One of my favorite memories of covering the New Hampshire presidential primary (and I was part of the 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004 contests) was a live broadcast I did (twice) from the Merrimack Restaurant in Manchester. In what must be seen as the end of an era, the restaurant has closed. It's too bad. I can still see Bob Kerry working the room serving coffee to patrons while Bill Bradley was at my table being interviewed by me on the air, and Alan Keyes having a big breakfast, surrounded by media folks, after his interview slot. It was a lot of fun.

Lawrence Summers believes we are at a very dangerous moment in our economic history.

Bill Kristol has some thoughts on the enduring power of the words in the Declaration of Independence.

John Bolton sees the North Korean nuclear deal as a sign of the intellectual meltdown of the Bush Administration.

Bob Novak says Obama is dodging and weaving on the gun issue.

Of course, this is just one part of the overall issue, which is about the character and beliefs of Barack Obama. Is he a far-left ideologue in the McGovern mold who is campaigning as a centrist in order to get elected, as Victor Davis Hanson believes? Or is he really a centrist who told his left-wing base what they wanted to hear in order to get the nomination, but will run and govern as a Clinton-like centrist if elected, as Paul Krugman fears? I tend to lean toward Hanson's view, but I suspect Krugman's fears are justified, as it seems Obama has a certain political ruthlessness that makes no supporter or idea safe when jettisoning it, or them, becomes politically expedient.

HELLER DECISION ANNOUNCED

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, 5-4, agreeing with a lower court decision to strike down the District of Columbia's strict prohibition on handgun ownership. The decision, which you can read here, upholds the concept that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect an individual right to firearms ownership. The majority decision, written by Justice Scalia, does not, however, throw out all restrictions on that right. It is a milestone decision, in any case, as it now clarifies the constitutional question, much in the way that Roe v. Wade clarified the issue of abortion. Like that case, it will be difficult (but not impossible) for proponents of very restrictive gun laws to overturn the decision directly. Like abortion, of course, the issue will live on politically, as most gun control statutes are not as restrictive as the D.C. law, but many will now be challenged by the NRA and other pro-gun groups.

As for the impact on the Fall campaign, I don't think it will help galvanize anti-gun folks, as I suspect those folks don't need any more incentive to go to the polls than that already provided by the Bush Administration, the Iraq War, and the prospect of electing the first African-American President (who also happens to be a McGovern Liberal). Pro-gun people might be made a bit more complacent, which could hurt McCain.

A new study finds some interesting things about the religious belief systems of Americans. Can you say, "I'm OK, you're OK"?

Some thoughts on the Gloucester girls who decided to get pregnant and raise their babies together, without fathers.

George Carlin, dead at 71.

Stu Rothenberg takes a look at the Senate races.

John Bolton thinks the Israelis will attack Iran's nuclear facilities after the election, but before the inauguration.

Robert J. Samuelson worries about the return of inflation.

Irwin Stelzer thinks the recent economic upheavals have left some sectors permanently changed.

A bad year for newspapers, as ad revenue continues to decline. While newspapers continue to grow readership and ad revenue on the Internet, the total revenue picture continues to decline because the amount of money they can make on-line is so much less than what they could make with their print editions.

Mugabe wins again in Zimbabwe, as his rival drops out of the race due to the escalating level of violence against his supporters. Why is it that good people like Tim Russert die at 58, but despicable men like Mugabe live to be 84 (and counting)?

Bill Kristol has some thoughts on the new Moveon.org TV ad.

If Israel and Iran are on the brink of war, then one of the major reasons is the failure of the West to deal with Iran's nuclear defiance, according to the editors of The Wall Street Journal.

A new police report in the U.K. says young Muslims there are increasingly turning to extremism.

An unflattering portrait of Peggy Noonan (although the author's tone suggests he has little but contempt for all conservatives).

Well, no matter what damage he eventually causes (and I suspect it will be quite a lot), President-to-be Barack Obama has done the country a great service by administering the coup de grace to public financing of presidential campaigns with his decision to forgo public funding and spending caps on his campaign. Bravo. Now, if we could only get rid of the rest of this insane system, we just might get the best politicians money can buy.

This latest move leads David Brooks to re-examine Obama, and he concludes that the Illinois Senator is no Adlai Stevenson. That is not good news for Republicans.

