In The New York Times, a story about the success of the Iraqi Army in Basra.

Claudia Rosett writes about the recent fighting in Lebanon, who the real villains are, and what ought to be done about it.

Amir Taheri makes some good points about why the Iranians have no incentive to agree to any package that would cause them to stop enriching uranium.

In Massachusetts, anti-income tax advocates are trying once again to get a question on the ballot that would repeal the state income tax. The last time they tried this, it almost worked.

Edward Luttwak has this very interesting take on why a President Obama wouldn't necessarily be capable of improving relations with the Muslim world.

Bob Novak has some thoughts on McCain's Christian problem.

Competing views on the significance of the 60th birthday for Israel. Bill Kristol ponders the meaning of the anniversary, and a Palestinian shares his quite different view.

I have read and heard some Conservatives speculating about Barack Obama's potential weaknesses as it now appears he will be the nominee. Some have compared him to McGovern, others to Mike Dukakis. Susan Estrich, who worked for Dukakis in 1988, has this insightful piece on the similarities, and differences, between Obama and Dukakis. But it is her concluding paragraph that makes the most salient point...

But the most important difference between Obama and Dukakis has absolutely nothing to do with the two men, or their primary opponents, or the issues that did or did not get raised. It's the difference between where the country was then, and where it is now. In June 1988, a majority of Americans thought the country was on the right track. Although the wrong track numbers had been higher earlier in the year, by the summer they turned around. Americans were pleased with the direction of the country. Today, the equivalent numbers are 80% wrong track. Ask any pollster and they'll tell you that there is no better indication of which party will win an election than the right track-wrong track numbers. This should be a Democratic year. Obama, if he is the candidate, will face a negative machine. But in the end, that machine cannot change the way people feel about the direction the country is heading, or the party that is responsible for it.

Bingo. All my Conservative friends should remember that it is "peace and prosperity" that wins elections, despite all policy or ideological differences. In the modern political era (which I define as beginning in 1920, when women first exercised the right to vote), when Americans feel like they are blessed with peace and prosperity without reservation or ambiguity, they stick with the party in power (1924, 1928, 1956, 1964, 1984, 1988, 1996). When they think things are going very badly, either the economy or a war, or both, they throw out the party in power (1932, 1952, 1968, 1980, 1992). Not all elections fit neatly into this picture, of course. FDR's personality and the sense that he had saved so many from the Depression helped him win in 1936 and 1940, and his status as wartime leader got him the nod again in 1944. Razor thin elections happened in 1948, 1960, 1976, 2000 and 2004 (with 1960 and 2000 being virtual ties). All happened during periods when perceptions about the economy were mixed. Looking ahead to November, unless the atmosphere changes radically, the perception will exist that things are going very badly, indeed. Perhaps not as badly as 1932, but it might feel like 1980, which bodes very ill for the GOP.