Nile Gardiner calls on the British Government to take up the challenge of our times and increase troop levels in Iraq. Sorry, Nile, but that's not bloody likely.

Meanwhile, Moqtada al Sadr has ordered his people to suspend combat operations and has opened up negotiations with the Iraqi Government. While I have found it to be quite difficult to analyze events in Iraq (the internal politics are complicated, to say the least), it seems illogical to believe that Sadr would do such a thing if he thought he was winning.

The remains of an American soldier, missing since 2004, are found.

Richard Holbrooke writes that Americans must be prepared to stay in Afghanistan for a very long time, making the war there the longest war in American history.

Bill Kristol reminds McCain supporters that biography is not enough.

The idea that Al Gore may yet end up as the Democratic Presidential nominee will not die.

Mario Cuomo has an idea on how the Democrats can avoid disaster.

Jennifer Rubin doesn't think much of how Sen. Obama has been reacting to the Reverend Wright controversy.

Newspaper revenues continue to plunge. It looks more and more likely that newspapers (at least in their familiar form) are on the way out. I cannot yet imagine what will replace them.

Martin Kettle, writing in The Guardian, believes that some clear thinking is needed on defense policy in Europe. Since most people, most of the time, take the easy way out, expect the Europeans to continue to rely upon the United States in that regard.

Chris Todd thinks Hillary is doing the right thing by staying in the race, despite louder calls for her to drop out, and a setback in Pennsylvania.

James Carville defends his characterization of Bill Richardson as Judas Iscariot for the New Mexico Governor's endorsement of Obama.

Jim Geraghty at The National Review has an analysis of the Obama campaign's problems in Pennsylvania. It is shaping up to be a big win for Clinton.

Peggy Noonan thinks that by now, in the wake of the "dodging sniper fire in Bosnia" story, most people either "get it" when it comes to Hillary Clinton, or they don't.

So, the Democrats will either nominate a good-looking, charismatic, but inexperienced African-American man (whose personal pastor thinks the government created the AIDS virus), or they will nominate an intelligent, but unlikeable, woman who says she has experience (and probably can get away with that against Obama, but less so against McCain), but who seems to have trouble knowing the difference between the truth and a lie. John McCain is the luckiest Presidential candidate I think I have ever seen.

Victor Davis Hanson says this is the speech Barack Obama should have given to defuse the Reverend Wright controversy.

Fears of lasting harm due to the prolonged battle for the Democratic nomination. Martin Nolan says we've seen this drama play out once before. Nicholas Kristof says if Hillary stays in at all costs, she could be the equivalent of Ralph Nader in 2000. Meanwhile, Dick Morris has this list of Hillary's lies.

Here is some evidence of that lasting harm, in the form of a new Gallup Poll that shows 28% of Clinton supporters who would vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee.

While the Democrats squabble, John McCain continues to act presidential, this time with a major speech on Foreign Policy.

A group of scientists now say that instead of spending so much effort and money on trying to limit carbon emissions to fight global warming, we should concentrate more on adapting to a warming planet.

The New York Times has this look at the troubles of Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick.

An Iraqi view of our Presidential contest.

One of my favorite film actors has passed away. Richard Widmark, who once said (referring to the maniacal laugh of his first film character, Tommy Udo)...

“It’s a bit rough priding oneself that one isn’t too bad an actor and then finding one’s only remembered for a giggle.”

Not so. From the fanatical commander in The Bedford Incident to the Army lawyer seeking justice for those responsible for genocide in Judgement at Nuremberg, Richard Widmark created a number of memorable characters. Whenever I saw his name in the credits, I knew there would be at least one good performance.

Marty Peretz, in his blog on The New Republic website, passes along some information about the solidly middle-class upbringing of Reverend Wright. So, it wasn't grinding poverty that led him to his insane racial theories.

Christopher Hitchens slams Reverend Wright for hatred, tribalism and ignorance, and slams others who call themselves ministers for similar views.

Derrick Jackson laments the black man's burden in the wake of the Wright controversy.

Perhaps because of the Wright controversy, and perhaps aided by the continued sniping between the Obama and Clinton camps, McCain's poll numbers continue to rise.

Gregory Rodriguez believes Obama's race speech was brilliantly bad.

David Brooks believes much damage will be done by Hillary Clinton's long defeat. Still, some believe she could still win. The important fact to remember is that Hillary and her people still believe they can win. Much will hinge on whether or not she wins in Pennsylvania, and by how much (North Carolina, Indiana and Puerto Rico, too).

Victor Davis Hanson has these thoughts on why the Obama speech was a failure...

Over the past four days, I asked seven or eight random (Asian, Mexican-American, and working-class white) Americans in southern California what they thought of Obama’s candidacy — and framed the question with, “Don’t you think that was a good speech?” The answers, without exception, were essentially: “Forget the speech. I would never vote for Obama after listening to Wright.” In some cases, the reaction was not mild disappointment, but unprintable outrage.

Hanson outlines the problem...

Where are we now? At the most fascinating juncture in the last 50 years of primary-election history. Superdelegates can’t “steal” the election from Obama’s lock on the delegate count. And they can’t easily debase themselves by abandoning Obama after their recent televised confessionals about abandoning Hillary.