Michael Gerson also has some thoughts on Obama as a false moderate. I think Gerson (and others) should look to the Brooks analysis, which I believe is closer to the truth which is that Obama is not a transcendent figure who will change America, but rather an ambitious Chicago politician who will throw anyone under the bus whenever necessary (but, like Brooks, I can also see that as an advantage in dealing with certain situations).

E.J. Dionne examines how the presidential race is playing here in New Hampshire. It's a pretty good analysis. There is no question that this state has flipped from the GOP to the Democrats at all levels, and there is no question that John McCain is the only Republican who could possibly win the state for the GOP this year.

Are the Israelis practicing for a possible military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities? I believe that they are, and I believe that they let this story leak to send a message to the Iranians (and everybody else).

Victor Davis Hanson has some thoughts on Barack Obama (he still thinks Obama is McGovern, at least in policy). Ralph Peters wonders when someone in the media will ask Obama tough questions about foreign and military policy (I would advise him not to hold his breath). Dick Morris and Eileen McGann get to the heart of the matter, though, when they describe Obama's desire to treat terrorists as criminals. This, to me, should be the heart of the foreign policy debate. Do we continue to fight the so-called "War on Terror", or do we change our basic philosophy and deal with Osama bin Laden and his allies as criminals, to be dealt with through the criminal justice system on the national and international level? I wish the debate could be straightforward enough to allow our people to make their decision based on these two competing visions. That way, if Obama won, we could compare how we fare during his administration as opposed to how things went under George W. Bush. Who knows, may be Obama would do better at preventing terrorist attacks against us here in the United States? Uh...oh...that's right...Bush has a perfect record on that one, with seven months to go.

The argument that the Iraq War is, and always was, about oil gets a boost with this story.

Drill for more oil in more places? I'm for it, but if you don't have the rigs to get it done, it might not happen anytime soon, regardless of whether or not the policy changes at the Federal level.

Here is a novel approach to dealing with OPEC.

Larry Sabato takes a look at the U.S. Senate races.

Bob Novak writes about his friend, colleague, and source, Tim Russert.

An opponent of gay marriage looks ahead to the real consequences of recent court decisions.

Some common sense has entered the business of running elections, as many states are now turning to paper ballots. I have believed all along that using paper ballots is the only sure way to both avoid problems during the voting, and to get an accurate recount when that becomes necessary.

Oliver Kamm thinks Europeans should recognize the things George W. Bush got right.

Arthur Herman warns of the dangers of nuclear proliferation.

Tim Russert's doctors explain why he died. Tragically, if he had had more acute symptoms of cardiac difficulty in recent years that probably would have led to the bypass surgery that might have prolonged his life.

Karl E. Meyer sees troubling similarities between the Status of Forces Agreement being negotiated by U.S. and Iraqi officials, and the 1930 treaty that ended the British Mandate in Iraq. That treaty left Iraq in a quasi-colonial position, which led to all sorts of difficulties, including the only pro-Axis coup in World War II.

One writer thinks Iraqis would vote for John McCain, if they could. Of course, those Iraqis who want to see the back of U.S. troops would vote for Obama.

The trophy was in the building, but the Celtics fell just short. Back to Boston for another try.

So, how many Senate seats will the Democrats win this November? I am sticking with six, but will do another analysis later on.

New York politics, getting personal. In the words of the Talking Heads, "same as it ever was".

Natan Sharansky on the politics of democracy, religion and identity.

More evidence of the decline of religious belief in New England.

Amir Taheri believes that Iran will eventually get nuclear weapons.

In The New York Times, interesting stories about John McCain's 1974 War College thesis, Russians enjoying the opportunity to vacation abroad, what Gaza looks like a year after the Hamas takeover, and Iraqi troops massing for yet another operation to establish control over their country. The McCain story attempts, it seems to me, to classify McCain's thinking as old-fashioned, but the narrative instead affirms his steadfastness and patriotism, at least for those of us who still believe in those things (and agree with McCain's original position concerning collaborators). I find the Russian tourist story interesting because I still have memories of what the world was like during the Cold War. We could never have imagined that the day would come when Russians (no longer Soviets) would behave just like everyone else. The Gaza story is an interesting look inside that potential flash point for conflict, and the story about Iraqi troops massing for another operation is yet another indicator of the progress being made (and seriously under-reported) in that country.

