A Racist E-Mail On Obama Awaits Me At Home

Already, it seems, the hopes that an election contest between Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama would be a high-minded debate of such issues as Iraq, the economy and global warming is giving way to racial stereotypes against Obama.

I arrived home late last night from my college reunion trip to Boston only to find a shocking e-mail from a friend, saying it might be worth consideration. It was a combination of every possible attack racially against Obama and his wife, Michelle, focusing first on whether he was a legitimate child and going down from there.

It is, I think, a matter of hope for America that Obama is a biracial candidate. But whoever the lowlife was who wrote this e-mail could only remember that at the time they married, Obama's parents were defying the miscegenation laws of half the states of the Union (but not, of course, Hawaii, where they married).

Are the voters of the USA going to let this hopeful election be dragged down into a cesspool, because that's what scurrilous messages on the Internet are doing. Is McCain going to allow his character to be sullied by not speaking out against such attacks?

I'm sorry to have to call the frequently enlightened woman who forwarded me the e-mail a friend, but the fact is she has been one since 1957. I sent her a message asking her not to forward me trash.

This came just a short time after another friend of long standing told me over lunch that America would never elect a black man to the presidency. This man calls himself a liberal.

Yet, you know what, Obama and his well-organized campaign continue to make their points in a rational way as if they actually expect him to be elected, as I do.

Our bet is that America has changed, and can rise above the bloody past of slavery and segregation to elect a man who towers intellectually over his opponent, and promises a new policy of less divisiveness at home.

Just who his parents were, and how they came to be married, is hardly worth discussing against those considerations.

--

The news comes from Salt Lake City that the Deseret News is selling property to the Mormon church, or transferring it, since the church already owns it, for $3 million, so it can fund employee layoffs.

At the L.A. Times, by contrast, the forthcoming layoffs won't cost owner Sam Zell much, because he has already vowed to reduce the scope of the severance packages.

At the weekend reunion, the wife of one of my classmates from Chicago told me she has found Zell's wife to be quite a bit more civilized than he is, and also knows, and admires, Michelle Obama.

Obama Should Debate McCain, Go Abroad

This is a morning of many retrospectives about what happened to Hillary Clinton, all the mistakes she made. Former Sen. Bob Kerrey, however, may have it about right when he says that if Barack Obama had been ten years younger and run in 1992, both he and Bill Clinton would have lost to him. And blogger Ben Smith makes a worthwhile point too: She should have contested more of the caucus states; Obama built his delegate advantage in them.

It is time to look ahead and not back. And, as usual, this morning, the best column is by Frank Rich, in the New York Times. Every election year, there seems to be one writer who "gets it" best, who is on the proper wave length, and then a host of them who remember the past campaigns, but don't get the present one.

Rich has two main pieces of advice for Obama today, and both of them, I believe, are good.

One is, he ought to accept John McCain's proposal for a series of "Town Hall" debates.

Second is, he ought to go abroad, to Iraq, and elsewhere, to showcase for the American people his popularity abroad, and how much the rest of the world feels it has a stake in the success of a new administration in America, a break from the past.

Rich's feeling, like some other observers of the scene, is that McCain did not do particularly well last Tuesday night when he appeared in Louisiana to make the first of the three major candidate presentations that evening. The other presentations came from Clinton and Obama.

McCain did not speak particularly well, his audience was small, and it seemed he was not well presented -- the wrong kind of hall, the wrong kind of the crowd, too white, none of the Latinos and Asians who he presumably thinks that, like Hillary, he can win against Obama.

If Obama and McCain meet frequently in these common discussions (a better term than debates, the way McCain has presented them), then it is Rich's feeling that Obama's superiority as a candidate, his youth, his ideas for the future, will come across clearly, and that McCain, by contrast, will suffer.

Is he right? I don't know, but I suspect that Obama, in this campaign, is like the circus performer on the trapeze: As long as he is sailing along, performing without hesitation, making use of his skills, he's fine. But if he hesitates, grows cautious, he is apt to fall. Obama, riding a tiger, has soared out of obscurity as an inspirational candidate. He cannot now afford to become less of one, and going up against McCain in these discussions is an important way to continue to put himself forward.

As to Obama going abroad, I just, of course, returned from visiting numerous African countries, including three Arab ones and several others with large Muslim minorities. At every hand on this trip was evidence of Obama's popularity. If Obama is elected, America will appear in all these places in a much more favorable light.

But Obama need not visit The Gambia and Togo to show his popularity. If he goes to Iraq, if he goes to Israel (as long as he talks to both the Israelis and Palestinians), if he goes to Russia, France and Britain, then he will demonstrate clearly for all the American people to see, his popularity and the advantages of a new face in Washington.

Of course, I do not underestimate McCain. If his life proves anything, it is the advantage of hanging in there, of daring to defy his North Vietnamese captors, and, for a long time, the ire of President Bush. He is an admirably resilient character, with a talent for innovation in both his life and his politics.

If events -- the soaring price of oil, a possible new terrorist attack, anything that upsets the apple cart and really further challenges America -- do occur, it may be that McCain will gain an advantage, by appearing a safer candidate than the less experienced Obama.

But Obama's emphasis on hope and a more forthcoming America has already proved its power in this campaign and may continue to do so. That and the tremendous organizational skills he has demonstrated in his campaign thus far.

As I said yesterday, I do not agree with the old friend who told me that America will never vote for a black man. The fact is, America has changed in that respect. During our adult life spans, our generation has seen black candidates elected mayor, governor or U.S. senator, in places like Los Angeles, and the states of Virginia and Massachusetts, that do not have anywhere close to black majorities. They all won primarily with white votes.

Obama, wisely, seldom talks up racial issues in his campaign, except when he is forced to, as he was in the Jeremiah Wright controversy. His vision is far wider than race, and I think most of the American people already realize that, or will come to realize it.

I also agree with Rich (who is no relation of mine, by the way), when he warns Obama against too much "preening," making too much of himself and his prospects.

Yesterday, when Obama appeared at a ceremony celebrating Chicago's selection by the International Olympic Committee, as one of four finalists for award of the 2016 Olympics, he suggested that he would just be finishing his second term in the presidency when Chicago held the 2016 Games. (Maybe both the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times will be under different ownership by then).

Obama should avoid, I think, drumming his vainglorious career too deeply into the minds of onlookers. With the kind of humility that marked Lincoln, he must go forward primarily with his idealism, organizational skills and hopes.

--

Besides Rich, another brilliant column about the campaign comes in the London Times from Andrew Sullivan, who has a very good feel for the appeal of the Obama candidacy. How telling it is, in fact, that the London Times has been so much the better reporter on the election campaign than the L.A. Times. That shows the superiority of Rupert Murdoch to Sam Zell.

But Jim Newton, the L.A. Times editorial pages editor who has now quit, can take pride in the Times editorial that originally endorsed Obama and McCain for their respective party nominations. That understood the flow of events well too. It's too bad L.A. Times "publisher," David Hiller, didn't treat Newton better. He might have stayed around for the election.