But they can count and compute — and must try to deal with these facts:

(1) Obama is crashing in all the polls, especially against McCain, against whom he doesn’t stack up well, given McCain’s heroic narrative, the upswing in Iraq, and the past distance between McCain and the Bush administration;

(2) Hillary may not just win, but win big in Pennsylvania (and maybe the other states as well), buttressing her suddenly not-so-tired argument about her success in the mega-, in-play purple states. Michigan and Florida that once would have been lost by Hillary in a fair election, now would be fairly won — and Clinton is as willing to replay both as Obama suddenly is not; and

(3) The sure thing of Democrats winning big in the House and Senate is now in danger of a scenario in which a would-be Senator or Representative explains all autumn long that the party masthead really does not like Rev. Wright, whose massive corpus of buffoonery no doubt is still to be mined. (The problem was never “snippets,” but entire speeches devoted to hatred and anger, often carefully outlined in a point-by-point format).

Read the whole thing. The problem for Obama was never that the nation's intelligentsia and media elites would not forgive him for attending a church led by a Black radical, but that the white, working class voter would not buy any explanation other than a complete break from Reverend Wright, and even then it would still be damaging as many would wonder if the break was only for political purposes.

Mark Steyn illustrates the devastating logic that is eating away at the Obama campaign...

I’m sure,” said Barack Obama in that sonorous baritone that makes his drive-thru order for a Big Mac, fries, and strawberry shake sound profound, “many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.”

Well, yes. But not many of us have heard remarks from our pastors, priests, or rabbis that are stark, staring, out-of-his-tree flown-the-coop nuts. Unlike Bill Clinton, whose legions of “spiritual advisers” at the height of his Monica troubles outnumbered the U.S. diplomatic corps, Senator Obama has had just one spiritual adviser his entire adult life: the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, two-decade pastor to the president presumptive. The Reverend Wright believes that AIDs was created by the government of the United States — and not as a cure for the common cold that went tragically awry and had to be covered up by Karl Rove, but for the explicit purpose of killing millions of its own citizens. The government has never come clean about this, but the Reverend Wright knows the truth. “The government lied,” he told his flock, “about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”

Does he really believe this? If so, he’s crazy, and no sane person would sit through his gibberish, certainly not for 20 years.

Or is he just saying it? In which case, he’s profoundly wicked. If you understand that AIDs is spread by sexual promiscuity and drug use, you’ll know that it’s within your power to protect yourself from the disease. If you’re told that it’s just whitey’s latest cunning plot to stick it to you, well, hey, it’s out of your hands, nothing to do with you or your behavior.

Read the whole thing. The logic is simple. To believe that the U.S. Government created the AIDS virus in a plot to commit genocide against the Black race is to believe in something that is racist lunacy. Therefore, Reverend Wright is a racist lunatic. For Barack Obama to associate himself with Reverend Wright and, even now, maintain that association, is evidence that Obama either excuses Wright's racist lunacy, or agrees with it. Checkmate.

Bob Novak says the Wright controversy is deepening the Democratic dilemma.

This story in The Washington Post illustrates the racial divide in Pennsylvania which has only been exacerbated by the Wright controversy.

Bill Kristol thinks that Obama is wrong in calling for a national conversation on race. He believes we should not have such a conversation, but say we did.

On a different subject, here is a story about a study that links how the media reports the Iraq War here in America to actions by the enemy in the field.

As newspapers continue to decline, I have often wondered how the news will be disseminated when there are no longer any reporters to do the work. Here is one man's view on how it will happen, and he is quite pleased with the trend.

Here is a story from the McClatchy Washington Bureau about the ideology of Barack Obama's church.

Eleanor Clift says the negative storyline about Obama may continue.

Is the Democratic Party acting like the Donner Party?

More thoughts on why the Reverend Wright is a problem for Obama.

An advice columnist writes that out-of-wedlock births are a national catastrophe.

Charles Lane reminds us of the Colfax Massacre, and why bearing arms is an individual right.

A contract employee of the State Department, who works for a company headed by an Obama advisor, is at the center of the probe into unauthorized access of passport data for Obama, Clinton and McCain.

Fred Barnes writes that John McCain is the luckiest man in the race.

Irwin Stelzer writes about the parallels between today's credit crisis and the Panic of 1907.

A new analysis sees the GOP losing seats in the U.S. House in November. A month ago I would have bought into that analysis without reservation. Today, I'm not so sure.

The reason? McCain continues to gain strength in the national polls, and there is more evidence that the divisive Democratic contest could lead to defections in November, with a significant percentage of voters now saying that if their guy, or gal, doesn't win the nomination, they will vote for McCain. This is true despite the fact that all three candidates had a bad week. Things aren't looking much better with the apparent collapse of talks aimed at getting re-votes in Florida and Michigan. Douglas Schoen thinks that Howard Dean needs to broker a grand bargain of some kind, or else the Democrats risk alienating voters in those two big, swing states. At Politico, Ben Smith wonders if Clinton end the process ahead in the popular vote and, thus, make the argument to the superdelegates that she should be the nominee. I find it difficult to contain my glee as I watch this thing unfold, primarily because the Democrats are being hoisted on their own petard in more than one area. The party that plays racial and identity politics, essentially bolstering the differences between interest groups to mobilize their political energy, is being riven by those differences. The party that used anger over how the votes were counted (or not counted) in Florida in 2000 to mobilize that energy are now left with the possibility that Florida's Democratic primary votes won't count. Amazing.

