Charles Gasparino today:

"Bankers working on the deal to bail out troubled bond insurer Ambac say progress is being made on a recapitalization plan that could save the bond insurer's triple-A rating. The consortium of banks, which includes Citigroup and Wachovia could announce the deal as early as Monday or Tuesday. Although the structure of the deal is still uncertain, sources indicated the deal could include both equity infusions and lines of credit."

Charles Gasparino on February 1:

"Lemme tell ya sometin -- if it wuz dat easy dey wudda done it by now."

Last year, Mr. Obama sparked his campaign by pressuring Republicans to join him in a pledge to use only public money in a general election. Last week, when rival and fellow pledge-taker John McCain reminded him of that promise, Mr. Obama refused to go "locking" himself into an agreement.

This "No, We Can't" moment is supposedly a function of the Obama campaign's belief that it can massively out-raise Mr. McCain, and wants no public financing limits. The more cynical (and likelier) case is that Mr. Obama is using this in hopes of handicapping Mr. McCain in the upcoming months -- well before the general election begins.

Whatever the motive, this is a telling first example of the actual cash value of Mr. Obama's soaring words. From the start, Mr. Obama's promises to reform government, to make campaign finance more transparent, to weed out "moneyed special interests" have been integral to Obamamania.

This is no mere side issue, but the stuff on which the senator lifts crowds. "Now I know some will say we can't make this change," he thundered in one "transparency" talk on lobbyists. "That the culture of corrosive influence in politics is too sprawling to spotlight . . . That's not how I see it . . . Making government accountable to the people isn't just a cause of this campaign -- it's been a cause of my life for two decades."

Consider, too, that this is one of the few instances in which Mr. Obama did more than talk. His campaign won rave reviews when it last year forwarded a proposal to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to allow candidates to defensively raise money for a general election, but give it back if both sides agreed to public money. Mr. Obama then committed to taking public funds if his competitor did. This was a key moment in the Obama rise, a supposed example of his "fresh thinking."

Where is that "fresh thinking" now?

Hillary got mostly positive reviews from the TV pundits for her stage act last night, which is completely wrong.

The Debate: She needed to dominate Obama but never tried. She did pester, play nice-nice, whine, more nice-nice, carp and bitch. Her late attempts to draw blood on health care insurance details were unproductive. Worse yet, she passed up a question about Obama's readiness to be Commander-in-Chief to lecture an excited crowd of Texas Democrats about the critical details of subpart 614.5 of mandates rule 49(b).

She wants desperately to take charge of the US Government so she can finally take charge of all of our needs (!), but she wasn't even in charge of herself.

The Wrap-Up: She told a story about wounded vets which had her (and John McCain) in the position of beneficent leaders consoling the troops and commending their service. Or so she said. I didn't buy her version for a second. John McCain was one of them and their hero. (There are many stories of US troops taking McCain books with them to Iraq to bolster their own courage.) She thinks of herself as Queen and these helpless soldiers are prostrated before her begging for a 11.5% increase in their daily ration. She’s so moved; she might just grant a portion of their request.

But then, she rushed through a clearly rehearsed line about being proud to be on stage with Obama. Find that on You Tube if you can...just the last minute.

Mick's Dangerous Conjecture: She knows she's dead as a Presidential candidate. She wants to be President so bad she'd do anything. How can these two be reconciled? She's angling for the VP slot from Obama. She'll want conditions on roles and issues, including subpart 614.5 of mandates rule 49(b). As V.P. candidate her job will be to kick hard at the REpublican ticket and deliver her voters to Obama.

He shouldn't agree (for many reasons) but he might. Imagine the pressure from her minions and angle-kickers, especially the NOW crowd.

Then what? As Vice President, she'll walk into the U.S. Senate and be addressed, appropriately, as "Madame President."

...we should be looking at an extended period of economic weakness, probably extending well into 2010, and quite possibly even longer.

Does the Times have information that corroborates its suggestion of an affair, but that it didn’t publish in “For McCain”?

...In “Re-examining Our Credibility,” a memo issued to Times newsroom staffers on Nov. 10, 2004, then-assistant managing editor Allan Siegal wrote,

In the last year and a half, The Times has deepened and widened its efforts to deserve readers’ trust….We have required that every unidentified source quoted in the paper be known by name to at least one editor; we have tried to describe our sources and their motives more candidly and usefully. We’d like to believe we have reduced our dependence on anonymous sources; certainly we have begun trying and intend to push ahead.

