Charles Krauthammer says Obama has picked up one vote...Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki.

What is Maliki thinking? Clearly, he believes that the Iraq war is won. Al-Qaeda is defeated, the Sunni insurgency is in abeyance, the Shiite extremists are scattered and marginalized. There will, of course, be some continued level of violence, recurring challenges to the authority of the central government and perhaps even mini-Tet Offensives by both Shiite and Sunni terrorists trying to demoralize U.S. and Iraqi public opinion in the run-up to their respective elections. But in Maliki's view, the strategic threats to the unity of the state and to the viability of the new democratic government are over.

With the war already won, Maliki is now looking ahead to the negotiations for a permanent Status of Forces Agreement with the U.S. and, according to Krauthammer, he would rather negotiate such an agreement with Obama than with McCain. Read the whole thing.

Perhaps it is this perception of weakness, or disgust at the fawning media coverage, or amazement at Obama's hubris (travelling through Europe like he's already President), that is driving the poll numbers McCain's way.

A fresh look at the RealClearPolitics Electoral Map shows that Obama has lost some ground, but is still in good shape.

VICTORY

Two years ago, I was convinced that the Iraq War would be the determining factor in the 2008 election. At the time, it looked as if there was no end in sight, and certainly no possible way to achieve victory. Therefore, it seemed to me that the Democrats would make tremendous gains, and win the Presidency, because the American people would throw out the bums they held responsible for a failed war, as they did in 1952 and 1968. Well, just as other issues played a role in those elections, and just as perception trumps reality, so now we face a very different situation in Iraq, and a very different dynamic for the upcoming election.

Yesterday, President Bush reversed course and publicly admitted that some type of time frame for American troop withdrawals from Iraq is now possible. He did so within the context of the ongoing negotiations with the Iraqi government on a Status of Forces Agreement that would govern American troops remaining in Iraq. We have such agreements with governments all over the world. As a U.S. Army soldier in the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) from 1986-89, my presence and that of my comrades was governed by such an agreement (allowing me to enter and leave the country without a passport, for instance, and drive with a military driver's license, etc.), so I know how it works. Obviously, it would be under different conditions in a war-torn country like Iraq, but the principles are the same. The Iraqi government does not want to find itself in a semi-colonial position, as they were under the British in the 1920s, nor even the perception of such a position. Thus, it appears likely now that, no matter who wins the election, American forces will start leaving Iraq, probably in substantial numbers, in 2009. This has tremendous implications for the election, as it takes the Iraq War nearly off the table when people go to the polls.

Except for one thing. As Ralph Peters points out in this piece about Al Qaeda, and the editors of The New York Sun point out in this piece about Iraq, it appears now that we have won the war. Al Qaeda is on the run, discredited in the Arab world primarily due to it's brutality directed against Arabs (both Sunni and Shia) in Iraq, and the insurgency and criminality that have bedeviled Iraqis is being put down by an increasingly effective Iraqi Army. The only place that Al Qaeda has left is Afghanistan, primarily because they have like-minded fundamentalist local allies (the Taliban) in parts of Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan. (It is indeed ironic that a movement born among the Arabs is too medieval for its own people). Therefore, if this victory (or perception of victory) begins to take hold in the electorate, how will that impact their vote? Does it take Iraq (and the so-called "War on Terror") off the table? Or does it remind people that Obama wanted to cut-and-run while it was McCain who advocated the strategy that eventually brought victory in Iraq?

Answer those questions, and you will know who will achieve victory in November.

Israeli historian Benny Morris has this provocative piece in The New York Times today, in which he says everyone, including the Iranians, should hope that the Iranian nuclear weapons program is destroyed, and soon, in a conventional attack.

ISRAEL will almost surely attack Iran’s nuclear sites in the next four to seven months — and the leaders in Washington and even Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that country’s nuclear program. Because if the attack fails, the Middle East will almost certainly face a nuclear war — either through a subsequent pre-emptive Israeli nuclear strike or a nuclear exchange shortly after Iran gets the bomb.

Very interesting proposition, and quite disturbing. Read the whole thing.

Mona Charen believes the Israelis just lost an important battle to Hezbollah.

David Brooks believes we are entering an age of governmental activism, by necessity.