Charles Krauthammer calls Obama's speech "a brilliant fraud". Wesley Pruden says the speech was a disaster. I still think it was a well crafted speech, but it won't matter. The videos of Reverend Wright's most inflammatory comments will continue to live on via the Internet, and will no doubt make their way into TV commercials during the Fall campaign (crafted by outside groups, not the McCain campaign directly). Videos of other radical Black ministers will also surface. It will be impossible for anyone to believe that a man as obviously intelligent as Barack Obama did not know or understand the true nature of these radical beliefs (like the one that says American government scientists, White men all, created the HIV virus to wipe out the Black race). That he knew of such beliefs, and the fact that the founder of his church, and his own personal pastor, spread these beliefs to his congregants (and to a wider audience via the sale of video and audio tapes of his sermons), while it will not make a difference to the White, Liberal intelligentsia (who excuse these wild theories as the natural reaction of a people who have been so long oppressed by the evil White man), it will impact the voting behavior of some middle and working class White folks, who tend to take a less nuanced view of such things.

Amity Shlaes writes about the ghosts of 1929.

The New York Times has this piece on how the economic slump is moving from Wall St. to Main St. (I guess trickle down theory works, after all).

A member of the DNC rules committee, and grandson of a President, says the Party won't give in on seating the Florida and Michigan delegates.

Why does Barack Obama attend an Afrocentric church in Chicago? Here is a story that gives some background to the question. Essentially, as the son of a Kenyan man and a white woman from Kansas who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, and who received an elite education at some of the nation's finest schools, Obama needed to prove he was "Black enough" to win elections in his Chicago district. One way to do that is to do community work, which he did, and marry a woman from a prominent local African-American family, which he did, and become a member in good standing of an Afrocentric church, which he did. Perhaps he did all of these things, not out of a desire to become more electable but, rather, to become part of a community. Either way, the result is the same. Dick Morris agrees with that premise, and argues that, in the end, the Wright controversy will not prevent him from winning the nomination. That is probably true, but it might prevent him from winning in November, as pointed out by Jim Geraghty and Larry Kudlow, who are looking at the recent polls from Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. All show McCain beating Obama, but not doing as well against Clinton. Even here in New Hampshire, McCain has taken the lead. What a fascinating dynamic, and one that surely is providing ammunition for the Clintonistas as they try to make the case that their candidate is best able to win in November.

More people are calling for some form of Olympic boycott against China. The latest events in Tibet serve as a reminder that China is an authoritarian country, now only nominally Communist, whose rulers will use whatever brutality is necessary to achieve their goals. Of course, it won't be the first time that the Olympic banner has flown in the capitol of a country with a brutal regime.

Thomas Sowell has these thoughts on Obama after the speech, in which he basically cays Obama is an empty suit.

Jeff Jacoby says it is a question of Wright and wrong.

Eugene Robinson called the speech a road map for a discussion on race, while Michael Gerson thought the speech fell short.

During oral arguments, it became apparent yesterday that a majority of justices seem to agree that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to firearms ownership. If that is, in fact, the case, then the next question is to what extent the Federal government, and the States, can reasonably restrict that right, as they can reasonably restrict some other rights, like speech and assembly. The bar is set, justifiably, pretty high when reviewing restrictions of those other rights, so I would expect a rather high bar for this one, as well.

Noted science fiction writer Sir Arthur C. Clarke has died at age 90. So the last of the Big Three of science fiction (Clarke, Heinlein and Asimov) is gone.

Noted Michiganders are still upset that New Hampshire can break Democratic Party rules and get away with it, but they can't. As George Orwell once wrote, "Some Pigs are more equal than others".

John McCain is moving farther ahead in the Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll. Could the GOP really be this lucky? "Yes, we can!"

Sen. Barack Obama' speech in response to the controversy over his association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright was well crafted and, no doubt, well delivered (I did not see the speech, but read the transcript in its entirety). I suspect that those who want to see Obama win will like the speech and declare the controversy closed, those who do not want Obama to win will say just the opposite. The problem for Obama, it seems to me, is that nothing Obama can say or do can undo the damage done. The fact of the matter is that Wright was Obama's pastor for nearly 20 years and it strains credulity to believe that Obama never heard or knew about Wright's most egregious views and yet, while it was not politically necessary to do so, did not explicitly and publicly reject them. I think a lot of white, working class voters who were starting to come over to his side, have now been lost to him, which will benefit Hillary Clinton in the short term, and may benefit McCain in November.

Victor Davis Hanson doesn't think the speech addressed the core issues.

The editors of the Wall Street Journal are not satisfied by the speech.

Writing in Time, James Carney says the speech was a bold gamble.

Before the speech, noted African-American conservative commentator and thinker Shelby Steele had these thoughts about Obama and Wright. Joseph Laconte writes that Wright is The Wrong Reverend. Richard Cohen wonders why it took so long for Obama to condemn Wright's views.

I will again be sitting in for Steve Leveille on WBZ-AM in Boston tonight beginning at Midnight. Among the topics I am looking at:

Could the Massachusetts health insurance reform law be hurting more than it's helping? One health provider is reporting big losses because of the law, according to this story.

Does the Second Amendment really protect an individual right to firearms ownership? The Supreme Court is hearing a case that could provide the most direct answer to that question ever offered by the courts.

