein is to publish a hard-hitting and intimate portrait of the 2008 presidential candidate, which will reveal a number of “discrepancies” in her official story.

Bernstein, who was played by Dustin Hoffman in the film All the President’s Men, has spent eight years researching the unauthorised 640-page biography, A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

“Bernstein reaches conclusions that stand in opposition to what Senator Clinton has said in the past and has written in the past,” said Paul Bogaards, a spokesman for Knopf, which publishes the book on June 19.

With the thoroughness for which he is famous, Bernstein spoke to more than 200 of Clinton’s friends, colleagues and adversaries. He stops short of accusing the New York senator of blatantly lying about her past, but has unearthed examples of where she has played fast and loose with the facts about her “personal and political life”, according to Knopf.

The book could revive the explosive charge, made earlier this year by David Geffen, a former Clinton donor and Hollywood mogul, that “the Clintons lie with such ease, it’s troubling”.

As Captain Ed notes, Hillary will have a hard time dismissing the book out of hand given Bernstein’s liberal leanings. Perhaps she’ll blame it on a new Vast Left Wing Conspiracy?

Gallup has released an aggregate of their March-April polling. The breakdown is as follows:

• Rudy Giuliani 35%
• John McCain 20%
• Fred Thompson 11%
• Newt Gingrich 8%
• Mitt Romney 6%
• Tommy Thompson 2%
• Ron Paul 2%
• Sam Brownback 2%
• Mike Huckabee 1%
• George Pataki 1%
• Tom Tancredo 1%
• Jim Gilmore 1%

Gallup has analyzed the numbers in terms of Ideology, Region, Age, Education, Gender, and Religion. Click here for the analysis.

This state poll shows Sen. McCain and Mayor Giuliani in a dead heat:

USA Polling Group Alabama GOP Primary Poll, conducted April 21st-25th 2007

• John McCain 23%
• Rudy Giuliani 22%
• Mitt Romney 12%
• Fred Thompson 10%
• Newt Gingrich 7%

All other candidates came in at under 4% and were not included in the story.

What we have all felt was coming has finally happened- Obama has passed Clinton:

For the first time in the Election 2008 season, somebody other than New York Senator Hillary Clinton is on top in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows Illinois Senator Barack Obama with a statistically insignificant two point advantage over the former First Lady. It’s Obama 32% Clinton 30%. Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards remains in third with support holding steady at 17%. No other candidate tops 3%. The survey was conducted April 23-26, 2007 meaning that the overwhelming majority of the interviews were completed before last Thursday’s debate in South Carolina. The impact of the debate will be measured in polling conducted this week.

Following a surprisingly strong fundraising report released at the end of March, Obama steadily gained ground during April. The last Rasmussen Reports poll released in March found Clinton enjoying a dozen-point lead. Since then, Clinton’s support has fallen seven percentage points while Obama’s total has increased the same amount. Obama now leads among voters under 40. Clinton is strongest among those 65 and older. Clinton has a two-point edge among Democrats. Obama has a nineteen-point lead among independents likely to vote in a Democratic primary.

Last week, the two top candidates were tied at 32%. Two weeks ago, Clinton had a two-point lead. Three weeks ago, it was Clinton by five. The week before that, the former First Lady was up by seven.

A separate surveyfound that Clinton is seen as politically liberal by 52% of American voters. Forty-four percent (44%) say the same about Obama while 39% see Edwards as politically liberal. Perceptions of Clinton’s ideology have shifted a bit closer to the political center in recent months. Obama has moved in the opposite direction more to the left.

However, while Clinton is seen as being somewhat to the left of Obama among all voters, that is not the case among Democrats. Democrats tend to view most of their leading candidates as politically moderate. Perceptions among Democrats of Clinton and Obama are very similar.

Of course, this is a national primary poll so we will have to see how Obama’s momentum translates to the more critical state polls. But the momentum itself is undeniable.

Last Thursday, Mitt Romney made an off-hand comment about Osama bin Laden that is coming back to haunt him now. Any scan of the 2008 race headlines shows multiple stories with this theme:

Mitt: Targeting Osama Not Worth It (Boston Herald)
Romney: bin Laden Not Worth Catching (Huffington Post)
Romney: Hunting bin Laden Not Worth It (AOL News)

And so on and so forth. Here’s what Romney actually said:

“It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.” American will be safer by “only a small percentage” and would see “a very insignificant increase in safety” if al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was caught because another terrorist would rise to power.

Now, I understand what Romney is trying to say here. I think. Al Qaeda is more than just Osama bin Laden. We recognize that. We take him out, someone else rises up to lead them, so tactically speaking there’s no difference.

However, I’ve got to disagree with this assessment on other non-tactic angles. To catch Osama bin Laden and put him to death (or those things in the opposite order would be fine by me as well) would be a huge morale lifter to American troops and to American citizens. It would be a psychological blow to al Qaeda and their network and a big psychological boost for Americans who are tired of this war. It would mean we finally get to stop hearing from the Democrats how the war in Iraq is distracting us from the war on terror (how many times have we heard, “Oh yeah? Well, where’s Osama bin Laden?).

To me, it is worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars to track down and kill the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. Oh, I get what Romney is saying. He supports a full dismantling of al Qaeda instead of just hunting one leader of al Qaeda. I get that. I get that in a pro/con list, it doesn’t make much sense to spend a lot of money to take one person out of the equation that means marginal increased security for America. But my sense of justice demands that we not give up hunting this rat.

When your two main rivals are both viewed as being stronger on defense issues that you are, it’s not wise to go around making statements like that one. Luckily, last week Romney also showed that despite that one comment, he truly understands the nature of this war on terror when he bemoaned the fact the Democrat debate didn’t focus enough on the “threat of global jihad” and also when he gave a speech comparing Ahmadinejad to Hitler.