But the editorial page of the LAT does not distinguish itself as much Sunday, with a long, tedious editorial saying that on many issues Obama and McCain are much alike. Those Americans who do not yet realize how different a kind of president Obama would be from McCain are, I think, sure to understand it by election day.

Can Obama Win In November? I Think So.

I'm always a little superstitious, so I am repeating, in spirit, a blog headline I had back in January: "Can Obama Win On Super Tuesday? I think so."

When the Mountain West and Southern states came in that day, despite losing California, it was Barack Obama and not Hillary Clinton, who had won the most convention delegates. He did win on Super Tuesday, when many thought he would not.

Well, contrary to some of my friends, I feel Obama can certainly win in November. In fact, just as with Ronald Reagan, he may not be the favorite at this stage, but I believe his election is fairly certain.

I went out to lunch in China Town yesterday with a friend of long political experience who kept telling me, "He won't win, because he's black...This country hasn't changed that much." Yet this man is an Obama supporter. "I will stand on my head if Obama wins," he said.

My friend ought to start practicing standing on his head. Since he weighs about as much as I do, that won't be easy. But he's going to have to do it, I believe.

Why?

Because the country is ready for something new. In fact, it is grasping for a less divisive government in Washington, after eight years of Clintons and 12 years of Bushs. It would like a new foreign policy, too, and new, inventive energy and economic policies. It is ready for a change.

Barack Obama can provide it. He is a ray of hope in a somber scene. Already, his campaign has been epic, mythic. Our grandchildren, I believe, will be telling stories to their grandchildren about the emergence of Barack Obama.

The product of a biracial marriage, of growing up in Indonesia and Hawaii, of increasing brilliance in a series of fine schools, president of the Harvard Law Review, a community organizer in Chicago, a state senator in Illinois, a U.S. senator, an inspirational figure whose composure is already famous, a soaring orator, a patriot, a loving father and husband, and, I think and hope, the next president of the United States of America.

It won't be easy. John McCain is a good candidate, I believe, really, a better candidate than Hillary Clinton. He won't make the tasteless remarks she did, and he won't have an unruly spouse hanging around his neck. He is a war hero whose own life has been exemplary.

But the issues, the feeling, in this campaign are all with Obama. He is going to win many votes from independents and even people like me, Republicans. He is something new, a man of hope, and, black, brown, yellow or white, I believe the American people will not allow this great opportunity to pass them by.

Yes, he can!

--

Hillary Clinton gave a respectable, serviceable concession speech today, but she could and should have been a little more laudatory about the great personal qualities of Obama. It wouldn't have hurt her cause any. It may even have helped her.

Hillary Proves Herself Unworthy To Be VP

It's sometimes called the "dream ticket," the notion of Barack Obama choosing Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential running mate. But for Obama, this could well be the "nightmare ticket."

I confess I've gone back and forth on this. But last night's sorry performance by Hillary, combined with Bill Clinton's temper tantrum of the day before, convinces me it would be a mistake for Obama to run with her.

More than a mistake, perhaps. As Politico points out this morning, Obama has been handed the opportunity to take a "presidential decision," right off the bat. He can announce Hillary will not be on the ticket. I think the country, and ultimately many Clinton supporters will understand.

Hillary had the chance last night to be magnanimous. But she could not even bring herself to be pleasant to Obama. She never mentioned he had gone over the top and clinched the nomination. Hers was not a concession speech at all, but one designed to rile up her followers. One of the commentators compared it to Richard Nixon's "Checkers Speech," in 1952, when he called for his supporters to write in for him. Hillary did the same thing last night.

The prospect that this awful couple, Bill and Hillary Clinton, might try somehow to hold Obama in a kind of bondage, jumping to their tune, a reversion to the slave holding South, is intolerable. He must not open his presidency, if he is successful, worrying about what the two of them are doing behind his back, or perhaps right in front of the news media. He doesn't want to have to have a taster in the White House.

Through their racial undertones, their snide suggestions, their claims Obama was not ready, and their providing the McCain campaign with all the attacks lines it could possibly use, Hillary and Bill Clinton have proved themselves unacceptable running mates, and disloyal to the Democratic party. It's possible, as some suggest, they may adopt a different tone in three or four days, but this would only be temporary.

Indeed, one of the tests Obama now faces, in running against McCain, is to prove he is up to actually being president. The best possible early way to do this is to show he is in charge and will select his own choice as a running mate.

--

L.A. Times political coverage is in some trouble. Just two signs of it came Tuesday in the failure to give more than a short to Bill Clinton's tantrum in South Dakota Monday, the most violent of his sorry campaign appearances that hurt Hillary so much. By contrast, the New York Times had a long story, with a reefer on Page one.

The LAT Web site also fell down on the job. Close to midnight last night, it had a story reporting only 2% of the returns in the impassioned Los Angeles County South Side supervisorial race between two lawmakers, State Sen. Mark Ridley-Thomas and City Councilman Bernard Parks. Actually, at the bottom of the story, it turned out it had 64% of the returns in terms of precincts reporting. What a disgrace! The Times did not even update the lead of a story it had on Page one of the Web site. And this is the group of numbskulls who are always saying how much they are improving the Web site.

However, Mark Barabak's story on how Obama won an epic victory, and Hillary lost, was a terrific piece, more timely than the New York Times profile of Obama.

--

Jim Newton, the latest short-term editorial pages editor, has been polite, frankly more polite than I would have been, about his decision to leave the paper after a distinguished career of 19 years.

But one paragraph of his departing note to the staff reveals plainly that he had the same kind of differences with "publisher" David Hiller that Dean Baquet and James O'Shea had.

"The external difficulties these days are known to all of you, and I won't belabor them here," he writes. "Let me say only that it's clear to me, as it is to everyone, that the paper still has challenges ahead. The publisher and I have discussed those difficulties, and he is entitled to an editorial page editor who shares his vision on how best to confront them."

This is Jim's way of saying that he couldn't stomach the layoffs apparently about to be announced, and, perhaps, also that he was fearful Hiller and his boss, Sam Zell, may drop their Obama endorsement and endorse only John McCain for president. (In the primaries, the Times endorsed the two for their respective party nominations. This would be yet another Chicago insult to liberal Los Angeles.

Over the years, I've come to admire Jim Newton more and more. The Times can scarcely afford to lose people of his caliber -- such as Henry Weinstein, Stephanie Simon, Lee Hotz, John Balzar, Myron Levin, Jenifer Warren, Robert Welkos, Greg Krikorian, Sonia Nazario, Cecilia Rasmussen, John Spano, Jeff Rabin, Connie Kang, Susan Pinkus, Bill Boyarsky, Bill Stall, Doug Frantz, Mark Arax and so many others. All gone. All marks of the paper's deterioration under the evil Tribune ownership.