Does the controversy of Reverend Jeremiah Wright's sermons, and what Barack Obama knew about them and what he did in response, have any impact on how you feel about Obama as a potential President? Peter Wehner has these thoughts on the issue. Bill Kristol thinks this latest controversy is part of a trend that may prevent the formation of Generation Obama.

Should the Federal Reserve, with the backing of the taxpayers, bail out Wall Street? Is the Administration doing enough to head off, or ease, a recession? The Fed is already taking some steps, but are they the right ones?

The Clintons think they have found a delegate rule loophole that might allow pledged delegates to switch away from Obama.

I will be sitting in for Steve Leveille on WBZ-AM in Boston tonight and tomorrow night from Midnight to 5 AM. Tonight, I am looking at the following topics for discussion:

Are we in a recession? What can, or should, be done about it by the Federal Government? If it persists into next year, which candidate (Obama, Clinton or McCain) would be best able to deal with it?

Should Massachusetts allow casino gambling?

Is the surge in Iraq working? Is it just a temporary solution? Should U.S. forces stay as long as it takes to stabilize Iraq, or get out ASAP, or get out slowly?

Which Democrat would be better able to defeat John McCain? Right now, the new Zogby poll and the latest Rasmussen poll show McCain ahead against either candidate. Is America ready to elect an African-America as President? A woman? Can Democrats come up with a nominee without a brokered convention? If you are a Clinton supporter, can you support Obama if he wins the nomination? If you are an Obama supporter, could you support Clinton if she pulls it out?

Do you believe Obama when he says he did not know about his pastor's more controversial remarks? Mark Steyn has some thoughts on the matter.

If something else comes up, I'll certainly include it, and I welcome your phone calls tonight at 617-254-1030.

A leading economist declares that we are in a recession. Most people I know came to that conclusion some time ago.

Could things get worse? The bailout of Bear Stearns is an ominous sign. It is very appropriate that a bank named after (and founded by) J.P. Morgan was part of the team that came to the rescue (along with Uncle Sam), as it was Morgan's bailouts during his lifetime that led to the creation of the Federal Reserve. Then, as now, the goal was to prevent a ruinous panic.

The Reverend Wright has left the Obama campaign, while the Senator himself denies that he ever heard any inflammatory remarks. John Podhoretz says it is stories like these that are keeping Hillary in the race.

Meanwhile, as the Democrats tear into one another, some are beginning to believe that McCain might win in November. Some polls from Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida back up that assertion.

A profile of Barack Obama's late mother is in today's New York Times.

While that story may help Obama, stories about his pastor will not, as Kathryn Jean Lopez points out in this piece.

The more Americans hear this man who’s been an influential part of Obama’s life for two decades, the more they’re going to have the audacity to look beyond Obama’s inspirational milquetoast speeches, probing what makes him tick, what influences him, who advises him, what he believes. And not just on Sundays. It’s the Wright thing.

Among other things, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright says that Black Americans should not sing "God Bless America", but "God Damn America". According to this ABC News story...

An ABC News review of dozens of Rev. Wright's sermons, offered for sale by the church, found repeated denunciations of the U.S. based on what he described as his reading of the Gospels and the treatment of black Americans.

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism.

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost," he told his congregation.

If this rhetoric is even close to what Obama believes, then he has a real problem. Even if Obama disagrees with Wright's views, the fact that he has such a close, personal connection to Wright (who presided over Obama's marriage, baptised his children, and gave Obama the title to his book, "The Audacity of Hope") will raise doubts about whether or not Obama, as in the NAFTA issue, is simply telling us things we want to hear, but really believes something else. The Clinton people have to be salivating at the prospect of getting this guy's views greater play, and they are already getting much help from Conservative talk radio on doing just that. Now, of course, the MSM and the blogosphere are also getting in on the act (myself included). We'll see how the Obama campaign handles this one.

With the resignation of Eliot Spitzer as Governor of New York, new attention is being paid to the issue of prostitution. Nicholas Kristoff writes about it in this op-ed piece in the New York Times. The woman whose services were purchased by Spitzer has now been identified, and you can check out her MySpace page. Like so many others involved in that business, her story involves child abuse, running away from home, and drug use. It is the dreary sadness of such a story that has long driven efforts by reformers to curtail prostitution, but they have found such efforts to be of limited success due to the demand for the service by so many, including those like Spitzer who hypocritically pretend to be opposed to the practice.

One New York Post columnist says he knew Spitzer was a fraud and a hypocrite from the beginning.

In France, their last soldier from The Great War has died. A national memorial service is planned to honor him and all the "Poilus" who fought in that "War to end all wars".

Bob Novak writes about why the Vice-President has filed a brief opposed to the Administration's official position on a gun rights case.

More praise for HBO's The Wire as it ends its five-season run. Having watched every episode (some more than once), I believe it is the best TV series I have ever seen.