I know Romney understands the nature of this war – in fact, I think deep down he understands it perhaps more greatly than any other single candidate. He understands it is a clash of civilizations. He understands and speaks clearly about the intent of the jihadists to institute a caliphate. He’s just got to get it right when it comes to bin Laden and stop making gaffes like this.

When a group of congresspersons visit a foreign jurisdiction together, they call it a Codel (congressional delegation). I think the GOP should find an entity or entities to finance what I will deem a Candel (candidate delegation) for all Republican presidential aspirants to visit Iraq together (so that they see the same things and speak with the same people) between their May 3 debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and their May 15 debate at the University of South Carolina.

Then let these Republican presidential candidates tell us on May 15 if they agree or disagree with what United States Senator Chuck Hagel tells Robert Novak he found on his recent visit to Iraq, and what their plans would be for this American intervention after what they have seen.

The war in Iraq has potential, if indeed it has not already manifest itself, as an impediment to prevent the GOP from winning the White House and seats in Congress in 2008, just as the Vietnam War similarly destroyed President Johnson and harmed the Democrat Party in 1968.

Like it or not, this is Issue One for federal candidates in 2008. So let all the GOP presidential candidates visit Iraq and return with their thoughts and ideas – sooner rather than later. Democrats are already pouncing on this issue, which is not only negatively impacting the GOP in terms of polling figures but more importantly in terms of fundraising and candidate recruitment. Certainly refusing to fund the troops and micromanaging withdrawal from Capitol Hill are horrible ideas, but opposing such concepts does not equate to an Iraq exit or regional Middle East strategy.

As an editorial matter, my gut tells me that Senator Hagel is closer to being correct about Iraq than President George W. Bush. Regardless, as a political matter, I am not sure the Republican Party can succeed in November of 2008 absent a presidential nominee who is willing to reconstitute and reinvigorate the party, eschewing much of what this administration and congressional Republicans have stood for in recent years, starting with the way in which the mess in Iraq has been handled.

Rudy Giuliani is making the right moves that Gamecock has demanded, expected and seen as essential if America’s Mayor is to be the next President of the United States.

He has followed the Reagan model in calling out the Democrats as weak on defense and socialists on domestic affairs. He is calling the liberals out for their advocacy of proven, failed policies at home and dangerous appeasement policies that cause no enemy or potential enemy of the US to tremble.

Rudy has also done some repairs to his laziness spawned disastrous musings on social issues by praising the Supreme Court’s recent case that upheld the federal ban on partial birth abortion; denouncing the procedure as barbaric as well as publicly disagreeing with New Hampshire’s new law that equates same sex civil unions with marriage which appears to this observer to be consistent with his past support for more narrowly defined civil union laws.

One cautionary note: The recent Who Would Jesus Pick? Wall Street Journal interview with Richard Land poses a great challenge to Rudy that he must meet. I found Dr. Land’s logic in opposing Rudy quite compelling on the character issue, as I find all of Dr. land’s logic on all issues. The leader of Southern Baptists is a much better gauge of what evangelicals think than Falwell, Robertson or any of the other Christian leaders that the MSM have demonized.

I think Rudy can overcome character questions arising from his failed marriages, etc. by pointing to his performance in office, but character does matter, and Rudy must go a long way towards satisfying the concerns raised by Dr. Land.

On the Democratic side, one of the major developments, predictably ignored by the MSM, is that all of the candidates have been forced to defend the barbaric procedure of partial birth abortion by the abortion lobby money that runs their party. Not one of the eight democrats on the stage in the Orangeburg, S.C. debate last week had the courage, or the inclination, to support the court’s decision, and most went out of their way to praise Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent in the case to buttress their identification of her as their “favorite” justice.

Its all on tape for commercials next fall. The Democratic nominee will be on record supporting partial birth abortion and McGovernite appeasment.

Therefore, given the above and more below, Gamecock’s power rankings, defined as who I think have the best chance of winning the nomination based on developments up to now and expected results after a campaign, are as follows:

GOP

1. Rudy Giuliani

2. (three-way tie)

a. Mitt Romney moves up with fundraising and organizational superiority; quick responses to events and great speeches and Reagaesque policy prescriptions.

b. Fred Thompson’s radio addresses filling in for Paul Harvey remind Gamecock of Reagan’s late 1970’s radio addresses that paved the way for his 1980 triumph. Especially impressive was his calling out of Iran for “acts of war” against the US in Iraq.

c. Despite some setbacks, John McCain shows himself to be a fighter and downright brilliant and inspiring on the war.

5. Mike Huckabee is a very inspirational speaker and made good showings in SC last week, but he will not be in the top tier because he is just too much of a nanny state big government “conservative.” He is good on abortion, but that will not be enough. He beats Brownback hands down because he is a war hawk, but no higher.

6. Sam Brownback lost the Southern evangelical vote when he went soft on the war.

Dems

Tied for last: Edwards and all but Hillary, Obama and Biden.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Venti Starbucks cups are dangerous, but, “One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008

The Influence Peddler has more on Rudy’s opposition to the civil unions bill recently passed by the New Hampshire legislature:

I don’t think this represents a change in position – at least as far as I can see, based on what he said on the O’Reilly Factor. The key lies in the reason the Mayor gives for opposing the new statute – which I’ve italicized. Note the very significant and deliberate use of the phrase ‘in this specific case.’

First, the New Hampshire legislation (text here) seeks to establish civil unions as the ‘equivalent of marriage’ – whatever that means. Giuliani has said that he favors civil unions as an alternative to marriage. That’s a semantic difference, but words mean things. Giuliani may be clarifying his position here, against laws that claim to give civil unions the same status as marriages.

Perhaps more importantly, the New Hampshire legislation might be considered to encourage gay marriages elsewhere, by recognizing gay marriages performed in other states. This could easily justify Giuliani’s statement that ‘this goes too far.’