In the NRO, Lou Aguilar has ten reasons why real men will vote for John McCain over Barack Obama.

No one wins a war? Hmmm....that may be true, but some folks certainly lose. Just go ask a Carthaginian, if you can find one.

Still, while I do not take the pacifist position stated in the piece I link to above, I do agree that certain wars are extremely unwise. Ralph Peters, a former soldier, understands the consequences of war and writes this piece about what it would take to use military force to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program. It makes sobering reading, and it reinforces my belief that the U.S. should not take military action against Iran, unless the people of this country are behind the idea of total war, and that is unlikely.

The New York Times has this piece about what the people inside Iraq are thinking about Obama and his troop withdrawal plan.

Susan Estrich, looking at the Presidential polls, is worried. It should be a big Democratic year, and yet Obama and McCain are close.

A look at the Electoral Map over at RealClearPolitics shows some reason for optimism in the Obama camp. Rhodes Cook also points out that a surge in Democratic Party registration numbers is also reason for optimism for the Democrats. Stu Rothenberg thinks the race will be determined by what happens in 5 key states.

I think the race is close because people are uncertain that Obama is the right man to lead us in dangerous times. He appears too Liberal to some, too much of a waffler and/or opportunist to others, and he's too Black for an unknown number of others. He is, in many ways, an unconventional choice, and that is going to be his biggest challenge. Like Reagan in 1980, he is going to have to reassure voters that he can do the job. He's not a left-wing radical (as Reagan had to convince folks that he was not a right-wing radical), he's not a lightweight (as Reagan, the former actor, had to convince folks as well) and he can earn the respect of the other nations of the Earth. Like 1980, the debates will be the key. If, on national television, Obama can cut through the doubts, he will win.

While the U.S. Treasury Department's moves to save Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are certainly helpful in the short run, I wonder if another shoe will drop. Meanwhile, some Republican members of Congress want to slow down the pace of the new legislation.

Sebastian Mallaby has a solution...nationalization for Freddie and Fannie. Normally, I would be opposed, but if the taxpayers is going to be held liable for their debts, then shouldn't we all share in their profits, if and when they come?

Bob Novak notes that on Capitol Hill the politicians are flogging the speculators over the price of oil. It's good, and traditional, political sport that will make people feel better, earn politicians a few more votes, and do absolutely nothing to solve the problem.

More information is now available on the Taliban assault on an outpost held by a small force of U.S. and Afghan troops that led to nine American soldiers killed.

Thomas Sowell wonders if, in our current political discourse, facts have become obsolete. I thought that was always the case.

H.D.S. Greenway has praise for the author of Clash of Civilizations. Much deserved, as Samuel Huntington has seen history prove him right.

Ralph Peters explains the facts of life when it comes to dealing with tyrants, which is that talk is expensive, in the lives of those under the tyrant's heels. Charles Krauthammer explores a similar theme when considering the recent operation that rescued hostages in Columbia.

Expanding on a popular theme of late, Robert J. Samuelson writes about the gap between reality and the pronouncements of politicians.

Larry Sabato takes a look at the Electoral Map. It still looks good for Obama, but it still gives McCain a healthy chance.

The Democrats in Congress are already considering how they might govern in the event of an Obama Administration.

The Newsweek Poll shows McCain closing the gap. Newsweek's Jonathan Darman considers the implications of the new polling data. Meanwhile, today's Rasmussen daily tracking poll numbers put the race in a dead heat. So, why has the gap narrowed so quickly?

Like everyone else who follows politics for a living, or as a hobby, or both, I figured Obama would get a polling bounce once he eliminated Hillary Clinton from the contest. Once a party has a nominee, that usually happens as the followers of the defeated candidates reconcile themselves to the new standard bearer. But, history also shows us that races tend to narrow as they get closer to Election Day. In 1976, Jimmy Carter had a big lead early, then Ford narrowed the gap to the point that he almost pulled it out in the end. In 1980, Carter held a lead early until, after the debates, Reagan's calm demeanor reassured Americans that he was not some Right Wing nut. Reagan closed the gap and won in a landslide. In 1988, Mike Dukakis held the early lead, only to see that lead evaporate and George H.W. Bush pull ahead and win. In 2000, Al Gore had a narrow early lead which faded into a narrow Bush lead which then faded into the virtual tie at the end. Today, the country is still narrowly divided, despite the fact that Americans are united in the belief that things are not going well (thus the tremendous differential in the right track/wrong track numbers with huge numbers on the wrong track side, and the big negatives for both President Bush and the Democratic Congress).