What I find intolerable is the thought that these wonderful reporters and editors have departed, while Hiller and Russ Stanton still actually draw paychecks.

Is there a ray of light in all this? Maybe so. An insider told me just yesterday he thought Hiller might be gone by summer.

Will Clinton Continue Campaign To The Convention?

It was clear yesterday that Hillary Clinton had lost control of the Democratic National Committee to the Obama campaign. She came into the day with the supposed support of 13 members of the Rules and Bylaws Committee, with 8 known as Barack Obama supporters and 8 undecided.

But when the day was over, on the key decision over splitting the Michigan delegation, she lost the vote 19 to 8, with the chairman and a Michigan member not allowed to vote. That meant such Hillary supporters as Don Fowler of South Carolina had peeled off, and, surely knowing the significance, had voted with the Obama forces on a deal that gave her just 34 and a half votes in the Michigan delegation to his 29 and a half. She had wanted all Michigan delegates to cast full votes, and a delegate margin out of Michigan of 73 to 55.

It was, I think, a fair decision, because as was frequently noted in the debate leading to the 19-8 vote, the Michigan primary had been "deeply flawed." Clinton, flouting the DNC rules, stayed on the ballot in Michigan, which had tried to skip its primary ahead of others. Obama, a more ethical candidate, had taken his name off the ballot as did most of the other Democratic candidates still in the race at that time.

But the cost to Obama of keeping his name off the Michigan ballot is, psychologically, perhaps considerable. With Puerto Rican votes in, and Clinton winning a 2-1 victory there, she may have passed Obama in the popular vote nationwide by a very narrow margin. That includes giving him no votes in Michigan, even though 40% there voted "uncommitted," and some compilations give those votes to him. Hillary claimed to have a popular vote margin in her victory speech in San Juan Sunday, giving her an argument to make to super delegates.

Although the DNC chairman Howard Dean, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in effect prevailed at Saturday's DNC meeting with the arguments they have been making for some time that it is necessary to bring the Democratic political bloodbath to an early closure, hopefully this week, Clinton representative Harold Ickes threw a vial of poison into the proceedings at the last moment.

Ickes, an attorney, proves the old adage that many lawyers are mainly liars. Before he went to work for Bill Clinton in the White House, he represented a number of mob-dominated unions. He has no real business appearing in respectable company.

But he surely has the same low ethical standards as Hillary. Claiming that the Rules and Bylaws committee had "hijacked" the Michigan vote, and using such expletives as "ass," Ickes said he was speaking directly for Hillary when he said she reserved the right to take the fight over the Michigan delegation to the Credentials Committee of the DNC, thus putting it one step from a floor fight at the convention itself.

This may be so. Clinton campaign manager Terry McAuliffe repeated Ickes' remarks about possbily going to the Credential Committee in interviews Sunday. Clinton herself made no mention of that when she made her Puerto-Rican victory speech, but later did in an interview with the Washington Post.

What would going to the Credentials Committee mean? It would mean that the highly divisive Clinton effort would go on with her and her husband's attempted power grab of the presidency proceeding months more, thus compromising Obama's campaign against Republican Sen. John McCain this summer.

Outside the Rules and Bylaws committee meeting, hundreds of fullthroated women, disappointed at the possible failure of Hillary's bid to become the first woman president, roared their dissatisfaction with the way the DNC proceedings had turned out.

This will be a sad week for the feminists who so ardently supported Hillary's campaign, if this week, with the South Dakota and Montana primaries closing out the primary voting, a large group of super delegates endorse Obama, putting him over the new majority (with half of Michigan's and half of Florida's votes counted) of 2,118 to secure the nomination. Obama campaign aides Sunday night claimed to be just 46 delegates short of that fjgure.

At this moment, Obama going over the top this week is the most likely scenario. A better woman candidate would have possibly won, the United States is certainly ready for a woman president. But perhaps not a woman with the downsides of Hillary. She had a remarkable capacity for making racially-tinged and tasteless remarks.

Both the New York Times and Obama himself are speculating that Hillary and Bill will, perhaps as early as this week, "do the right thing," recognize the insuperable odds, and get out of the race, perhaps endorsing Obama and helping to unite the Democratic party.

Having carefully observed this squalid couple, Hillary and Bill, over recent months, I personally doubt they will go so quietly. They are destroyers, not builders, and if they cannot command the temple, like Samson, they may try to tear it down.

If she continues to struggle despite an Obama majority of delegates, elected and super, Hillary Clinton would be a Lady MacBeth. She would be working to make McCain president, so Obama could not run as an incumbent in 2012. We can hope she will not follow this route, but she still may.

DNC Should Resist Placating Slimy Clinton Forces

It is vitally necessary, out of fairness, and with regard to Democratic chances in the fall election campaign, that the Democratic National Committee group that meets Saturday to consider the matter of the Florida and Michigan delegations, not take any step that would placate the ugly Hillary Clinton effort to break rules she once agreed to, or would recognize the results of the spurious primaries in those states.

If the DNC group, the Rules and Bylaws committee, feels sitting any delegations from Michigan and Florida at the Democratic National Convention is advisable, and I think the country as a whole will understand if it does not, then the number of Hillary and Obama delegates seated should be equal, so that nothing will be done to change the ultimate course of the convention, or give Hillary any excuse for continuing a campaign which long ago on her part turned divisive and ugly.

Hillary has been beaten by Obama, fair and square. Hopefully, her political career will be over after her current term in the Senate. Her remark in South Dakota suggesting that she would stay in the race just in case Obama were assassinated went so far beyond the pale of ordinary political discourse, and was so repugnant and ugly, that the country should be through with Hillary Clinton from now forevermore.

Let's review the facts. All the Democratic presidential candidates agreed that since Florida and Michigan violated party rules, by setting their primaries too early, they would not campaign in those states, nor would those states have representation at the convention.

Obama, who customarily adheres to the highest ethical standards, observed those rules. He didn't campaign in either state and his name was not even on the ballot in Michigan.

But Hillary, unlike all the other candidates, violated the rules. She made appearances in both states, and now she argues that the delegates from both states chosen in the spurious primaries should be seated.

Already, there are hints that Hillary and her husband, the nefarious former President Bill Clinton, will cause trouble for Obama in the fall, if they can. Bill Clinton remarked this week that the press had been prejudiced against his wife, and before much longer it seems likely that the Clintons will be talking in general about conspiracies to destroy her chances in the entire race. The Clintons love to see conspiracies when, in fact, they are responsible for their own failures.

Another matter that is of concern at Saturday's meeting is the influence of this election campaign on future ones. If the Democratic National Committee doesn't stick with the rules it set in this go-around, it will be an open invitation for states to ignore them in the future, with multiple negative effects in 2012 and beyond.

So the DNC group must stand by its principles on Saturday. The Clintons have been trying to organize demonstrations outside the meeting. Obama's campaign has wisely asked his supporters not to demonstrate.

Let's hope all goes well, and there is a stand on principle. If not, Democratic chances in this election, not to mention future ones, may be compromised.