Tim Russert, dead at 58.

Howard Kurtz says Russert revitalized Washington TV talk shows.

Bill Kristol and Stephen Hayes pay tribute to Russert.

As for me, I never met Tim Russert (although I saw him at what used to be called the Center of New Hampshire late on Primary Night in Manchester earlier this year). Like most people, I only knew him from watching him on television. He always impressed me as a consummate pro, and one of the really well prepared and knowledgeable people in the business. NBC will find it extraordinarily difficult to replace him as host of "Meet the Press", and their election coverage will also suffer for his absence. It is a tragedy, and a great loss for the worlds of politics and broadcasting here in the United States.

Irish voters shoot down EU treaty.

Setbacks in the U.S. effort to stabilize Iraq.

Like so many others, I stopped watching about halfway through the third quarter and went to bed, so I missed the Celtics come roaring back to win the game, and take a 3-1 lead in the NBA finals.

I have been critical from the beginning of the way in which the Bush Administration has sought to deal with people captured during the so-called "War on Terror". After 9/11 I advocated a congressional declaration of war, for a lot of reasons, but primarily to bring Congress into the decision to go to war in an unambiguous fashion. One of the other advantages of such a declaration would have been on the legal side, creating some structure for dealing with captives. It would have been imperfect, but at least it might possibly have prevented some of the trouble we now face. That trouble is perfectly encapsulated in the Supreme Court's recent ruling about the rights of the detainees. Without a declaration of war, it is easier to believe that these terrorists are simply criminals and, therefore, entitled to the same rights as others who are accused in the criminal justice system. With a declaration of war, they would have been POWs, entitled to some of the rights of POWs, but not all, as most of the detainees were not uniformed members of a recognizable nation-state. I'm not a lawyer, but I think it would have been a little easier on everyone if we had brought Congress in from the beginning. Now, alas, many members, and people of like mind, whether in the citizenry at large or on the highest court, can hold the belief that we are not engaged in a war and, as soon as George W. Bush is removed from the scene, we can return to peacetime. Justice Scalia, writing in dissent, said that he believes Americans will die because of this decision, and he is probably correct. Worse still will be the consequences of an Obama Administration, which I believe is coming in January of 2009. George W. Bush will be remembered by history not for the malfeasance his contemporary critics assign to him (Bush Lied, People Died) but, rather, for the mistakes he made when he chose correctly to call for war after 9/11, but failed miserably to follow through on the logical consequences of his decision (mobilizing the public through a call for volunteers, or the establishment of some kind of national service, expanding the military, engaging a crash program to achieve energy independence, etc.). America will pay for those mistakes most dearly in the years to come.

The GOP has a candidate for Governor of New Hampshire.

Ralph Peters has much praise for the Secretary of Defense.

George Will breaks down the numbers in an analysis of the Presidential election. Here is a good place to check out the latest polls, state-by-state.

Victor Davis Hanson makes the case for drilling for more oil.

The New York Times has this piece concerning American exceptionalism on the free speech issue. The tone of the article seems sympathetic to the more restrictive speech codes of other Western democracies. Read this column from Canadian David Warren about what is happening in his country to get a much different take.

Here is an analysis of the Medicare train wreck which is fast approaching. Frankly, I expect nothing to be done until the disaster is upon us.

A thaw in the Arctic ice could lead to more warming inland, according to this story. Of course, if the sun has stopped producing sun spots, which seems to be the case according to this story, then global warming caused by CO2 emissions may be the only thing preventing another little ice age, which is what happened the last time the sun stopped producing sun spots.

NBA referees were fixing games, according to one disgraced ex-referee. I have watched NBA basketball for years, and have never understood what constitutes a foul (or a travelling violation, for that matter). It seems to me to be the easiest sport for a referee to put the fix in, because even when the fix isn't in the way the game is called can be so different from game to game, or even quarter to quarter.

Madeline Albright laments the fact that humanitarian interventions seem no longer to be possible. Who is at fault? Why, George W. Bush, of course.

Jonathan Capehart says the LGBT community (that means Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered people) would be upset if Obama picked Sam Nunn as his running mate. Nunn was a vigorous proponent of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy concerning LGBT's in the military.