Like many other issues currently before the Presidential candidates, we’ll have to look for more clarification as to exactly what this means.

After reading through the legislation in question, I tend to agree that Rudy’s view on this issue is something other than a flip-flop. The New Hampshire legislation does not simply put into place a mechanism allowing same-sex partners to enjoy the legal benefits of couplehood. It also requires the Granite State to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Not just domestic partnerships or civil unions from other states, but same-sex marriages. Here’s the bill in its own words:

457-A:8 Other Jurisdictions. A civil union or a marriage between a man and another man or a woman and another woman legally contracted outside of New Hampshire shall be recognized as a civil union in this state, provided that the relationship does not violate the prohibitions of this chapter.

As Rudy is opposed to changing the definition of marriage, it makes sense that he wouldn’t support a bill that would basically endorse same-sex marriage in the various states where it is currently available. This does much to calm my fears that Team Rudy was prepared to start beating up on gays in order deflect so-con attention from abortion. Rudy’s better than that, and I’m glad to see that’s not the road he’s heading down. I hope he never does.

I was catching up on today’s Hotline when I stumbled across this quote from South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford:

When we asked him about John McCain’s trip to SC this weekend, Sanford seemed confused: “To be honest, I didn’t know he was here.”

What’s going on here? I had assumed that Sanford was solidly in McCain’s corner based off his 2000 endorsement of McCain. But in that case, wouldn’t Sanford know of McCain’s high profile announcement tour through the state? Maybe Sanford is really keeping his options open during the primaries. It’s very interesting, nonetheless.

The merits of these polls have been discussed, debated, trashed, and otherwise beaten into the ground here at R4′08. But I would be remiss if I at least didn’t inform you that this stage in the campaign is now officially over. Lexington County held their straw poll last night (Romney won, McCain came in second and Giuliani third), and it was the very last one in the state. And there was much rejoicing.

So I will throw up the combined totals from every straw poll from across the state, and you can do whatever you’d like with them. Cheer. Boo. Mock. Gloat. Print them off and use them as toilet paper. We don’t care. I just report the facts, and you figure it out from there.

SC State-wide Straw Poll Results
Romney – 33.4%
McCain – 14.2%
Hunter – 11.8%
Giuliani – 11.7%
Huckabee – 9.7%
Brownback – 5.7%
F Thompson – 4.8%
Gingrich – 3.4%
Cox – 3.1%
Tancredo – 0.5%
T Thompson – 0.4%
Paul – 0.4%
Gilmore – 0.1%

All in all, I’d say fairly reasonable. Let’s see what the scientific polls say now.

According to Bob Novak, the race for 2008 just may give us a 240-plus-seat Democratic House:

Private House Democratic polls of the 50 most competitive congressional districts project a gain of 9 to 11 seats in the 2008 elections that would be an unprecedented further surge by the party following its 2006 gain of 30 seats that won control of the House.

All previous major surges of House seats have been followed by losses in the next election. The 54-seat Republican gain in 1994 that produced GOP House control was followed by an eight-seat loss in 1996. However, the current Republican political slump, fueled by President Bush’s unpopularity, would reverse that pattern if the election were held today, according to the Democratic polls.

The incumbent Republican House members who won by less than 2 percent of the vote in 2006 and are targeted for 2008 include Reps. Heather Wilson (N.M.), Deborah Pryce (Ohio), Mike Ferguson (N.J.), Jon Porter (Nev.), Jim Gerlach (Pa.) and Jean Schmidt (Ohio).

Keep in mind that it’s been nearly 6 months since the 2006 election, i.e., 25% of the ground has been covered between November of 2006 and November of 2008. And the Dems are ahead. Not good. And while we Republicans continue to have our necessary intraparty debate over issues like civil unions, what we often forget is that most swing voters have a real problem with something that most of us strongly support: Iraq. Bill Buckley’s latest piece on the Mesopotamian problem is both impenetrable and terrifying:

The opinion polls are savagely decisive on the Iraq question. About 60 percent of Americans wish the war ended wish at least a timetable for orderly withdrawal. What is going on in Congress is in the nature of accompaniment. The vote in Congress is simply another salient in the war against war in Iraq. Republican forces, with a couple of exceptions, held fast against the Democrats’ attempt to force Bush out of Iraq even if it required fiddling with the Constitution. President Bush will of course veto the bill, but its impact is critically important in the consolidation of public opinion. It can now accurately be said that the legislature, which writes the people’s laws, opposes the war.

…

It is simply untrue that we are making decisive progress in Iraq. The indicators rise and fall from day to day, week to week, month to month. In South Vietnam there was an organized enemy. There is clearly organization in the strikes by the terrorists against our forces and against the civil government in Iraq, but whereas in Vietnam we had Hanoi as the operative headquarters of the enemy, we have no equivalent of that in Iraq, and that is a matter of paralyzing importance. All those bombings, explosions, assassinations: we are driven to believe that they are, so to speak, spontaneous.

When the Romans were challenged by Christianity, Rome fell. The generation of Christians moved by their faith overwhelmed the regimented reserves of the Roman state. It was four years ago that Mr. Cheney first observed that there was a real fear that each fallen terrorist leads to the materialization of another terrorist. What can a “surge,” of the kind we are now relying upon, do to cope with endemic disease? The parallel even comes to mind of the eventual collapse of Prohibition, because there wasn’t any way the government could neutralize the appetite for alcohol, or the resourcefulness of the freeman in acquiring it.

Read the whole thing.

The issue of Iraq is now the GOP’s greatest catch-22. On one hand, the 60 percent of Americans Buckley cited as wanting out of Iraq are almost certainly responsible for Democrats’ likely congressional fortunes. Finding a way to wrap up Iraq by November of 2008 would stop the bleeding, and would allow the GOP to remain on offense in the overall GWOT without the albatross of Iraq hanging around the neck of the GOP nominee. On the other hand, I tend to agree with the theory that the country is now comprised of two sorts of people: those who believe that there is an Islamist threat to the West and those who do not believe this. I fall decidedly into the former category, and Buckley’s comparison of the West to Rome and the Islamists to the early Christians is especially horrific.