Bill Is An Even Worse Sore Loser Than Hillary

If Bill Clinton had only gone to visit his buddy, the dictator of Kazakhistan, at the beginning of the American presidential campaign, and stayed there, saying nothing, he would have served his wife, Hillary's, interests better.

The poor man just cannot pent up his anger, or keep his mouth shut, and in the present context, it is not doing the Democratic party any good at all, hurting Barack Obama's chances in the fall.

I think even Hillary might not have wandered into what the New York Times has called "disturbing racial undertones" in her campaign, had not Bill gone there first, with his remarks in and after the South Carolina primary. For this former governor of a Deep South state, the prospect of a black man like Obama winning all those white votes was just too much.

Now, Bill is suggesting the press has been biased against his wife, and it won't be long before he is threatening her Senate career by suggesting her fellow senators have been unfair to her. (Twenty Democratic senators have endorsed Obama, while only 13 have endorsed Hillary, and none since February).

It is easy to say Hillary should have shooed Bill off long ago. But the trouble is that she wouldn't be a major political figure in the first place without her association with him. So she had to be moderately nice, for fear reports of marital discord would hurt her campaign.

If Bill really cared a jot for her, he'd have been much more careful about his temperamental outbursts. That should certainly have been possible. (After all, Chelsea Clinton has never embarrassed her mom throughout this long, difficult campaign).

Now, the Clintons, by fighting on to the bitter end, are spoiling their own political futures, beyond just jeopardizing Democratic chances in the fall. The Washington Post has a piece this morning raising the question about Hillary's future in the Senate. It notes that Harry Reid of Nevada has solidified his position atop the Democratic leadership, and that other leadership positions, at least in the short term, might be difficult for her to obtain. They are only becoming more difficult as she refused to bow out quietly in the Democratic race and endorse Obama.

It would be interesting to know what Bill and Hillary are saying between themselves at this point. That is, if they're still talking with one another.

--

In the June 3 primary election next week, I'd like to endorse State Sen. Mark Ridley-Thomas over City Councilman Bernard Parks for the supervisorial seat of the retiring Yvonne Brathwaite Burke.

I knew Ridley-Thomas for many years as a political reporter, and found him able and conscientious. Parks, on the other hand, as Los Angeles police chief, was quite a rigid personality too prone to stick to hard positions. The Board of Supervisors, in my view, would do better with Ridley-Thomas.

Other than that, I'm opposed to Proposition 98, another sop to business interests that would, among other bad features, do away with rent control.

Clinton Should Renounce Racist Votes For Her

Written from Seville, Spain--

If Hillary Clinton has a decent sense of American history and ethics values, she should renounce any and all racist votes cast for her in the primaries and caucuses.

An exit poll taken of the Kentucky votes cast for her, showed 21% said they were influenced by race in their choice. What a disgraceful figure for this state, the birthplace of Abraham Lincoln.

Clinton has contributed to this burgeoning figure by the racial undertones of her campaign. She said she didn´t know if Obama was a Muslim, when it was clear he was not. She talked incessantly about the white vote, as did her husband. The racial innuendo became a feature of the Clinton campaign.

It is time for it to stop, if Clinton wants to maintain a shred of her reputation as she continues to serve in the Senate after, thankfully, losing the nomination to Obama.

I notice that Sen. Robert Byrd, a member in his youth in the Ku Klux Klan, endorsed Obama soon after his home state, West Virginia, voted massively for Hillary, partly on racial grounds. Byrd, oldest member in terms of service in the Senate, recognizes that America has changed. That, and, judging from Senate endorsements, Obama is liked better than Hillary there. Jay Rockefeller, the other West Virginia senator, also endorsed Obama.

Commentator David Gergen, one of the best, made the point about Hillary renouncing racial voting on CNN Tuesday night, and he is certainly right.

--

Meanwhile, I´m pleased to report I´m out of a hospital in Cadiz, Spain, after a little more than a day, where I had to go after my defibrillator discharged 17 times, all apparently in error. We turned the defibrillator off, while I make my way back to Los Angeles. I had to leave the Prinsendam two days early.

My son, who now speaks excellent Spanish after months in Spain and Argentina, argued forcefully over the phone with reluctant Spanish doctors that the defibrillator should be turned off, as did my great Los Angeles doctor, Ray Matthews of USC University Hospital. He will put in a new defibrillator next week.

--

--Oil has now reached $135 a barrel on the world markets, and it is high time that the U.S and other oil importers take this matter to the U.N. and ask for a cost sharing of oil profits. That and other action against OPEC and other greedy forces in the oil industry and elsewhere. It´s time we spoke up for ourselves and other countries which have fallen victim to these scoundrels.

Why Clinton May Have Lost To Obama

Written from Malaga, Spain--

(Pre-Note: Sad word comes from the Massachusetts General Hospital today that Sen. Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy has been diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. For decades, Kennedy has been a stalwart in the Senate and in American politics. There will be many bipartisan statements today, and prayers for his recovery).

Let's hope that New York Times writer Adam Nagourney was not jumping the gun when he wrote the article headlined today in the International Herald Tribune, "Clinton's decline: Blunders, bad luck and Bill."

Nagourney, who has not always been up to date about what is happening in the scintillating presidential race, puts it down to a variety of unfortunate happenstances and so forth. But, if she is gone, and I certainly hope she is, I don't think he has it right even now.

If Obama has prevailed in the impassioned race for the Democratic presidential nomination, I'd put it down primarily to these major factors:

1--He is superior to Clinton in both intellect and ethical sensitivity.

2--He has had a superb campaign, organized so wisely and carefully that it provides a solid indication he would also administer the White House well.

3--Like Charles de Gaulle, he never loses his composure.

4--Clinton unwisely put all her planning on the assumption she would clinch the nomination by Super Tuesday, Feb. 5. She unwisely spent extravagantly before that, and, then, when she did not, she had essentially inadequate resources left to contest Obama in the primaries and caucuses that followed later in February, when he built up a margin he has never given up in pledged delegates, and began making inroads in superdelegates.

I agree with Nagourney on one thing: Bill Clinton was not an asset to Hillary Clinton.

Now, there are those saying Obama will be another Michael Dukakis or John Kerry, if he wins the Democratic nomination.

This is bunk. As I suggested recently, Obama has never been, is not now, and will never be, a patsy. Already, he is firing back whenever Sen. John McCain, or anyone else, attacks him. And he is often quite personable about it, such as when he warned Tennessee Republicans, "Lay off my wife."

I recently offered to bet someone that Obama wins the election by getting at least 350 electoral votes. Sounds about right. Put me down for it.

Obama-McCain: A Detailed Security Debate Needed

Written from Gabes, Tunisia--

President Bush got a lot of flak from Democrats for his remarks before the Knesset in Israel questioning Democratic "appeasers" of terrorists, with an implication that he was talking about Sen. Barack Obama.