Harold Meyerson is upset at what is happening to the LA Times.

Robert J. Samuelson doesn't see much difference between McCain and Obama when it comes to tackling the real problems facing the country.

Amir Taheri says Barack Obama is getting an education about the realities of the Middle East.

IN his address to the American Israeli Political Action Committee last week, Sen. Barack Obama discarded some of his most dangerous positions.

Of Iran, for example, he said: "The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat."

Except for the politically correct phrase "violent extremists" instead of the more accurate "terrorists," those words could have come from President Bush.

All who've supported the Bush Doctrine should welcome this dramatic change. No longer does Obama claim that talk of a threat from Iran is an "obsession instead, he recognizes the danger of nuclear proliferation - and acknowledges the Islamic Republic as something more than a "tiny" challenger.

He has also "evolved" on Iraq. He no longer shares Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's belief that America has already lost the war. And he's discarded his pledge to pull US troops out in the first year of his presidency. He now talks of "a responsible and phased withdrawal" - exactly what Bush is committed to.

More important: He no longer says "there are no good options in Iraq now, "there are not many good options" - which means there are some.

His anti-war base should be getting nervous.

Pat Buchanan and Bob Beckel, in separate opinion pieces, both make a Obama-Reagan comparison. Here is Buchanan's take...

Democrats may talk of making the economy the issue this fall, but Republicans are going to make Barack the issue. Story line: We cannot entrust our beloved America, in a time of war, to this radical and exotic figure who has so many crazy and extremist associates.

Barack's problem is thus Reagan's problem.

As the country wished to be rid of Jimmy Carter in 1980, so the nation today wishes to be rid of Bush and his Republicans. But America is apprehensive over a roll of the dice, in Bill Clinton's metaphor.

How did Reagan ease the anxiety? In the debate with Carter, he came off as conservative, yes, but also traditional, mainstream, witty and the more likable man. The real Reagan came through.

With his persona, Barack may be able to do the same -- in the debates.

Here is Beckel's take...

Question: Name the presidential candidate described below.

An unpopular incumbent president sits in the Oval Office. His party's brand is badly tarnished. The economy is in shambles, unemployment on the rise. The housing market is in crisis. Gasoline has become a major issue.America is enmeshed in a protracted crisis in the Middle East with no end in sight. We are near war footing with Iran. The reputation of the United States is diminished world wide. In historically high numbers, voters believe the country is on the wrong track.

The opposition party has nominated a charismatic candidate for president whose oratorical skills are compared to JFK, perhaps better. He had been introduced to the majority of Americans by way of a spellbinding keynote speech at a previous national party convention.

He has a fervent core of supporters and has emerged as the leader of his party through an insurgency that challenged and ultimately defeated his party's establishment. He runs against Washington and the special interests that control the Capitol. His message is change and hope.
If ever the public demanded change in Washington, it is in this presidential year. It could not be a better political environment for the party out of power. Yet with all the stars aligned perfectly for a party change in the White House, national polls show the opposition candidate barely ties, and often trails, his opponent.

There is little doubt about the voter's desire for change, but there is plenty of doubt about this candidate who pledges to deliver it. Who is the candidate?

Answer; A) Barack Obama B) Ronald Reagan C) Both

The correct answer is C.

Read the whole thing.

In case you missed it, Fred Hiatt says that a new Congressional report about the case for war in Iraq pretty much deflates the whole "Bush Lied, People Died" narrative. He didn't lie. The intelligence was wrong, which is why a lot of Democrats, including the chairman of the committee that released the report, agreed with the President about the nature of the threat. Still, that didn't stop them from essentially concluding that the President mislead the country about the threat, which is why headlines to that effect were generated by the release of the report.

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

Read the whole thing.

What does Hillary want? James Carroll has an answer. Probably not the right one, of course (consider the source, after all), but an answer.

What do Hillary's supporters want? Some of them might want John McCain for President over Barack Obama.

Of course, the McCain campaign won't go anywhere if they don't start showing a higher degree of competence, or allow their candidate to play to his strengths, as Bill Kristol advises them to do.

Stuart Rothenberg believes the Electoral Map of 2008 will look an awful lot like the maps in 2000 and 2004.