One of history’s greatest ironies is that Rome, the seat of the world empire that authorized and carried out the execution of Jesus of Nazareth, is now the seat of the mother church of the religion based on that very individual. If Buckley’s analogy is followed to its logical conclusion, one would expect that in another few centuries, we should expect Washington, DC, or perhaps the Big Apple, to be the seat of the global caliphate. To say that I don’t want my descendants to live in such a world would be an understatement to end all understatements.

Consequently, victory in the war against Islamist terrorism isn’t just a nice idea, it is essential. But victory cannot be achieved unless the politicians willing to pursue it are capable of convincing the public to entrust to them the reins of the state. The intraparty debates over personal indiscretions and domestic issues all pale in comparison to this central issue. Can the GOP convince Americans of the necessity of victory in this war? Would it be worth it to throw Iraq to the hounds if the alternative is a Democratic government completely oblivious to the fact that there is a broader war against Islamist terrorism? These are questions that require answers.

This is going to go over really well with the GOP primary voters:

Republican John McCain says he intends to appoint a Democrat to a high-profile Cabinet post if he’s elected president.

“There are very highly qualified Democrats on a number of issues,” McCain said. “The more efforts you can make towards bipartisanship, I think in Washington today, the better off you are. But it also better be, one, an important post and, two, a person who has the ear of the president.”

Not just any Cabinet position, but a “high profile” one with “the ear of the President” – SecDef, or SecState, perhaps? And the reasoning behind this – to build a bipartisan administration. This comes during a time when the base is frustrated with GOP politicians who constantly capitulate to the other side, constantly “compromise” by giving the Dems what they want, and are calling out for someone to stand up for the conservative cause.

Granted, there is one Democrat I could think of that might be decent in a cabinet position – Joe Lieberman, and that’s only in the SecDef position. But I don’t think that’s who John McCain had in mind if he was looking to truly reach across the aisle and build a bipartisan administration, hated as Joe is by the left-wing.

Haven’t we learned from President Bush that giving in to the demands of those across the aisle will never merit you favor or grace in their eyes? All it has ever gotten the Bush administration is a knife in the back. It’s about time for a truly Republican administration in this country.

There are some quotes and stances by the Dem candidates from the debate this past week that are simply shocking to me. Also shocking is how little air time and play these comments are getting from the media. In my mind, they pretty much disqualify the offenders from ever holding the office of President of the United States. You can decide for yourselves. The chief offenders were John Edwards and Barack Obama.

First Edwards. Brian Williams asked that the candidates raise their hands if they believe there was such as thing as a “global war on terror.” Edwards joined Kucinich and Gravel (two of the most ridiculous politicians in the history of this country) in keeping his hand by his side. Let me say that again for you: John Edwards does not believe there is a global war on terror. Frightening, isn’t it? Clinton, Obama, and Richardson all raised their hands, showing they at least understood that simple, fundamental, and undeniable truth.

But speaking of Obama, Barack showed on two different occasions why he is completely and totally unfit to be the Commander in Chief. Let me ask you a quick question: Who are America’s three greatest allies in this world? Right off the top of your head, you probably said some combination of Israel, Great Britain, Australia, Canada, South Korea, India, or Pakistan, right? Maybe you said Poland? Denmark? Mexico? One of dozens of other countries who are our allies?

Obama fielded this same question and responded thusly:

1) European Union/NATO (yes, he actually used the two interchangeably throughout his answer)
2) Japan
3) That’s about it, really. China isn’t really an ally or an enemy.

Wow. The EU/NATO as an ally. Care to name any countries in those alliances there, Barack? Or do you just throw out acronyms and names of federations you don’t really understand? And who thinks of the EU as our greatest ally?

And after naming Japan as our second ally, you can’t come up with any other countries in the entire world, and so throw out China and then explain they’re not really an ally or an enemy? Who is this guy, and why do people think he deserves to be President?!?

That’s not all Obama said, though. Let me ask you another question: what would you do if two American cities were destroyed by nuclear weapons and we had intelligence showing beyond a shadow of a doubt al Qaeda was behind the attacks?

I can pretty much guess what your answers are. There’s really only one or two correct answers to this question. This is how Obama answered it:

1) Make sure we have a proper emergency response system in place – unlike we had during Katrina.
2) Make sure our intelligence is good intelligence so we could “potentially” take “some action”
3) Talk to the international community about the situation.
4) Strengthen our relationships with other countries.

Seriously? Really? Thanks for playing, Barack. We’ve got some nice parting gifts for you backstage. The correct answer to the question is, “Bomb the #@$% out of them.” We would have also accepted, “Turn their training camps and hide outs into parking lots” or “Utterly and completely destroy them and then dance on the graves of their decaying corpses as they rot in hell.” According to Obama, though, if two America cities got nuked, he wouldn’t do anything about it!

How do you say, “Thank you sir, may I have another?” in Farsi?

And finally, I’d like to go back to John Edwards to end this piece. Again, let me ask you – who do you consider to be your moral leader? I’d bet you can come up with an answer pretty quickly – whether that be “God,” “My parents,” “My family,” or something to that effect.

John Edwards, during the most uncomfortable part of the debate, paused for nearly 20 seconds before answering, “I don’t think I could identify one person that I consider to be my moral leader.” He then cites his “Lord”, his wife, and his father.

These are the people who want to be President of our United States of America, folks. And they showed some of their true colors at the first debate last week. Let’s hope some folks sat up and took notice.