I thought the President had vowed to stay out of the 2008 election, and I find it hard to believe that Sen. John McCain is happy he now seems to be commenting. By a very large margin, polls indicate that voters are not pleased with the Bush policies.

That said, however, the security of the United States is an extremely important issue in this election, and there certainly needs to be a great deal of debate--with as little fearmongering as possible--about what direction the country should now go. As an Obama Republican, I feel the same way generally that I felt when the Jeremiah Wright controversy exploded: Questions of all the candidates, including Obama, are necessary, and the hardest questions are the most necessary. And, of course, their candid answers are required.

Both McCain and Obama, assuming he is the Democratic nominee, and Sen. Hillary Clinton, if she is, must tell us in the most possible detail how they view the options facing the U.S. It is a life or death matter, because, with nuclear proliferation, the chance that some fanatic is going to try to attack American cities or the cities of our allies, with nuclear weapons can, on no count, be discounted.

The same thing with Iraq. Public unhappiness with the way the war is going has already induced McCain to amend his statement we might remain there 100 years, to say he hopes to win the war by 2013. Obama must continue to air his Iraq views completely.

As to whom U.S. diplomats should talk to or not talk to, I'm surprised to hear suggestions from any quarter that we should not talk to Iran. The fact is, the Bush Administration itself has had discussions with Iranian representatives, and both the Secretary of State and the Defense Secretary have supported such talks.

There is a difference between talking to governments, and talking to terrorist organizations, like Hamas and Hezbollah, which are Iranian proxies, but not Iran itself.

I continue to have some hope for constructive talks with Iran.

But we must await the comprehensive views of all the presidential candidates before we can legitimately decide who to vote for in November.

--

Anita Busch, a former L.A. Times reporter threatened by the now convicted Anthony Pellicano has made charges of Times complicity with Pellicano which must be completely investigated, perhaps by an outside ethics expert. Her charges are disquieting, and it is important they be resolved in such a way that the public will feel confident in the findings.

Would Edwards Make A Good Obama Running Mate?

Written on M.S. Prinsendam, Approaching Malta--

The 2008 presidential race is perhaps the most riveting political story of my life time. Every day brings a fresh perspective, a new twist and turn. If it ends with an Obama election, it will be without peer in modern history.

Today (for me -- this came at 2 a.m. Thursday, Middle Eastern time), there's the endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama by former Sen. John Edwards.

Normally, I'd be comparing the vigorous Chinese response to the Sichuan earthquake with the disgraceful response to the typhoon by the Burmese junta and cautioning on the need for more earthquake preparedness in California. Or I'd be commenting on President Bush's trip to Israel to commemorate the Jewish state's 60th birthday.

But, as usual, the presidential campaign trumps everything. And the Edwards endorsement, coming just when it does, opens up options for Obama if, as appears likely, he is the Democratic presidential nominee.

Up until this well-timed endorsement, it appeared that Obama was increasingly being forced into a position where he would have to take Sen. Hillary Clinton as his running mate, and I've been writing that might be necessary to unite the Democratic party. But Hillary has not waged a very upright campaign, she has pandered, and, in any event, she carries a lot of baggage. Having Bill and Hillary Clinton beside him in the Administration would be a very great burden on Obama. Who wants another menage-a-trois in the White House?

Edwards would be a lot easier match. He could appeal to the same groups of elderly and low-income voters that Hillary has been winning in her campaign, and, judging from his speech last night in Grand Rapids, which CNN showed in its entirety on its international service, he would be prepared this time to make an energetic and resounding defense of the Obama candidacy.

Edwards was criticized in 2004 for not being a sufficient hatchet man for Sen. John Kerry when he was his vice presidential running mate. This go-around, he seems prepared to be, and, while he's ambitious and something of a slick trial lawyer, I still felt last night that he and Obama looked great together.

Edwards waited quite a while to make his endorsement, although as early as the New Hampshire campaign he seemed to be siding with Obama most often against Hillary. He probably would, as Time magazine's Mark Halperin speculates this morning, been of considerable help to Obama in Pennsylvania, Ohio or Texas, had he endorsed him before those primaries.

Still, we can't expect Edwards to be an angel. He has calculated what would be of most use to his own career, and politicians do that. As it was, his endorsement, coming right after the drubbing Obama took in West Virginia, was opportune.

Clinton, by the way, was on her best behavior yesterday when she was interviewed by CNN's Wolf Blitzer. Had she taken that tone throughout the campaign, she might conceivably have fared better. But running against a Barack Obama would not be a cup of tea for anyone.

Clinton keeps saying she will stay in. It would be far better, both for Obama and her, were she to get out after the last primary in early June. Even some of her prominent supporters, such as Gov. Ed Rendel in Pennsylvania and James Carville now seem prepared to accept that.

--

I've finished reading Bill Boyarsky's book on the life of Jesse Unruh and found it often entertaining and insightful, though I agree with Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters that Bill might have tried to evaluate why the Unruh legislative reforms, the full-time legislature in California, have not proven a success. His book may have been a little longer, but anything anyone does constructively in retirement deserves commendation. Bill worked hard on this book, and should be congratulated.

I had friendly relations with Unruh when he served as state treasurer, and my fondest memory was the day I learned from the news wires that Gov. Jerry Brown's parole board was considering the release of Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy. (Unruh had been present at the assassination in the Ambassador Hotel, and in fact had been instrumental in saving Sirhan from injury or death at the hands of the outraged crowd).

Calling Unruh the afternoon I learned of the possible parole, I asked him, "Are you going to let this happen?" "Absolutely not," Unruh replied. "I'm going right across the street to see the parole board, and I can promise you one thing: Sirhan will never get out." I can still remember the emphasis with which Jess used the word, "Never."

Sirhan remains in prison to this day. As an early terrible example of Palestinian terrorism, he should never be free to boast of his crime, and Unruh's determination is something I will always appreciate.

Oregon Emerges As A Key Democratic Primary

Written On M.S. Prinsendam, off Libya--

Sen. Barack Obama better win the Oregon primary next Tuesday. If he doesn't, then I think his grip on the Democratic nomination may seriously be loosened.

Obama is, for the moment, well ahead of Sen. Hillary Clinton in delegates, superdelegates, popular votes won and states won. But he is going to lose in Kentucky next Tuesday, another state with many low income white voters, and he needs to win traditionally independent-minded Oregon and then South Dakota and Montana June 3. If he does, he has the nomination. If not, I think he's in trouble.

So, if this is correct, it stands to reason that Obama must suspend his visits to possible swing states next November, such as Missouri and Michigan, where he has gone this week, and concentrate on wrapping this thing up, by visiting Oregon, South Dakota and Montana -- and more than once, plus advertise heavily in all three places. He shouldn't for the moment be running primarily against Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee.