Michael Barone has a new analysis of the Presidential election. He believes we could see a race as tight as 2000 and 2004, but with different battleground states.

Bob Novak says Hillary's best bet for a new career may be as a Justice of the Supreme Court.

An Israeli minister raises the possibility of an attack on Iran, while the Prime Minister talks of a possible military action in Gaza. So, what happens? Oil prices spike, of course.

It's the economy, stupid.

It's the war, stupid.

Of course, if the Israelis should launch their Iran attack a few days before the November election...

Tired of high oil prices? At least one man thinks the price is going to come down, sooner rather than later.

As long as they remain high, though, it's bad news for the airlines, and the flying public.

Of course, as Charles Krauthammer points out, $4 a gallon gasoline does seem to be the price point that actually changes behavior here in America. He laments the fact, though, that we could have changed behavior ourselves by taxing gasoline up to that level and keeping the proceeds for ourselves, rather than sending the money to foreigners.

George Will says Obama doesn't need Hillary down the hall. Bill Kristol believes the Obama team has already begun the process of moving on from the Clintons.

Now that the general election campaign has begun, it's time to see where we stand. Mort Kondracke points out that, based on historical analysis, the odds are very good that Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States. Certainly, when you look at the "facts on the ground", it doesn't look good for John McCain. Obama is younger and more eloquent. McCain's party has held the White House for eight years, and the current occupant is quite unpopular. Most importantly, the economy is in trouble, with a recession already happening or just on the horizon, with foreclosures up, joblessness up, bankruptcies up, inflation surely on the rise as fuel and food prices soar, and consumer confidence dropping. Add to that our involvement in a war that seems without a victory scenario, and it should all fall in the Democrats laps this year.

But...check this out. It is Karl Rove's Electoral Map. It shows a close Presidential contest. If McCain wins all the Southern states, and that seems likely (only Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina are even competitive at the moment, based on polling data), all the Border states with the exception of Maryland, and holds the traditional GOP states in the West (except California, Oregon and Washington), then he wins. Here is one possible scenario:

McCain wins if he takes the Southern States (the old Confederacy), Florida-27, Georgia-15, Alabama-9, Mississippi-6, Louisiana-9, Texas-34, Arkansas-6, Tennessee-11, South Carolina-8, North Carolina-15 and Virginia-13 for a total of 153 Electoral votes. Add the Border States (so-called because they bordered the Southern states that joined the Confederacy), of Missouri-11, and Kentucky-8 (but not Maryland-10), and McCain gets to 172. Add West Virginia-5 and Oklahoma-7, he gets to 184. Then, out West, you put Arizona-10, Utah-5, Wyoming-3, Idaho-4, Nevada-5, Montana-3 and South Dakota-3 and he gets to 217. If you add the Midwest states where Obama did poorly against Clinton, Ohio-20, Indiana-11 and Michigan-17, then he gets to 265. Then he needs only to win Nebraska-5, or win New Hampshire-4 and North Dakota-3, and he is over the top.

Granted, this is an imperfect scenario, and it is only June. Obama now has the time and space to unify his party. They are fired up, and all the other factors are in their favor. If I had to bet money, I would still not take McCain to win. But it is a lot closer than it ought to be.

Hillary Clinton will end her candidacy in a speech on Saturday, according to this and other reports. It is a remarkable end to a remarkable campaign season which began with Clinton as the prohibitive favorite to win the nomination. Instead, a relatively inexperienced African-American Senator from Illinois is going to be the Democratic nominee. This is a great moment for African-Americans but, as so many things are, it is a double-edged sword. The historic triumph of African-Americans is also yet another denial for women. Once again, an older, more experienced woman has been denied a job by a young, attractive, charming, but less experienced male. How many women will see that narrative ahead of all other things? As Don Rumsfeld might say, it is an "unknown unknown". Since there is no precedent, we cannot determine just how many women will carry their resentment over this turn of events all the way to November. It is this factor, combined with latent racism, Obama's inexperience, especially on national security issues, and Obama's left-wing political views, which makes it possible for John McCain to win the election in the end. How many women, who would otherwise vote for a Democrat on policy issues, will decide that they won't vote for Obama? How many white people (and Hispanics and Asians) will decide that they won't vote for a Black man? How many people will decide that Obama is too far to the Left, or is too inexperienced to be allowed to become the Commander-in-Chief during time of war? All unknown and unknowable. This remarkable campaign season goes on, and more surprises are, no doubt, in store for all of us.