Despite a series of recent missteps on social issues, Rudy continues to hit the right notes on fiscal issues and the war. Here’s Rudy on health care:

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani on Friday accused his Democratic rivals of embracing health care plans that would amount to socialized medicine.

The former New York City mayor, responding to comments in the first Democratic primary debate Thursday night, claimed Democrats favor “mandatory” universal health care and the plans would only exacerbate the cost of care by putting the system in the hands of bureaucrats.

“They’re moving toward socialized medicine so fast, it’ll make your head spin,” Giuliani said, adding that private solutions could help bring down the cost of care. “When we want to cover poor people, as we should, we give them vouchers.”

Democratic candidates renewed their calls for universal health care during a debate in South Carolina, saying that a new system would help streamline costs and cover the nation’s 45 million uninsured.

Among the top-tier Democratic candidates, John Edwards has offered a specific health care plan that would require everyone to have health insurance.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., used the debate to describe a health care plan that would increase coverage by allowing the uninsured to buy into a plan similar to the one for federal employees, improve technology to cut costs and provide government-funded catastrophic insurance to prevent business from going bankrupt when they offer health insurance.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has not offered a specific proposal, saying she is still listening to voters on the issue.

“I’ll be darned if I’m going to concede that Democrats care more about poor people than we do,” Giuliani told an audience of the North Carolina Conservative Leadership Conference during a brief trip to the home state of Edwards, who has made fighting poverty a signature issue.

In response to Giuliani’s criticism, Edwards issued a statement, saying, “Rudy Giuliani needs to put an end to his campaign to divide America and concentrate on offering solutions to the big challenges we face.”

Earlier this week, Giuliani, who was mayor during the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, drew a sharp rebuke from the Democratic candidates for suggesting that the United States could face another major attack if a Democrat is elected in 2008. He didn’t back down from the comments.

He stood by those remarks Friday and said Democratic presidential candidates, most of whom want to begin timed troop withdrawals from Iraq, are “retreating in the face of this terrorist threat.”

“When, in the history of war, has a nation that decides to retreat, printed up a schedule of that retreat and handed it to its enemies?” Giuliani said at the event, hosted by the Civitas Institute, a Raleigh-based conservative think tank.

I agree completely with Rudy’s commentary that the way to deal with uninsured Americans is to give them vouchers to purchase private health insurance. This strikes me as quite similar to the way we’ve ensured that working-class and lower-middle-class young people can acquire a college education without yielding a massive state takeover of our nation’s colleges and universities. State-subsidized student loans have worked wonders for social mobility in this country without compromising the quality or autonomy of American higher education. Why couldn’t the same thing be done with health care? Why does every solution to the problem of the uninsured involve creating an American version of the NHS? Rudy seems to be on the right track regarding this issue.

All of this serves as a reminder that Rudy can be very, very good on fiscal issues, the war, and party loyalty. His problems seem to be the result of a very tricky dance on social issues, where Rudy is trying to do something that hasn’t been accomplished since 1976: win the GOP presidential nomination as a candidate who doesn’t support criminalizing abortion. I do wish that Rudy would have taken the free advice that the Editors here at R4′08 have given him on these issues, and I believe that there’s still time for Team Rudy to craft a platform on social issues that makes sense. But it will have to be one that involves agreeing with social conservatives in areas where lots of secular conservatives and moderates agree with them (partial-birth abortion, abortion funding) while standing his ground on issues that divide social and secular conservatives, such as civil unions or gays in the military.

You couldn’t make stuff like this up:

GREENVILLE, S.C. (AP) – Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday she sees her sometimes Southern accent as a virtue.

“I think America is ready for a multilingual president,” Clinton said during a campaign stop at a charter school in Greenville, S.C.

The New York senator who said she’s been thinking about critics who’ve suggested that she tried to put on a fake Southern accent in Selma, Ala. noted that she’s split her life between Arkansas, Illinois and the East Coast.

Clinton added a Southern lilt to her voice last week when addressing a civil rights group in New York City headed by the Rev. Al Sharpton. On Monday, dealing with a microphone glitch at a fundraiser for young donors, she quoted former slave and underground railroad leader Harriet Tubman.

The two episodes prompted some ribbing in the media and hatched more than a few humorous YouTube video clips.

Clinton is a linguistic polyglot a Chicago native turned New York resident who works in Washington and spent two decades living in Arkansas when her husband, Bill Clinton, was governor.

But observers have long noted her tendency to speak Southern primarily in front of black audiences, as she did with Sharpton last week and at a civil rights commemoration in Selma in March.

All the Democrats are vying for the support of black voters a crucial constituency especially in the early voting state of South Carolina. In 2004, black voters comprised nearly 50 percent of the state’s Democratic primary turnout.

The other day I pointed out that Hillary is the woman behind the curtain to Bill’s Wizard of Oz. This dynamic becomes more clear every day. With Hillary, we see classic ClintonSpeak in action, just without the charisma and force of presence that was Bill Clinton and that masked its obvious duplicity. Hillary’s characterization of her fake southern twang as a “virtue” is reminiscent of Bill considering his impeachment over perjury as a “badge of honor.” In both cases, the Clintons attempt to transform personal dishonesty into personal virtue. Also, note the similarity between Hillary’s desire to be a “multilingual” president with Bill’s “first black president” meme. In both cases, the Clinton in question was attempting to utilize a quality that didn’t even exist to reach out to a minority group, with Hillary confusing a southern accent for another language and using the buzz word “multilingual” as an obvious ploy to appeal to the Latino community. Hillary: she’s Bill, but without any sense of subtlety. I just can’t imagine this woman winning a presidential election.

??????? Former United States Seanator Fred Thompson won the?presidential preference poll at last weekend’s annual California Republican Assembly Convention (the CRA is the state’s oldest and largest volunteer organization, and is staunchly conservative in nature), despite being in absentia (congressmen Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul spoke in-person) and making no organizational effort to influence the vote, and has committed to another high visibility speaking engagement at the annual Connecticut Republican Party Prescott Bush Awards Dinner on May 24.