On the Presidential campaign front, Geraldine Ferraro has resigned from Hillary Clinton's campaign committee, but her comments, for which she remains unapologetic, deserve some analysis. I think that the reality of Barack Obama's race (and Hillary Clinton's sex) absolutely have had an impact on the level of support each has achieved. If these were two white men with absolutely identical positions on the issues, with one being more wonkish, aggressive and with a reputation for being tough-minded, as well as being somewhat unlikeable (Clinton), and the other being younger, less experience, but more likeable, more eloquent and more inspiring (Obama), the voting patterns would be far different, it seems to me. My guess is that it would still be a fairly close race, but the issue really boils down to experience and electability. But you would not see the voting patterns divide along race and gender lines. The Democratic Party has long built itself on identity politics, dividing people into interest groups based on sex, race and ethnicity. This concept has helped to win elections in the past, but is now causing potentially disastrous difficulties. That is because that unlike some policy differences, which oftentimes can be glossed over or compromised away, one cannot erase ones race or sex. Both candidates, and especially their surrogates, keep bumping into that reality. The Clinton people especially, it seems to me, are resorting to the race card in their efforts, and it has helped them with White working class voters. But their message goes beyond simply winning votes in the primaries. Their message to the superdelegates is...can we win with a Black man at the top of the ticket? Black voters overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic candidate, anyway. But White, working class voters have, in the past, swung the election to the GOP, oftentimes because of issues like abortion, gun control, or national security. Will they swing the election to John McCain because they won't vote for a Black man? It is a disturbing message, but it plays to the prejudices of the Liberal elites that make up the ranks of the superdelegates, who are, of course, convinced of the inherent racism of White folks, especially further down the economic ladder. While they might hope that a Barack Obama candidacy might drive a stake through the heart of the last vestiges of racism in America, perhaps they will wonder if it is realistically possible.

Finally today, the writer David Mamet has this must-read piece on why he is no longer a "brain dead liberal". In the piece, he praises the Founders for their brilliant Constitution...

For the Constitution, rather than suggesting that all behave in a godlike manner, recognizes that, to the contrary, people are swine and will take any opportunity to subvert any agreement in order to pursue what they consider to be their proper interests.

To that end, the Constitution separates the power of the state into those three branches which are for most of us (I include myself) the only thing we remember from 12 years of schooling.
The Constitution, written by men with some experience of actual government, assumes that the chief executive will work to be king, the Parliament will scheme to sell off the silverware, and the judiciary will consider itself Olympian and do everything it can to much improve (destroy) the work of the other two branches. So the Constitution pits them against each other, in the attempt not to achieve stasis, but rather to allow for the constant corrections necessary to prevent one branch from getting too much power for too long.

Rather brilliant. For, in the abstract, we may envision an Olympian perfection of perfect beings in Washington doing the business of their employers, the people, but any of us who has ever been at a zoning meeting with our property at stake is aware of the urge to cut through all the pernicious bullshit and go straight to firearms.

Heh. Having covered many a zoning board meeting, I know exactly what he means.

Congratulations to The New York Times this morning for their reporting on the Spitzer sex scandal. They broke the story on their website yesterday. I have a lot of problems with their ideological slant, but yesterday was an example of what a news organization can do when they are on top of their game.

Here is the lead story in this morning's NY Times, as Governor Spitzer weighs resignation. Here is some background on how the investigation started, and here is the editorial page view, which slams Spitzer for his characterization of the scandal as "a private matter" (I wonder if they agreed with Bill Clinton's similar characterization of the Lewinsky affair back in the 90s).

Count on the New York Post to reveal the more salacious details of Spitzer's tryst.

Meanwhile, the folks on Wall Street no doubt share the view of the editors of The Wall Street Journal, who slam Spitzer for his arrogance and his abuse of the public trust.

In national politics, Richard Cohen still sees a way for the Democrats to lose in November. The editors of The Washington Times see more ominous signs for the GOP in some recent elections. In my view, while the Democrats are struggling mightily to throw their advantage away, I still think they have the advantage, and I still think they will be big winners in November.

Tomorrow, the voters go to the polls in Mississippi, where the Democrats have 33 delegates at stake, 22 awarded proportionally by Congressional district and 11 proportionally statewide. This American Research Group poll shows Obama ahead, 58%-34%.

On Saturday in Wyoming, Obama won a caucus 61%-38%.

In another bad sign for the GOP, former House Speaker Dennis Hastert's seat in Illinois was won by a Democrat in a special election on Saturday. The district was considered reliably Republican, but that might not matter this year.

Bill Kristol outlines McCain's daunting task as he faces a year, that as the previous story indicates, should be a good one for the Democrats.

Dick Morris says, despite having won three states last Tuesday, the race is still over and Hillary is still the loser. The problem for the Democrats is that, to use Andrew Sullivan's analogy, the Clintons are like the zombies in a horror movie, they are never really dead. Here is another analysis on the three ways Hillary could still win the nomination.

The bottom line? Unless conditions radically improve for the GOP between now and November (and it looks as if it may even get worse, rather than better, for the Republicans), the only way for John McCain to win the election is for Hillary Clinton to steal the nomination away from Obama, find herself unable to convince him to join her on the ticket and, thus, alienate all those African-Americans, young voters, and upscale Whites who supported him in this process. Those folks don't have to turn around and vote for McCain for him to win (although some will out of spite, and others because they find McCain an acceptable alternative), they just have to sit it out. Still, it seems to me implausible that the Democratic superdelegates will fail to see the obvious consequences of awarding the nomination to someone who failed to win a plurality of actual votes and pledged, elected delegates. Of course, they are Democrats, which means, in the words of Will Rogers, they don't belong to any organized political party.

