Between Michelle Obama's comment that her husband's presidential candidacy makes her proud of America for the first time and military hero John McCain's virtual lock on the Republican nomination, the general election could turn into an electoral battle between flag-waving patriots and those they call "Blame America Firsters."
In a sense, it becomes yet another test of strength for the far left in America, which has failed in three attempts to get a presidential candidate -- George McGovern, Walter Mondale or John Kerry -- elected. The first two got routed in 1972 and 1984, respectively. Kerry came much closer to winning the White House in 2004.
Maybe, in 2008, the far left is close enough to success.
As I've mentioned before when discussing Republican politics, ideology has not been a factor in the campaign. Neither for Democrats. Some have tried to make it ideological, but they failed. There's been no need among liberals to make sure their candidates have been ideologically pure. Americans for Democratic Action rated Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as 75 percent liberal in their 2007 voting, following 95 percent ratings the year before. Can't be more similar than that.
While both push liberal programs, many see Obama as being more liberal of the two, and he's getting support from the pillars of the left: university towns, Hollywood, unions. Clinton is not entirely trusted regarding the war.
Then there's Michelle Obama. She probably didn't expect a fierce reaction when she told a crowd in Wisconsin that she'd never been proud of the good ol' USA before. The comment was probably just a little over-the-top speech. The trouble is not so much that she said it, but that to her audience, such a statement is nothing out of the norm. To her social and intellectual set, the same as Barack's, such a line fit right in with their thinking. They've been insulated. They haven't had to explain their thinking to voters with Lee Greenwood on their iPods.
That will change when the general election rolls around. Republicans will rally around God and country. Democrats, who came close four years ago to electing their first far-left president, will find out if they have enough strength now to hold off the flag-wavers.
---
The New York Times article about McCain's connection to a telecommunications lobbyist leaves one to ponder. My reaction: gee, what a shock. People around Washington, D.C., get around, especially if they've been in office a long time. Which is why politicians who are clean when elected are soiled if they stay more than a few terms. For this to happen to McCain is no surprise.
But why bring up something that's kind of old? The relationship ended around the year 2000. Certainly there can be something newer.
That's why I think the story is a test run for what's to come. This isn't that big a story, certainly nothing that will harm McCain's election prospects. Running this story now might just rattle his tree some, and if the tree shakes, something might fall off. The NYT reporter started investigating the relationship when he received a tip. The story might bring more tips into the newsroom, or those of the Washington Post or LA Times, which might be more useful against McCain in late-October.
---
The stories on the resignation of Cuba's Fidel Castro have been kind of funny. "Might There be Change in Havana?" Uh, no.
Change will come to Pakistan, and it's about time we congratulate the opposition and get on board with them. You don't have to jettison Musarraf, but you'll have to work with whoever it is that's in power.
Unfortunately, that power says it plans to try to resolve Pakistan's problems with Islamists through dialogue. Musarraf has already tried that and it didn't work. So look for the South Asian nation to remain unstable for a while, and for our efforts in neighboring Afghanistan to be prolonged as a result.