Yet the suggestions of an affair in “For McCain” generally rely on unnamed sources, and their desire for anonymity isn’t explained, as per the Times’s general convention, in the piece. The piece’s only named source for the suggestion of a possible affair is John Weaver, McCain’s former strategist, whom the article calls “disillusioned” without offering further commentary. Given that, is “For McCain” an exception to the Times’s standards of reportorial transparency? If so, why?

...“For McCain” rehashes an incident from 1999 in which the senator received rebuke from the FCC after he wrote its chair urging it to give quick consideration to a TV license request from Paxson Communications, whose CEO—a friend of McCain’s—had provided McCain with several thousand dollars’ worth of cash and services. Though the Paxson affair made headlines at the time, the only new pieces of information “For McCain” provides, a decade later, are details of McCain’s relationship with Iseman, who lobbied for Paxson. Would “For McCain” have been a page-one story without its suggestions of sexual impropriety?

Mr. McCain can now question Mr. Obama's promise to change Washington by working across party lines. Mr. Obama hasn't worked across party lines since coming to town. Was he a member of the "Gang of 14" that tried to find common ground between the parties on judicial nominations? Was Mr. Obama part of the bipartisan leadership that tackled other thorny issues like energy, immigration or terrorist surveillance legislation? No. Mr. Obama has been one of the most dependably partisan votes in the Senate.

Mrs. Clinton can do much more to draw attention to Mr. Obama's lack of achievements. She can agree with Mr. Obama's statement Tuesday night that change is difficult to achieve on health care, energy, poverty, schools and immigration -- and then question his failure to provide any leadership on these or other major issues since his arrival in the Senate. His failure to act, advocate or lead on what he now claims are his priorities may be her last chance to make a winning argument.

Mr. McCain gets a chance to question Mr. Obama's declaration he won't be beholden to lobbyists and special interests. After Mr. Obama's laundry list of agenda items on Tuesday night, Mr. McCain can ask why, if Mr. Obama rejects the influence of lobbyists, has he not broken with any lobbyists from the left fringe of the Democratic Party? Why is he doing their bidding on a range of issues? Perhaps because he occupies the same liberal territory as they do.

Obama has invoked the Declaration of Independence, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Franklin Roosevelt to show the power of words. But there is a critical difference between Mr. Obama's rhetoric and that of Jefferson, King and FDR. In each instance, their words were used to advance large, specific purposes -- establishing a new nation based on inalienable rights; achieving equal rights and a color-blind society; giving people confidence to endure a Great Depression. For Mr. Obama, words are merely a means to hide a left-leaning agenda behind the cloak of centrist rhetoric. That garment has now been torn. As voters see what his agenda is, his opponents can now far more effectively question his authenticity, credibility, record and fitness to be leader of the free world.

Hillary’s campaign is in full panic mode. Once again, the best analysis comes from Jay Cost.

...it is rare for a front running candidate like Obama to develop momentum like this. It is not unheard of (e.g. George H.W. Bush had something like this in 1988), but it is rare. Usually, candidates like Obama are "launched" with a splashy win in New Hampshire. That is different from what seems to be happening here. Obama seems to have built upon his latest wins.

If there is a sizeable momentum effect, Clinton should be very nervous. Demographically, Texas has a lot in common with California, except that there are more African Americans. This bodes well for Obama - and if momentum is now in the equation, Clinton could be in real trouble. If you take the margin of her California victory, factor in the larger African American base, and factor in a 5 to 7 point shift in the white vote to Obama - that win might become a loss.

The Hillaryites – meaning the tens of thousands of active Democrats volunteering for her campaign as opposed to her paid staff – are frozen in place while she and her inexperienced campaign manager try to figure out what further ugly tactic can undermine the love and affection Democrats of all demographics have for Dorothy, oh, I mean Obama.

In just two weeks, Texas (and maybe Ohio) will finish her. What then for all her supporters? Bitter as she will be, her supporters will be graciously invited to join the Obama campaign. 99.89% will do so. Hillaryites today, February 20, may still act like loyal palace guards, but remember, they are only acting. And watching the clock. This has happened before and it will happen again.

Then we will have Obama versus McCain. A man with a gift for communicating and connecting versus an authentic maverick war hero at a time when the single issue deciding this election will be an economy headed down fast. Or, so it seems today.

Won't it be ironic if Hillary's last stand is in the State of Texas? If she gets boot-stomped by George W. Bush's fellow Texans (albeit Democratic ones), that would only be due justice from the abuse that the Bush family has taken from the Clintons over the past 16 years.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:55 AM | link  

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:23 PM | link