I don't buy the argument frequently heard now from the Clinton camp that the pattern of states where Hillary has won proves that Obama can't win a general election because he can't win whites. In many states, Obama has won whites in many states, and, in any event, this continues to look like a solid Democratic year. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination is likely to win the election, and as November comes on, and the choice seems clear, Obama would, I think, naturally win the preponderant share of voters who went to Clinton in the primaries and caucuses. They might not be terribly satisfied, but they would come to his side in the end.

One further indication of that came last night in Mississippi, where Democrat Travis Childers won a congressional seat in a special election in a district which not only had recently gone Republican, but where the Republican, Greg Davis, ran a racially-oriented campaign trying to tie the white Democratic candidate to Obama. It didn't work, and it didn't work in another recent district where a Democrat won a Republican seat, in Louisiana.

In fact, the Clinton argument about swing states may not be as valid this year, because it seems, from primary results, that Obama is running very well across the South, and could capture a large number of Southern states in the fall.

After her big win in West Virginia Tuesday night, Clinton sounded as if she were in the race to stay, and may even try to change the rules and lobby for the admission of Florida and Michigan delegates who come out of primaries held in violation of Democratic National Committee rules that Clinton herself had once agreed to. This just is another demonstration of how dishonorable Clinton is. She and her husband are involved in a power grab of chilling proportions.

But that is not to say that if he wins the nomination, Obama shouldn't put her on the ticket with him as the Democratic vice presidential nominee. As I said last week, that may be ncessary.

Obama naturally doesn't want to do this, because who would want the Clintons ensconced in a vice presidency where they could make trouble for an Obama administration? He'd almost need a food taster in the White House. But the Democratic hierarchy might demand her as the vice presidential nominee, and Hillary now seems to be angling for it.

The pressure in that direction only grows when Clinton wins primaries like she did last night.

Some have said an Obama-Clinton ticket, or a Clinton-Obama ticket would be more change than the American people could take, with the first woman and the first black. But such a Democratic tide is running that this year I don't think so. The fact is that McCain probably stands a reasonable chance only if Hillary is the presidential nominee and doesn't put Obama on the ticket.

--

Many of the political commentary panels being run by the networks on the impassioned presidential race simply include partisans of one side or the other, and not independent observers. What it seems is that a bunch of lawyers for the various candidates are always arguing with another, coming up, as lawyers often do, with the most ridiculous arguments. The viewers deserve better than that.

Obama Moves To Reconcile Hillary Backers

Written on M.S. Prinsendam, Approaching Safaga, Egypt--

I saw Sen. Barack Obama being interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN last night, looking relaxed but gearing up for the fall campaign. He was magnanimous toward Hillary, which, of course, he should be. It was Winston Churchill who once said, "if you have to kill someone, it costs nothing to be polite."

Mrs. Clinton also should have a great interest, in terms of restoring her reputation for integrity and fair dealing, to follow the New York Times' editorial advice today and drop her attacks against Obama and especially what the New York Times called the "disturbing racial undertones" of her campaign in whatever campaigning she chooses to do before withdrawing and endorsing Obama.

Going up against Sen. John McCain, Obama will have the upscale Democrats, the young, African-Americans, independents and a few Obama Republicans like me. He'll have to work to bring aboard the groups who have voted for Hillary in the primaries, blue collar whites, Latinos, Catholics and the elderly. But the issues are with the Democrats this year. I certainly do not share the fears expressed in some quarters that Obama will be a patsy in the fall and a victim, like Michael Dukakis, to Republican attacks.

Obama never has been, is not today, and will never be, a patsy.

In this vein, in the International Herald Tribune this morning, there's a wonderful column by Ellen Goodman about Obama's mother, who had the first name of Stanley, because her father had wanted a boy.

This was the Kansas white woman who had the temerity to marry a black Kenyan at a time when racial intermarriage was anathema to most Americans and illegal in some states. She gave Obama great genes of courage and wisdom, as did his father.

Obama, in accord with the greatest American presidential traditions, had remarkable parents. Their influence and his rise is already one of the great stories in the illustrious history of American politics.

Now, as many have said quietly to themselves, may the Secret Service do a good job of protecting him.

--

The unspeakably obscene military junta which has enslaved the people of Burma for 46 years now has committed a new outrage -- confiscating the first military aid carried in two UN planes into the country in the wake of the catasthropic cyclone that has struck it, killing many thousands. This has forced a suspension of the aid shipments, many of which had been unconscionably delayed by the junta anyway.

In the cases of Idi Amin's Uganda and Pol Pot's genocidal Cambodia, outside powers had to step in, sending military units to wrest control from the dictators and turning government over to the people. Much the same kind of thing should be done in Burma. Fortunately, in its case, the legally elected leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, held under house arrest for 12 years, is on hand to take over.

The world can and must not stand idly by any longer.

Clinton Should Quit Now And Fully Back Obama

Written on M.S. Prinsendam, off Yemen in the Red Sea--

If she were sensible and wanted to do what's best for the Democratic party, the country, and her own reputation and political future, Sen. Hillary Clinton would quit the race for the Democratic nomination now and give her full endorsement to Sen. Barack Obama.

Obama, after last night's one-sided victory in North Carolina and losing only very narrowly in Indiana now has a 155-delegate lead and solid prospects for new commitments from the super-delegates, among whom he has been doing well, even during the rough period following the Pennsylvania primary. He is, at last, closing the deal, and I believe after his strong unifying speech last night is already shaping the fall strategy that will give him victory over Sen. John McCain.

If she fights on, Clinton will only look more and more power mad. Already, she has been behaving very strangely with her "obliterate Iran" talk and ditsy gas-tax moratorium. She is becoming more and more wild in her statements and attacks.

On Sunday, when she appeared on ABC, Clinton described her only strong backer among New York Times columnists, Paul Krugman, as a shill for President Bush when she was asked about his expression of doubts about her gas tax proposal. This showed she is becoming paranoid. Is this the way, she thinks about such a loyal supporter as Krugman?

Speaking of news media personalities, it was the far-rightist Republican talk show host Russ Limbaugh who really provided much of Clinton's 22,000-vote margin in Indiana, by suggesting that GOP voters should cross over and vote for her. Exit polls show that thousands did. When Clinton has to rely on Russ Limbaugh and protests from the Iranian government about her bellicose talk, she is about through.

If, ultimately, she wishes to have a fruitful career in the U.S. Senate, and avoid the psychiatric examination she probably needs, Clinton ought to fold her tents.

The reader of this blog might say that is unlikely. But Hillary is a retread of another "fighter to the last," Richard Nixon, and even Nixon, when the writing was on the wall, finally resigned. I think beginning now, just in the next few days, Clinton is going to come under tremendous pressure from the party hierarchy to get out of the race, and I wouldn't be surprised if she finally gives in.

Also, it is important now for usually cynical politicians to realize just what a tremendous candidate Barack Obama is. He described himself last night in his North Carolina speech as "imperfect," but the fact is that not since Franklin D. Roosevelt have we seen such a master politician. And he is more candid than Roosevelt, who was quite devious. With Obama, you see and hear what he is, an admirable leader for the 21st Century.