Senator Thompson will address the annual Lincoln Club of Orange County (CA) dinner on May 4 (with rumors abounding of an appearance on the The Tonight Show with Jay Leno that day or the day before) and the June 2?annual Republican Party of Virginia?Gala fundraiser.

Senator Thompson?also won the presidential preference polls at the annual Oklahoma Republican Party Convention?during the second weekend of April and at the Pennsylvania Leadership Conference last week.

Hat Tip and some what crossposted from Elect Romney Blog

Mayor Giliani:

Rudy Giuliani didn’t score many points with social conservatives last week when he issued this impassioned endorsement of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a federal ban on “partial-birth” abortion: “I agree with it.” He certainly didn’t win over Richard Land, who has said he would never vote for Mr. Giuliani. . . “If he’ll lie to two wives, what makes you think he wouldn’t lie to you?” . . . we have Rudy Giuliani, a twice divorced, pro-choice, supporter of civil unions.
—–
But it seems there is just about nothing Rudy Giuliani could do to change Mr. Land’s mind about his candidacy. “Three is one too many spouses for most evangelicals,” he says. . . What bothers Mr. Land is the “circumstances of [Mr. Giuliani's] divorce and the fact that there is more than one of them.” It’s not exactly a distinction the Bible makes, as Mr. Land no doubt knows, but he may be right about how much spouse-hopping evangelicals will tolerate.

Governor Romney:

Mr. Land might, on the other hand, vote for Mitt Romney. He says that evangelical voters may be able to get over their problems with a Mormon. “Charitably speaking,” Mr. Land says, “they would call [Mormonism] the fourth Abrahamic religion. When they’re less charitable, they would call it a cult.” And they might even let him off the hook for his flip-flops on the social issues. “A lot of people in this country who are pro-life didn’t used to be.”

Mr. Land says that reporters have misunderstood what it means that Mr. Romney has changed his mind. “Why does the liberal media call it a flip-flop? Because they believe in the moral correctness of their pro-choice position. The only reason someone would move from the morally correct position, as they perceive it, to the morally incorrect position is because of political expediency. But religious conservatives believe that their position is the morally correct position. So they don’t see this as a flip-flop. They see this as a journey . . . as growth.”

“Hard-to-Get”:

Richard Land is a man waiting to be courted, and on behalf of religious conservatives he is playing hard to get. He wants “to make certain that we never become as taken for granted by the Republican Party as African-Americans have been taken for granted by the Democratic Party.” . . . With a bachelor’s degree from Princeton and a doctorate of philosophy from Oxford, he has often been credited with providing the intellectual heft behind the religious right’s political strategy.

-

Dr. Richard Land [Wikipedia]
President of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
-
Senator McCain:

John McCain, who voted against the gay marriage amendment and who crafted the campaign finance laws that have done much to damage the anti-abortion efforts of religious conservatives;

Senator Thompson:

. . . or perhaps Fred Thompson, who supported McCain-Feingold and says that gay marriage is a state issue. Mr. Land remains oddly upbeat, particularly about Mr. Thompson, the possibility of whose candidacy he finds “tantalizing.”

“The Unelectable Candidates”:

But he acknowledges the reality of his constituency’s situation: “Evangelicals would be very happy if Mike Huckabee or Sam Brownback or Duncan Hunter were the nominee, but the problem with those three guys is they don’t give any indication they can win.” And he adds, “With Hillary Clinton looming on the horizon, electability is a very important issue.” . . . At the very least, the evangelical influence in the Republican primary will be diluted, with some religious conservatives thinking ahead to the general election and others going for the purest representative of their values. It is noteworthy that even among the unelectable candidates, evangelicals can’t make up their minds between a free-trade, open-immigration candidate like Sen. Brownback and a closed-borders protectionist like Rep. Hunter.

Governor Romney:

Mitt Romney is still a good possibility, but Mr. Land is waiting to see if the former Massachusetts governor will take his advice and give a major address on the way his faith influences his politics (à la JFK’s 1960 speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on his Catholicism).

Speaker Gingrich:

. . . Mr. Land wouldn’t vote for Newt Gingrich: “I am not a big enough hypocrite to have made character an issue with Bill Clinton and turn around and vote for men who broke their oaths to their wives.” Having been in his current position since 1988, Mr. Land has had more than enough opportunity to see Mr. Gingrich up close, and he has not been impressed: “When he was speaker, when they went into conference to negotiate, it was always our issues that got negotiated away and his economic issues that didn’t.” . . . Mr. Land suggests that Mr. Gingrich was good at paying lip service to evangelicals: “He always understood how important social conservatives were to the coalition.” But Mr. Land believes that many of them have learned their lesson: “I think most evangelicals still don’t trust him.”

Consequences of a Giuliani GOP win?

If Mr. Giuliani does somehow win the nomination, Mr. Land predicts that “you will see a drop in evangelical participation in the presidential election and in races below that.” Sounding more like a preacher warning of a coming plague, Mr. Land says, “even if the alternative is Hillary,” a lot of evangelicals will stay home.

These are some provacative comments from Richard Land. Land has already promised to wage a full frontal assault on Giuliani should he still be a strong candidate as things get closer. Not so sure that is a good thing for the generals, we do need to win. But what I do find especially heartning though is his position on Romney’s “flip-flop’s” and his honesty about the need for a commander in chief who has some good marital standards- something I believe in strongly, despite the fact it bothers people here.