Barack Obama had an initial burst of popularity when it seemed that he would bring genuine change, not just in policies, but in the way in which issues are discussed and decisions are made. His Robert Kennedy veneer has been slowly tarnishing as more and more evidence piles up to indicate that he is not a transformational figure, rather, he is simply another "tell the audience what they want to hear" politician. This is a big part of the reason why Clinton was able to close the gap during the primary process, but it started too late for her to win the nomination. The same phenomenon may be happening in the general election process, although starting far earlier than before. Like Clinton, McCain needs to seize on these signs of Obama's weakness and build an image for himself as a fighter for working class Americans. McCain can use his reputation as a maverick to advantage, especially if Obama continues to abandon his previous positions and supporters like so many used tissues. The bottom line?

McCain can still win this thing.

THE PROBLEM WITH HEALTH CARE

When reading articles about various aspects of the health care issue here in the U.S., one should always keep in mind that the crux of the matter is the basic fact that health care is a service provided by people to other people for a fee. In the end, health care providers must, somehow, get paid. If they are not paid, or paid inadequately, then most will find something else to do. All the arguments boil down to that simple fact. We can pay them as government employees (as they do in Cuba as just one part of a command economy, or as they do in Great Britain as a government-run piece of a free market economy), or we can have one government-run and funded insurance company pay them (as they do in Canada), or have a patchwork of private insurance companies and government-funded institutions pay them (as we do here in the U.S.).

Here are the problems with each system.

In the government-run system in a command economy (Cuba) the problems of the health care system are inextricably linked to the overall problems of an economy without free markets. Everyone in Cuba is entitled to the best care the system can provide, which is limited by the constraints of a small and stagnant economy. Everyone is equal (except, of course, Castro and other high Communist Party officials) in getting limited help.

In the government-run system in the market economy (Great Britain) and the government-funded insurance system in the market economy (Canada) the main problem is similar to the patchwork system we have here in the United States. That problem is the fact that the people who fund the system want to pay as little as possible. Taxpayers in Britain, Canada and the U.S. resist when their elected leaders try to raise their taxes. This constrains the growth of government budgets as a whole and each government, within the constraints of its particular political system, strains to fully fund their obligations. So, here in the U.S., we read a story like this one, about doctors and their lobbying groups pushing the Congress to undo cuts in Medicare reimbursements. The doctors are quite right when they complain about how they are not getting adequately paid by Medicare for their services to its beneficiaries, which results in doctors closing their practices or refusing to take new Medicare patients. On the other hand, the politicians in Congress (mainly Senate Republicans on this issue) are right when they point out that the system is growing beyond our means to pay for it within the existing tax structure, and that the taxpayers of the country will almost certainly reject any effort by this or any future Congress to raise taxes substantially enough to fully fund the program. We also read stories like this one, about how hospitals in New Jersey are closing, especially in poor neighborhoods, because they cannot make enough money to keep the doors open. They need to get paid but, because so many of their customers are without either private or government health insurance and they are required by law to treat them anyway, they cannot make ends meet.

In Canada and Great Britain they are also limited by how much the taxpayer is willing to pay, so we periodically hear about complaints of an underfunded National Health Service in Britain, or complaints by health providers in Canada that they aren't being adequately compensated for their services.

There is no perfect system. In each case a decision has to be made. Since health care is a service provided by people to other people for a fee, like any other service, and because our resources are not unlimited (both personally and as a community), then we need to determine how health care services are rationed. If we decide to ration those services like we ration most other services in our economy, then we will do it based on one's ability to pay. But, as we have seen in Canada, Great Britain, and other advanced, industrialized nations, deep down we really don't want to ration health care the way we ration cars or wide-screen TVs. Deep down we don't think our health and well-being should be determined by how much money we have. But, because we are Americans, not Canadians or Britons, we haven't yet been able to make the leap into making health care a government-insured right for everybody (so far, we've made it a right only for the poor and the elderly). Still, we haven't been able to embrace the idea that it is not a right, rather that it is simply another aspect of life that requires each of us to pay as individuals. This is why we have such a patchwork system, and this is why we are struggling to fix the problems without addressing the main points, because we do not want to stare the truth in the face on this issue.