Was Bobby Kennedy's assassination a precursor to the world of Middle East terrorism that we've come to know? Some think that is, in fact, the case.

A view on how Europe will react to the next President.

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann believe Obama has already made his first big mistake.

While Ted Kennedy continues to recover from brain surgery to treat a cancerous tumor, some are speculating on how it might have been different if the United States had universal health care on the British or Canadian model.

George Will says we are getting the gas prices we deserve.

The local broadcasting community has lost a good friend. Jim Mitchell passed away yesterday. When I was a Producer at the old WHDH in Boston, we used to gather at a local watering hole with colleagues from the station and from the old WEEI (which was then an all news station at 590 on the dial, while WHDH was at 850). Jim Mitchell was always the life of the party. I miss those days. My condolences to all of Jim's friends (and there are so many), and to his family.

After establishing a rapport with a noted brain surgeon, Senator Ted Kennedy undergoes successful surgery in North Carolina. Meanwhile, Kennedy's friend, 90-year-old Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, is hospitalized after feeling lethargic.

In the race for President, we have reached the finish line for primaries and caucuses. In Montana, 16 delegates are at stake, while 15 are up for grabs in South Dakota. According to CNN's count, Obama has 2,076 of the necessary 2,118 to win the nomination, which means he cannot get to the finish line with just pledged delegates, as there are only 31 remaining to win. But, many now expect that super delegates (and Clinton supporters) will start moving into Obama's camp, which should get him over the top, perhaps as soon as tomorrow.

So, much of the speculation now turns to the general election (although there will still be some drama until Hillary finally calls it quits, and additional drama until Obama picks a running mate). Richard Cohen, for one, is glad the primary campaign is over, as he has come to loathe the whole process on the Democratic side (I think, primarily, because his side of the ideological divide has done so much damage to their own cause). Dick Morris and Eileen McGann think that the Iraq War may turn out, against all expectations, to be Obama's Achilles Heel. David Brooks believes both the Obama and McCain people ought to remember that, despite their optimism, each candidate has serious deficiencies. Victor Davis Hanson believes that the Democrats have nominated the only candidate who could lose this November, and the Republicans nominated the only candidate on their side who can win. Froma Harrop sees trouble for the Obama people with the alienation of older, white women due to their perception of how badly Hillary was treated during the process.

I see a race that still looks bleak for the GOP (high gas prices, high food prices, high home heating oil prices, a sluggish economy, fatigue after eight years of a Republican administration in the White House, a disorganized and ineffectual Republican Party in Congress), but that could still end up with McCain in the White House, albeit with an even larger Democratic majority in the Congress. Still, many miles to go yet before we pull the levers and make our choices.

Ted Kennedy will undergo brain surgery today at Duke University Medical Center. While I have consistently been on the other side of him politically, I wish him well, as politics ends at the operating room door. I would be remiss, however, if I did not point out that the Senior Senator from Massachusetts is the beneficiary of some of the best health care in the world and, under our current system, he has the ability to choose his doctor and hospital. Let us hope that we keep (or, better yet, expand) the choice factor in our health care system.

An article that explains the power of The Drudge Report.

Hillary's crazy crew may cause Obama some headaches in the weeks ahead, as Hillary weighs her options after her big victory in Puerto Rico.

The decision by the Democratic Party's Rules Committee to compromise on the Florida and Michigan delegations may have been the best they could do but, at least as far as Michigan goes, it might be a Pyrrhic victory for Obama.

Robert J. Samuelson once again points out why, when it comes to addressing real big problems, democratic politics simply can't get it done.

U.S. deaths in Iraq fell sharply in May, which may be yet another indicator that the surge strategy has succeeded there. While all such gains are tenuous in that part of the world, it does look more and more as if the Iraqi government has some room now to establish it's authority over the whole country. Al Qaeda appears to be on the run, Moqtada al Sadr seems to be in a much weaker position with the Iraqi Army now established in Sadr City, the important port of Basra is now under government control, and the Sunni tribes in Anbar are still being cooperative. Much can go wrong, of course, but as of now things are going right.