In the hours following last night’s Democratic debate, I watched in shock and amusement as Chris Matthews and the rest of the MSNBC crew called the night for Hillary Rodham and let loose on Obama’s performance. Unlike pretty much the entire MSNBC slate of talking heads, I had come away with exactly the opposite impression. As I said last night, I thought Obama did quite well at projecting presidential qualities, including intelligence and seriousness. Hillary, on the other hand, seemed dull and Dole-esque; an aging wonk spouting ClintonSpeak, but unable to effectively convey her Clintonian duplicity without the magic of her husband. Watching Hillary address the issues was like watching the man behind the curtain attempt to deliver the Wizard of Oz’s lines.

Generally, I find that when all of the talking heads react in one way regarding a specific political issue and I react in an entirely different way, I’m usually the one more in tune with the sentiments of the general public. Perhaps my midwestern sensibilities deserve the credit for this dynamic. Or perhaps this is due to growing up around two intensely political Middle American swing voters. There was my grandfather, a sort of Bob Dole moderate-conservative who believed in peace through superior firepower, fiscal prudence, and who was decidedly secular, having little use for religion in government, probably believing in God but thinking it folly that man should presume to know the details. And then there was my grandmother, a pre-Vatican II FDR Democrat who was socially conservative, sympathetic towards collectivism, and distinctly pacifist. I grew up immersed in the political and societal views of both, and watched as both went to the polls to cancel out each other’s vote.

Whatever the case, it appears that once again, DaveG’s instincts trump those of the talking heads:

U.S. Senator Barack Obama emerged a clear winner in tonight’s debate among 8 Democratic candidates for President of the United States, according to a SurveyUSA poll of 403 South Carolina debate watchers. 31% of debate watchers say Obama won. Obama, the only black candidate, was the overwhelming favorite of black debate watchers. U.S. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton finished in 2nd place, picked as the winner by 24% of viewers. Clinton, the only female candidate, did better among women than among men. Former U.S. Senator John Edwards finished 3rd, picked as the winner by 14%. Obama did three times better than Clinton and twice as well as Edwards among South Carolina’s Independents. Obama and Clinton tied among Democrats. Edwards and Obama tied among Republicans. Clinton won among white viewers. 60% of debate viewers were white. 36% of debate viewers were black.

It ain’t easy being Hillary.

Hat Tip: Evangelicals for Mitt.

I honestly have no idea what McCain, Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Brownback, Ron Paul, Tancredo, T. Thompson and Huckabee are proposing on the Healthcare topic- at least specifically.

I sat in on Sen. McCain’s blogger conference call this afternoon hosted by Ankle Bitings Pundit’s Patrick Hynes.

Sen. McCain was in Iowa this afternoon on a multi-stop announcement tour that has traversed South Carolina & Iowa, and will conclude with a visit to Nevada before he finally ventures home to Arizona tomorrow.

Here are the highlights:

It’s really remarkable how open and accessible Sen. McCain is with the new media. He spent nearly an hour with us bloggers today (staying long after the call was suppose to end) and answered every question candidly and in his usual affable manner.

The next conference call is scheduled in two-weeks. I will be posting a recap of the call as soon as it concludes.

From RCP:

Romney said the May 3 debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library — co-sponsored by The Politico and MSNBC — proves that Republicans “have a lot more courage of our convictions,” because they are willing to take questions from a moderator who earlier in his career worked as an aide to Democratic politicians. Democratic presidential candidates have refused to take part in two debates co-sponsored by Fox News, arguing that the network is slanted toward Republicans.

“Why is it that the Democrats wouldn’t even go on Fox, but we Republicans are happy to sit there and have Chris Matthews of the Carter administration, former chief of staff to (ex-House speaker) Tip O’Neill?” asked Romney, in a Tuesday evening interview here with The Politico. “We’re happy to sit there and have him dish questions to us, but they won’t even go on Fox.”

Democrats have backed out of debates co-sponsored by Fox with the Nevada Democratic Party and the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute amid strong pressure from liberal online activists who contended that Fox has a pro-conservative bias.

Yes the Demo’s are wimps, we saw it last night. Actually last night seemed like a game of softball. I wouldn’t blame it on the moderator necessarily, but rather the short amount of time given to answer questions. Makes me glad SC is considering limiting the number of GOP candidates in their debate. I do give Kucinich points for pointing out he lived in the same house he bought long ago for $20,000- a good jab at Edwards.

Ryan Sager is less than thrilled. That makes two of us.

In a shocking departure from his previously stated position on civil unions, Mayor Giuliani came out to The New York Sun yesterday evening in opposition to the civil union law just passed by the New Hampshire state Senate.

“Mayor Giuliani believes marriage is between one man and one woman. Domestic partnerships are the appropriate way to ensure that people are treated fairly,” the Giuliani campaign said in a written response to a question from the Sun. “In this specific case the law states same sex civil unions are the equivalent of marriage and recognizes same sex unions from outside states. This goes too far and Mayor Giuliani does not support it.”

The Democratic governor of New Hampshire, John Lynch, has said publicly that he will sign the civil union law.

On a February 2004 edition of Fox News’s “The O’Reilly Factor,” Mr. Giuliani told Bill O’Reilly, when asked if he supported gay marriage, “I’m in favor of civil unions.”

He also said, “Marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman.”

Asked by Mr. O’Reilly in the interview how he would respond to gay Americans who said being denied access to the institution of marriage violated their rights, Mr. Giuliani said: “That’s why you have civil partnerships. So now you have a civil partnership, domestic partnership, civil union, whatever you want to call it, and that takes care of the imbalance, the discrimination, which we shouldn’t have.”

In 1998, as mayor of New York City, Mr. Giuliani signed into law a domestic partnership bill that a gay rights group, the Empire State Pride Agenda, hailed as setting “a new national benchmark for domestic partner recognition.”

Despite Mr. Giuliani’s long history of supporting gay rights or rather, because of it yesterday’s statement is likely to lead many observers to question whether the former mayor is concerned that his socially liberal record and positions aren’t flying in the Republican primary. While he still holds a commanding lead in the national polls, he has taken a hit over the last month or so after reiterating his support for the public funding of abortion.