If health care is a right, then we must devise a system whereby every citizen can access care, and every provider will be paid adequately to provide such services.

If health care is not a right, then every individual is responsible for his or her own care, and the care of their loved ones, and should pay willing providers for such services through a fee arrangement of their own agreement.

Choose.

Ralph Peters would have us remember the price of freedom on this Independence Day.

Barack Obama is forced to smooth some ruffled feathers among his anti-war base in a press conference called after it seemed that he was waffling on his commitment to withdraw our troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. Charles Krauthammer has it right about this guy, he's a politician who will say or do anything to get elected (which makes him remarkably similar to almost everyone else who has ever held political office in the history of the United States).

Of course, at least some folks believe Obama shouldn't pop the cork just yet.

Jeff Jacoby says Israel is still paying for it's 2006 defeat at the hands of Hezbollah.

Jennifer Rubin, writing in The Jerusalem Post, says one needs to look back to 1973 to discover why it is that many American Jews who would normally support the Democratic nominee for President will not vote for Barack Obama.

Ralph Peters writes in The New York Post about the rising Islamist tide in Pakistan.

The death toll rises in Afghanistan while it falls in Iraq. Perhaps a surge in Afghanistan will prove as salutary as it did in Iraq.

The Supreme Court makes a significant factual error in a recent case.

Andrew Bacevich is critical of the Bush Administration's view of how to deal with the global Islamic terrorist threat, and believes it's legacy will continue after Bush leaves office.

Yet in crucial respects, the Bush era will not end Jan. 20, 2009. The administration's many failures, especially those related to Iraq, mask a considerable legacy. Among other things, the Bush team has accomplished the following:

Defined the contemporary era as an "age of terror" with an open-ended "global war" as the necessary, indeed the only logical, response;

Promulgated and implemented a doctrine of preventive war, thereby creating a far more permissive rationale for employing armed force;

Affirmed - despite the catastrophe of Sept. 11, 2001 - that the primary role of the Department of Defense is not defense, but power projection;

Removed constraints on military spending so that once more, as Ronald Reagan used to declare, "defense is not a budget item";

Enhanced the prerogatives of the imperial presidency on all matters pertaining to national security, effectively eviscerating the system of checks and balances;

Preserved and even expanded the national security state, despite the manifest shortcomings of institutions such as the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff;

Preempted any inclination to question the wisdom of the post-Cold War foreign policy consensus, founded on expectations of a sole superpower exercising "global leadership";

Completed the shift of US strategic priorities away from Europe and toward the Greater Middle East, the defense of Israel having now supplanted the defense of Berlin as the cause to which presidents and would-be presidents ritually declare their fealty.

By almost any measure, this constitutes a record of substantial, if almost entirely malignant, achievement.

Read the whole thing, as I think it perfectly encapsulates the, for lack of a better term, liberal view (and agreed with in some respects by traditional conservatives) of how President Bush responded, incorrectly, to 9/11.

On the other hand, there is evidence that the militaristic response to Islamic terrorism has been effective as, according to Amir Taheri, the Islamists who go under the brand name of Al Qaeda are looking for a new strategy.

Of course, if we treat the terrorist threat as a law enforcement problem, rather than a military problem, we could wind up watching as judges set them free, as is happening in Great Britain.

Meanwhile, the Israelis are finding it difficult to maintain a hard line against the terrorists who would exterminate them given half a chance, according to Benny Morris.

Fareed Zakaria says Barack Obama needs to make a speech about Iraq, and has some suggestions on what he should say in that speech.

The Obama people have been talking about winning some Southern states. At least one analyst thinks that won't happen.

Yesterday marked the 100th anniversary of the Tunguska explosion. Are we ready for the next one?

It was a grim first half of the year for global stocks.

So, my stock portfolio is down, and my heating oil, gasoline, and food prices are up. Who is to blame? Let's blame the speculators (even if they're not really at fault).