A Democratic caucus today in Wyoming to allocate 7 delegates. In Guam, a GOP caucus to allocate six delegates.

An anti-war judge in California rejects the petition of a 17-year-old foster child to enlist in the United States Marine Corps. Prior to WWII, judges routinely sent troubled young men into the military to straighten them out. It was a different country then, of course.

A new national poll from Newsweek magazine shows Clinton and Obama tied. Michael Barone says Clinton has one plausible path to the nomination. Gerard Baker attributes her recent success to the fact that she wants it more than Obama does.

A new report showing a sharp drop in jobs pretty much makes the case that the U.S. economy is in a recession, although this analysis says that the economy hasn't been in such great shape for almost the last ten years. I think we are in a transitional economy, as new technologies alter the landscape. Capitalism is, at its core, creative destruction. Old industries are changing or dying, new industries are being born, and vast populations around the globe are being brought into the modern economic age. Same as it ever was.

Sexual predators in France? I'm shocked, shocked.

One RAF commander has ordered her people to not wear their uniforms in public, causing the editors of The Sun to give her a beat down.

In Israel, fears of a third intifada.

Singapore's long-time leader, Lee Kuan Yew, writes this op-ed in the Washington Post about the cost of retreat in Iraq.

Home-schoolers in California are in shock over a court ruling that, in essence, requires parents get a teaching certificate to educate their children. I imagine the leadership of the state's teachers unions are ecstatic.

Another sign of an economy that is in trouble, as more people default on car loans.

The shooting of 8 religious students in Jerusalem may spark a vigorous Israeli response, which is why the latest peace plan, like all the others before it, is doomed to failure.

The Democrats are desperately trying to find a way to prevent their Presidential nomination process from going all the way to the convention. I'd wish them good luck, but I wouldn't really mean it.

That the delegate math just doesn't add up for Hillary winning the nomination is something most people have talked about over the last few weeks. The math problem facing Barack Obama is getting less interest, but it may be the one thing that allows Hillary to win the nomination.

At least one foreign observer believes Hillary ought to be the choice for the Democrats.

E.J. Dionne is yet another Liberal columnist upset by how things are going for the Democrats.

But it is Jonathan Chait, writing in The New Republic, who has the best paragraph I have seen yet about Hillary Clinton's maniacal pursuit of the Presidency.

Clinton's path to the nomination, then, involves the following steps: kneecap an eloquent, inspiring, reform-minded young leader who happens to be the first serious African American presidential candidate (meanwhile cementing her own reputation for Nixonian ruthlessness) and then win a contested convention by persuading party elites to override the results at the polls. The plan may also involve trying to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, after having explicitly agreed that the results would not count toward delegate totals. Oh, and her campaign has periodically hinted that some of Obama's elected delegates might break off and support her. I don't think she'd be in a position to defeat Hitler's dog in November, let alone a popular war hero.

As Dick Enberg might say, "Oh My!"

Plenty of reaction the the Clinton resurgence:

Dan Payne says Clinton shows her chutzpah.

Party officials mull a possible do-over in Florida and Michigan.

Clinton's success on Tuesday alters the delegate race dynamic, and her people are looking at the math and the map as they try to chart a course to the nomination.

David Broder is pleased that the race is a cliffhanger, but that's because he is a political journalist who loves a good story.

Harold Meyerson is a more of an ideologue, and as such he is doing some hand-wringing over how the race is going.

Bob Novak explains why Clinton isn't dead.

As for my own reaction to the results from Tuesday night, I had thought that Clinton was on the way out. If Obama had won in Texas and Clinton eked out only a narrow win in Ohio she certainly would have been approached by party leaders to ask her to get out. Now any justification for that approach is out. She and her people can plausibly point to several factors, including her ability to win the big states the party will need to prevail in November, and the fact that Obama seems to be wilting in the heat as the spotlight is turned on him more directly, as important reasons why she should be the nominee. Her problem, of course, is the math. Yesterday I spent some time working with Slate's delegate calculator and I found that no matter how I worked the math of the upcoming contests (excluding Florida and Michigan, which may yet be heard from) neither candidate was able to win the nomination with pledged delegates. If Obama won all the remaining contests 70%-30%, he would still fall 228 delegates short. Clinton would have to win all of the remaining contests by a greater than 60%-40% margin just to take the lead in pledged delegates and, of course, it would still not be enough to win without superdelegates. Unless someone drops out, this contest is going to the convention.

On another subject, here is an analysis of the Senate races. It differs with mine on some of the individual races, but it shares the same general conclusion, which is that it looks like it will be bad for the GOP, but not as bad as it might have been. Here is another analysis that might be of interest.

Another Tuesday, another big day in this year's Presidential election. For John McCain and Mike Huckabee, it is just a matter of McCain getting to the magic number to clinch, which he might do today. For Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, this could be the end of the line, or it could signal yet another change in direction. Here is what is at stake:

Ohio - On the Democratic side, 141 delegates awarded proportionally, 92 based on Congressional districts and 49 based on the statewide results. On the Republican side, 85 delegates awarded, with 54 awarded proportionally by Congressional district and 31 awarded as a winner-take-all to the top vote getter. Hillary is leading most of the Ohio polls, although the Zogby poll shows it as a tie. On the GOP side, McCain is up big in the Ohio polls.