It is a great thing too for the USA that a man like Obama has come out of the black community to demonstrate once and for all that the work of The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was not in vain and that as Dr. King said in his last speech, black people in America can, at last, "reach the Promised land."

The day he wins, in fact, all of America will reach the Promised Land, displayed to all the world as a nation of idealism and harmony. It is a splendid opportunity which we, as a people, should not miss.

--

The returns began coming in on M.S. Prinsendam at 2 a.m. Yemeni time. But CNN was the only avenue of watching them on the ship, and CNN kept coming on and off, along with a peculiar written message on the screen that said, "CNN not authorised." I don't know who was not authorizing them, but was able eventually to receive enough of the returns to be vastly reassured about the good sense of the American electorate.

Obama Draws Endorsements Acorss Spectrum

Written from Salalah, Oman--

I never thought I'd be quoting him favorably, but producer Michael Moore was on the Larry King show last night on CNN, and some of what he said about Sen. Barack Obama, whom he has now endorsed, bears repeating.

One, he noted that Julie Nixon had endorsed Obama last week. (And Jenna Bush implied recently she might back him). Such endorsements do tend to disprove the claim that Obama really can't cross partisan lines and would, perforce, lose to Sen. John McCain, if he wins the Democratic nomination.

Moore also pointed out that Sen. Hillary Clinton is "disgusting" in her attempts to concoct phony issues in the struggle for the Democratic nomination. Obama, he noted, never, never has suggested that people not vote for Clinton because she is a woman, or tried to use gender in any way. But Clinton constantly refers at least obliquely to the racial issue, and, has even said, duplicitiously that she doesn't know if Obama is a Muslim.

This is a disgrace. Now, Hillary declares on the Bill O'Reilly program that had she been a congregant in Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Christian church she would have left long ago. Well, la te da, Hillary will do anything to keep Wright's perverse racial sentiments, disavowed completely by Obama, in voters' minds.

And, we also find out today, she has a last-minute commercial in Indiana, questioning Obama's devotion to guns. This is another way of reminding the voters he is black. But who doesn't know that already?

So now the woman who is pandering to the voters by offering a gas tax moratorium that will never come to pass, and has suggested she would "obliterate" Iran if it attacks Israel, is turning to the support of guns. This too is absolutely disgraceful. But it's what we have come to expect from Clinton just before primary day in important states.

Such tactics worked in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, but they may not work in Indiana, the home state of the upright John Wooden. Voters there might be a little more skeptical of the authenticity of purported liberals who suggest obliterating other countries and support guns.

I think it's great that even Julie Nixon is backing Obama, especially since Hillary continues to emulate her father, who had the well-deserved nickname, "Tricky Dick." Richard Nixon said he had a plan to end the war in Vietnam in the 1968 campaign. Yet, when he came to the Presidency, he invaded Cambodia, sparking off the genocide there, and allowed many thousands more American troops to die in a war in Vietnam he would not end.

Now, Clinton says she would end the war in Iraq, which she would not, and she strikes a bellicose tone in Afghanistan and Iran. She, more than McCain, is the war candidate.

--

Our guide this morning in Oman said that men in the Muslim kingdom customarily have four wives. I wanted to be culturally sensitive and diplomatic, so I said, "Well, even our Hillary Clinton has been part of a harem."

Hillary Panders To Voters On Gas Tax Moratorium

Written On M.S. Prinsendam Approaching Salalah, Oman--

I'm endebted to Mark Halperin, political guru for Time magazine, for pointing out this morning that Sen. Hillary Clinton enthusiastically endorsed the filly Eight Belles to win the Kentucky Derby yesterday. Eight Belles finished second to the winner, Big Brown. Tragically, Eight Belles broke both ankles at the finish line and had to be euthanized.

Of course, I wish Hillary good health and long life, preferably in the U.S. Senate, or just raking in the dough with her husband, Bill Clinton.

But, as the Indiana and North Carolina primary campaigns draw to a close, Hillary is pandering to the voters once again -- this time by suggesting that the oil companies pay the 18-cent-a-gallon gas tax over the summer.

Sen. Barack Obama calls this "a shell game," and he is right. For one thing, either the oil companies would simply up their gas prices to pay for the tax, or litigate such a measure to delay it all summer. That assumes, it would ever clear the oil industry-dominated Congress.

Of course, the fact is we need the gas tax to build and maintain federal highways. Already, it is insufficient to do so. The gas tax is part of a sound energy policy. Hillary is just trying a cheap trick on the voters. Let's hope they are not so gullible.

Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich, both New York Times columnists, and Jack Cafferty, a commentator for CNN, have all distinguished themselves this year with their campaign commentaries. I might particularly commend Dowd this morning for her brilliant column on Obama, entitled, "This Bud's For You."

In it, she writes, notably, "Why does Obama, the one with the bumpy background and mixed racial heritage, the one raised by a single mother who was on food stamps, seem so forced when he mingles with the common folk?....

"Voters also don't seem to mind Hillary, with her $109 million bank account, selling herself as the champion of the little people. As first lady, the blue-collar queen was renowned for her high-handed treatment of the little people in the (White House) travel office, on the switchboard and on the residence staff.

"Obama, on the other hand, may seem esoteric, and sometimes looks haughty or put-upon when he should merely offer that ensorcelling smile. But he is very well liked by his Secret Service agents, and shoots hoops with them. And I watched him take the time one night after a long day of campaigning to stand and take individual pictures with a squadron of Dallas motorcycle officers on the tarmac..."

Dowd is smart enough to realize that in Obama we have a terrific human being. Beyond that, I believe he is just what America needs at this time to make a great President of the U.S. I have contributed $600 to his campaign, and am proud to be a supporter. Good luck to him this week, and to the American people.

--

Approaching Oman on the Arabian peninsula, we are losing our escort today, the Dutch frigate which has been with us along the Somalia coast since Mombasa. I'm not sure whether we will have an escort later in the week when we sail along Somalia again, this time in the Gulf of Aden, heading for the Red Sea.

Obama-Clinton Or Clinton-Obama Ticket Necessary

Written on M.S. Prinsendam 240 miles off Mogadishu, Somalia--

Distasteful as taking the other onto the Democratic ticket with them may be, it appears that Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, no matter who finally wins the Democratic nomination, must reconcile to accepting the loser as his or her vice presidential running mate. It appears this would be the only way of avoiding sizable defections to Sen. John McCain, from either low income whites and retired, or African-Americans. And, of course, the loser must agree to go onto the ticket.

I hope the winner of the nomination is Obama. He would at least treat a Vice President Clinton respectfully. I'm not sure it would be as easy for Obama if he were the vice presidnetial nominee, since Bill Clinton would constantly be horning in, and this is a menage-a-trois Obama would not need. However, if he could put up with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright all these years, he probably would survive.