“Why would you want to take a position where you are splitting hairs, when you have been so consistently on the record as for civil unions?” a Republican pollster reached for comment yesterday evening by the Sun, Tony Fabrizio, asked. “You can’t turn around at the eleventh hour and say this comes a little too close to marriage and then not support it.”

New Hampshire, home to the first-in-the-nation primary, is the second state after Connecticut to adopt civil unions strictly through its Legislature, without any order from its courts.

The New Hampshire law is titled, “An act permitting same gender couples to enter civil unions and have the same rights, responsibilities, and obligations as married couples.” It specifies that New Hampshire will recognize civil unions from other states.

The Connecticut law is structured similarly, equating civil unions to marriages and recognizing civil unions from other states. The Vermont and New Jersey civil union laws are also similar.

Mr. Giuliani’s position on the New Hampshire law puts him in the company of the former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, the only other major presidential candidate from either party who opposes the New Hampshire law.

“Governor Romney opposes the New Hampshire bill,” Mr. Romney’s campaign said yesterday. “He is a champion of traditional marriage. As governor of Massachusetts, he has a clear record opposing same sex marriage and civil unions.”

Senator McCain of Arizona said the issue was one of states’ rights and took no position on the New Hampshire law specifically. “While, as a federalist, John McCain recognizes the right of the state of New Hampshire to regulate the institution of marriage and to pass civil union laws, he strongly believes in the current law that declares that no other state should be legally bound to recognize same sex marriages or unions that might be legal in other places,” Mr. McCain’s campaign said in a statement.

Senator Clinton, Senator Obama of Illinois, and a former senator from North Carolina, John Edwards, all support the New Hampshire law but oppose gay marriage.

Kudos to Sen. McCain for reacting to this issue in both a politically smart way and in a way that emphasizes a respect for separation of powers and federalism. McCain’s response was the best one a Republican presidential candidate could give due to the current composition of the GOP as well as the trajectory of the western world on the legal status of same-sex unions. While the public both in our country and in the West as a whole continue to become far more willing to provide same-sex couples with many of the benefits of marriage, most GOP primary voters are still opposed to such changes in the law. That means that each GOP candidate for president finds himself in a no-win situation when asked to address the issue of civil unions, with support for such arrangements ticking off a good number of primary voters and opposition to civil unions reeking of a futile attempt to stand athwart history yelling, “stop!”

Unlike in many cases, where the GOP field could simply decry judicial activism to get around addressing the substance of the issue, New Hampshire has gone about changing the law the correct way: via the political process. As such, this was a tricky issue for the Republican presidential candidates to address, but I believe McCain came out shining while Rudy unfortunately seems to be overcompensating for his recent abortion gaffes. McCain is correct that what the people of New Hampshire choose to do with their marriage laws is the business of one and only one entity: the people of New Hampshire. Considering that Sen. McCain is running for President of the United States, his view on this particular piece of legislation is irrelevant to the job for which he is applying. That’s because the presidency is a constitutional office and not the seat of an omnipotent god-king charged with using all means necessary to exercise his divine will. Such notions were supposedly buried many centuries ago.

Supposedly.

In any case, I believe Rudy’s response will simply yield another YouTube firestorm which will draw attention both to past positions that many GOP primary voters won’t like, as well as perhaps convince some other young idealist not yet mugged by reality to don a dolphin suit and start following the Mayor around to various campaign stops. If I were advising Rudy, I’d suggest that he support social conservatives on issues where the public is generally in agreement with them, such as abortion funding, while being more of a big-tent guy on issues like gays in the military or civil unions, where public sentiment is increasingly at odds with the views of so-cons. The abortion gaffes of early 2007 were unfortunate, but the way to correct them is to continue to make concessions on the specific issue of abortion, where the pro-life/pro-choice divide in this country is pretty much stagnant, where there are more single-issue pro-lifers than pro-choicers, and where pro-life candidates have won the last 5 of 7 presidential elections. Team Rudy should never begin to think that the answer to liberal views on abortion is a hardline agenda on gay issues. Such a move will only turn off gay-friendly libertarian-conservatives and moderates while doing little to move pro-life social conservatives.

So says Chuck Todd:

Going inside the numbers of (the most recent NBC/WSJ) poll, there’s even more bad news for Clinton and McCain. Among those who are “very closely” watching the presidential campaign (about a quarter of each primary sample), Obama actually leads Clinton, 38%-31%, with Edwards at 20%. Among those “very closely” following the GOP primary (again, a quarter of the sample), Giuliani’s lead shrinks to almost nothing, but the second place candidate is Thompson. In fact, among these voters, Giuliani nabs 30%, Thompson gets 28%, Romney gets 20% and — here’s the shocker — McCain is in single digits at 9%. Does this mean that the more voters learn about the candidates, the more Clinton and McCain see their support erode? Are all their poll numbers artificially high because of name I.D. from campaigns past?

What’s so interesting about these numbers is that, at least on the GOP side, the shape of the field strongly resembles the results of many recent online straw polls, such as those hosted by GOP Bloggers. Once considered by the punditocracy as the GOP’s frontrunner and establishment candidate, McCain’s campaign increasingly appears to be dead in the water, with Rudy and FDT prepared to fight it out for the nod.

On the Democratic side, numbers like these combined with tonight’s televised debate between the Democratic candidates convinces me more than ever that Hillary is in real trouble. Obama leads Ms. Rodham among Democrats most closely paying attention to the race, and he was more than able to project intelligence and seriousness from tonight’s podium. Hillary seemed more like an aging wonk spouting ClintonSpeak, in which she tried to have everything both ways, with a manner of delivery that was dispassionate and Dole-esque. If Gore stays out, it will be interesting to see whether Obama can close the deal with Democratic primary voters.