Texas - For the Democrats, 126 delegates awarded proportionally based on state senate districts. In addition, a caucus will be held to choose delegates to the state and county conventions that will eventually award more delegates to the national convention. For the Republicans, 137 delegates awarded, with 96 awarded proportionally and 41 delegates available as winner-take-all if the winner has more than 50% of the vote, otherwise awarded proportionally. Hillary has regained the lead according to some of the late Texas polls on the Democratic side, and McCain leads by a large margin on the GOP side.

Rhode Island - For the Democrats, 21 delegates are available, 13 to be allocated proportionally by Congressional district and the other 8 proportionally statewide. For the GOP, 17 delegates to be awarded proportionally by Congressional district. Clinton leads in the Rhode Island polls, but not by a whole lot according to the most recent, which puts her up only 42%-37%. The only poll I have seen of the GOP race in Rhode Island has McCain up 65%-18%.

Vermont - 15 delegates are available for the Democrats, awarded proportionally statewide. For the GOP, 17 delegates will be awarded, winner-take-all. According to this poll, Obama is up 60%-34. On the GOP side, McCain leads big.

So, what to expect? Roger Simon at Politico believes Hillary can still win. I believe she can, as well, as I pointed out in a scenario I wrote last month. She needs to win big states and get this thing to the convention. At this moment, she has a slim lead in both Ohio and Texas (she also leads in Rhode Island). If she can win Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island today, she can make a powerful case that she is the candidate who can win the big states and, therefore, the candidate best able to win the general election in November. Some have said that should she win these states by only a narrow margin, she should still drop out. I think that is foolishness, and I would be shocked if she did so.

On the GOP side, it is just a matter of waiting to see if McCain can clinch.

U.S. SENATE ELECTION PREVIEW: THE REPUBLICANS

Now, let's look at the Republicans in the U.S. Senate. As I mentioned in my last post, the Republicans are defending 23 seats in November of 2008. Here they are:

Jeff Sessions - Alabama
Ted Stevens - Alaska
Saxby Chambliss - Georgia
Mitch McConnell - Kentucky
Pat Roberts - Kansas
Susan Collins - Maine
Roger Wicker - Mississippi
Thad Cochrane - Mississippi
Norm Coleman - Minnesota
John Sununu - New Hampshire
Elizabeth Dole - North Carolina
James Inhofe - Oklahoma
Gordon Smith - Oregon
Lindsey Graham - South Carolina
Lamar Alexander - Tennessee
John Cornyn - Texas
John Barrasso - Wyoming
Michael Enzi - Wyoming

There are 5 open seats due to retirements...Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, New Mexico and Virginia.

Of these, in my estimation, nine are safe (Sessions, Chambliss, McConnell, Roberts, Cochrane, Inhofe, Graham, Barrasso and Enzi), three are probably safe (Dole, Alexander and the open seat in Nebraska) and eleven are vulnerable. Here are the eleven:

Ted Stevens - The long-time Alaska Senator is embroiled in a corruption scandal and has long been known as a practitioner of pork barrel politics ("the bridge to nowhere", anyone?). He has a primary opponent in wealthy real estate developer Dave Cuddy and, if he survives that challenge, will probably face Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich. I think Stevens has hit the end of the road, so I call this one a loss.

Colorado - Vying for the seat left open by the retirement of Wayne Allard are former Congressman Bob Shaffer for the Republicans and Congressman Mark Udall for the Democrats. This one may depend as much upon what is happening at the top of the ticket as anything else. So, for the moment, I will count it as a loss.

Idaho - Larry Craig's forced retirement following his men's room scandal leaves the seat open for a battle between Republican Lieutenant Governor Jim Risch and former Democratic congressman Larry LaRocco. Idaho is a reliable Republican state, so I expect the GOP to hold this one.

Maine - Incumbent Republican Susan Collins is facing the same problem all New England Republican elected officials are facing, especially those serving in national offices. New England is blue and getting bluer. As more voters pull the lever for Democrats on the national level, they are more likely to jettison their Republican lawmakers, as Rhode Island did with Chaffee and New Hampshire with Bradley and Bass. Collins is facing Democratic Congressman Tom Allen. If it's a bad night for the GOP at the top of the ticket, it will be a bad night for Collins. Call it a loss.

Mississippi - This should be a safe GOP seat, except for the fact that Trent Lott resigned (and is now embroiled in a scandal). Congressman Roger Wicker was appointed to fill the seat and will face off with either former Governor Ronnie Musgrove or former Congressman Ronnie Shows in the Fall. Still, despite some difficulties, I expect this one to hold for the GOP.

Minnesota - Senator Norm Coleman is not on solid ground in what has been a Progressive state in the past (remember Hubert Humphrey?). But it looks like his opponent will be comedian Al Franken. Normally, I would say that would mean a hold for the GOP, but it could be a loss, as Minnesota has been known to go in funny directions when it comes to politics. For now, I'll call it a hold.

New Hampshire - Like the other New England states, New Hampshire is becoming more Democratic, as voters are more Liberal on social issues and foreign policy. The GOP has lost control of the State House and both Congressional seats. Senator John Sununu has a great name and a great reputation, but he is facing former Governor Jeanne Shaheen who only lost to Sununu six years ago by a narrow margin. I call this one a loss.

New Mexico - The retirement of long-time Senator Pete Domenici leaves the seat open. Congressman Tom Udall is the apparent Democratic nominee, while Republican Congressman Steve Pearce and Congresswoman Heather Wilson will compete for the GOP nod. New Mexico is a swing state with very narrow margins in the last two national elections. But, since the signs look good for the Democrats, I call this one a GOP loss.

Oregon - Incumbent Senator Gordon Smith will face State House Speaker Jeff Merkley. While Oregon is a fairly Liberal state and can be expected to go for the Democrats on the Presidential level, for the moment I will call it a hold.

Texas - Incumbent Senator John Cornyn should be a safe bet, but the demographics of Texas, like a lot of other places, continue to change with the on-going expansion of the Hispanic community and the influx of Katrina refugees, most of whom are African-American. Cornyn will likely face State Representative Rick Noriega. This could be a tough one but, for now, I am calling it a hold.

Virginia - Another state with changing demographics, as the more Liberal Washington-area suburbs continue to grow. The retirement of Senator John Warner opens up the seat. Last time around the Democrats were able to win one of the two seats with Jim Webb's victory, and they won the Governor's office in 2005. Former Democratic Governor Mark Warner will likely face former Republican Governor Jim Gilmore. I expect Virginia to replace a Warner with a Warner (although the two are not related). Call this one a GOP loss.

So, the bottom line? At this early date I believe the GOP will lose six of their seats. Yesterday, I predicted that the Democrats will hold all of their 12 contested seats, so I expect a net loss of six for the GOP, for a new Senate of 55 Democrats, 43 Republicans and two independents who caucus with the Democrats.

Of course, as the months pass, I will re-examine these races as new data becomes available and as we get a better handle on how the national race is going. If, for instance, McCain appears to run stronger or Obama weaker than expected, of if Hillary pulls out the nomination instead of Obama, all this analysis will have to change. Stay tuned.

US SENATE ELECTION PREVIEW: THE DEMOCRATS

Here is an early look at what might happen in November to the composition of the U.S. Senate. As you already know, the Senate is now controlled by the Democrats even though both parties hold 49 seats. This is due to the fact that the two Independents, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, caucus with the Democrats for organizational purposes, thus giving the Democrats the edge, 51-49.

In 2008, 35 seats are up for election. Of those, 23 are currently held by Republicans and 12 are currently held by Democrats. So, to start, the GOP is already at a disadvantage in their effort to regain control of the Senate. Let's first, though, look at the Democrats.

Here are the 12 seats up for election that are currently held by the Democrats:

Mark Pryor - Arkansas
Joe Biden - Delaware
Dick Durbin - Illinois
Tom Harkin - Iowa
Mary Landrieu - Louisiana
John Kerry - Mass.
Carl Levin - Michigan
Max Baucus - Montana
Frank Lautenberg - New Jersey
Tim Johnson - South Dakota
Jack Reed - Rhode Island
Jay Rockefeller - West Virginia

Of these twelve, there is almost unanimous opinion that only two are even somewhat vulnerable, and even relative political newcomers scanning that list of names can understand why. The two considered vulnerable are Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

Johnson's opponent is likely to be State Representative Joel Dykstra. While South Dakota is considered a "Red State" for purposes of Presidential analysis it has, like other Western states, oftentimes split it's representation in the Senate, most recently employing former Democratic Leader Tom Daschle. Therefore, just because Daschle was defeated last time 'round, one shouldn't assume that the remaining Democratic Senator would be vulnerable, especially since this one is recovering from a stroke that nearly killed him. The sympathy factor alone should give the race to Johnson.

Landrieu's likely GOP opponent is State Treasurer John Kennedy, but that's not her biggest problem, which is the changing demographics of Louisiana. Hundreds of thousands of people have left the state in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and many of them are African-Americans, who have been reliable Democratic voters. Louisiana also recently elected a Republican Governor. Still, if the Democrats have a good day, she should survive.

So, best case scenario for the GOP is that they take two seats from the Democrats, but I would only give them a small chance for that to happen. My conclusion? The Democrats hold all 12 of their available seats.

Tomorrow, a look at the Senate Republicans.

Could the end be near for the Clinton campaign? Or will the race for the Democratic nomination go on, perhaps ruinously for the Democrats, as Bob Herbert explains nervously in this piece in the New York Times. As a member of the "Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy", I can only hope.

The polls say that Clinton is narrowly ahead in Ohio and narrowly behind in Texas. Clinton has a solid lead in Rhode Island and Obama an even more solid lead in Vermont. What does it all mean? If at the end of the night on Tuesday we see a narrow Clinton win in Ohio and a narrow Obama win in Texas (with the results confusingly uncertain because of the system they have in the Lone Star State) and a solid Clinton win in Rhode Island and a solid Obama win in Vermont, even though the punditocracy will want to write Clinton off, I think she will have every incentive to go on, as the polls show she still has a solid lead in Pennsylvania. I just don't think they are going to quit if they see any path to victory, no matter how divisive.

Victor Davis Hanson reminds everyone that, no matter who becomes our next President, he or she will face the same problems our current President is grappling with and, despite all rhetoric to the contrary, those problems will not go away with the departure of George W. Bush.

As Prince Harry arrives back from Afghanistan, his older brother Prince William will soon be serving aboard a Royal Navy warship, according to this story.

Another USS New York is about to begin service in the U.S. Navy, this one built partially from steel recovered from the Twin Towers.