During my voyage, I've been reading Bill Boyarsky's book, "Big Daddy -- Jesse Unruh And The Art Of Power Politics." It is striking that in his chapter regarding the Rumford Fair Housing Act of 1963 and its ultimate renunctiation by the voters, Boyarsky notes in considerable detail that low income white and retired voters proved most resistant to sweeping desegregation, as shown in a Berkeley election on fair housing, even before the Rumford Act was passed. Even Hispanics apparently lined up against the housing measure.

What this demonstrates is that the present-day situation in the Democratic presidential race, where Hillary has been getting the majority of low income and retired voters, not to mention Hispanics and Catholics, while Obama has been getting a majority of the younger voters, blacks and highly-educated, goes back decades when a civil rights question is involved. And obviously, the 2008 presidential campaign has brought civil rights to the fore, with the prospect of the first time a major party nominee would be either black or a woman.

The split in sentiment, as Boyarsky shows, thus did not begin with the Pennsylvania primary, and it is doubtful, given the impassioned character of the struggle between Obama and Clinton, that either could run successfully without the other also being present on the ticket.

I presume that neither side would be totally happy with such a ticket at the beginning, and normallty such a ticket might not be a favorite with a majority. But this is an unusual year. We have both two wars and an economy in trouble. Public dissatisfaction with the present Republican administration is evident to all. Under these circumstances, I think the low income whites and others backing Hillary would accept Obama as head of the ticket and vote for it, while the blacks and young would be at least somewhat satisfied with Hillary on top, so long as Obama were her running mate.

As I say, a ticket of the two may not be fully acceptable, but it is necessary.

As to when the Democratic race may be settled, we are just going to have to wait until there is a clear winner. And regardless what Democratic chairman Howard Dean wants, that cannot be assigned an arbitrary date. It may have to go to the convention floor.

But this is the most exciting presidential contest in memory, and we can afford the time to see how it comes out. If Obama and Clinton would accept the other as running mate, the time it takes will not make any difference.

--

A helicopter from the Dutch Navy frigate escorting the Prinsendam landed Marines on the Prinsendam deck at about 3 p.m. Middle Eastern time (4 a.m. in California) to practice a medivac evacuation. The 600 passengers were invited to the top deck to view the exercise from aft as the helicopter hovered about 50 feet above for half an hour. The frigate was half a mile away.
With U.S. action in Somalia yesterday, and a big suicide bombing in Yemen today, most passengers are glad to have NATO protection, judging from the cheers.

Resurfacing Of Wright May Doom Obama Campaign

Written from Mombasa, Kenya--

The resurfacing of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, at the National Press Club no less, certainly is a terrible blow to Sen. Barack Obama. It probably destroys his chances to win the Indiana primary, and it could doom his entire campaign.

Wright is such a poison to Obama at this stage that, while not usually conspiratorially minded, I wonder if it's possible the Clintons may have somehow arranged his Press Club speech.

Since his San Francisco miscue, suggesting bitterness by blue collar Pennsylvanians who cling to religion and guns, Obama has been self-destructing, I'm afraid. On that Sunday, he was trailing Clinton by only four points in Pennsylvania and on the ascent. Since then, he has gone steadily down hill.

For various reasons I've described in recent months, Hillary is a terrible candidate. But now, she is on the offensive, and as Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean stated over the weekend, it is only correct for the Democratic super delegates to make a judgment as to who would have the best chance to defeat Sen. John McCain in November. Put this way, given Wright's blatherings, and, it may be, Obama's fatigue, Hillary is going to be the nominee.

In that event, this blog will support McCain.

But what a tragedy it is that the U.S. may miss the chance Obama seemed to afford for racial conciliation and less divisive government. He is more intelligent that Hillary and far, far more pleasant as a personality. Unlike her, he is honest, as much as any politician. Every time I see that awful woman, I cringe.

What can Obama do at this point? He has to criticize Wright sharply for seeking publicity at the very least. And whatever he does, it may be too late. With his inopportune comments, Wright is getting back at Obama, and at the American dream, which it is obvious he does not like. Or maybe, he is being paid to do so.

McCain, As A Precaution, Pitches For Black Votes

Written from M.S. Prinsendam, Approaching Mombasa--

Sen. John McCain has seldom missed many bets in his life. He wouldn't be where he is today, had he not worked hard to make himself distinctive.

So the fact that he has begun to pitch for the black vote, making visits to Memphis on the anniversary of the King assassination, Selma, Ala., and New Orleans, cannot be surprising. If Sen. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic presidential nominee, he realizes that many African-Americans will be looking for another place to go, or not voting at all this fall, and he wants to show at least that he is sympathetic with their positions.

Black Americans have been in the Democratic column since 1932, brought there by Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Great Depression. Before that, most blacks had voted Republican.

As Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina noted in statements this week, the Clintons' racial remarks and innuendos in their campaign to sidetrack Sen. Barack Obama have been greeted with revulsion in the African-American community. It is not inconceivable there could be an historic switch in their position, if Hillary prevails over Obama.

McCain is only getting prepared for that possibility when he makes the visits he has, or when he tries to abort a North Carolina ad he believes unfairly critical of Obama.

At the same time, in this increasingly bitter campaign, Obama has to take care not to get caught up in the statements of his radical pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Wright should, at this time, be keeping quiet, not out there giving interviews.

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert warns this morning that various things, including Wright's continued prominence, is taking the air out of the Obama campaign. And a new CNN poll shows he has sunk into a tie with Clinton in the Indiana primary campaign. If he doesn't win Indiana, Obama could be in terminal difficulty.

Curtis LeMay, Hillary Clinton, Both Bipolar?

Written from Victoria, Seychelles Islands--

After Gen. Curtis LeMay suggested that the U.S. bomb North Vietnam "back into the stone age," he proved an embarrassing vice presidential candidate for Gov. George C. Wallace in the 1968 presidential campaign. Americans did not want to go that far, and they quickly dismissed the idea of LeMay in power.

But isn't Sen. Hillary Clinton's remark in an ABC news interview on Tuesday, Pennsylvania primary day, threatening to "obliterate" Iran seem just as excessive? We certainly don't need a U.S. president who is joining Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in threatening to obliterate anyone (except Al-Qaeda, that is). Ahmadinejad keeps threatening to obliterate Israel. Now, Clinton says, if this happens, we could obliterate Iran.

We're talking about destroying whole peoples here. That means a nuclear holocaust. It's what Hitler would have done, if he could have.

This dangerously bellicose statement is so out of place, it raises the thought, when I think about it, that Clinton might be bipolar.

Bipolarity is a tragic condition marked by excessive mood changes. And when we pay careful attention to Hillary in this campaign, she certainly exhibits those characteristics. One day, she's all peaches and cream, saying it's an "honor" to be running against Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination. The next, she's suddenly dismissing Obama as effete and elitist, which is ridiculous. One day, she's saying she's full of good ideas, and the next she's suggesting that because her father and grandfather were Christians, it puts her on a pedestal above Obama, who became a Christian only when he grew up.

In short, like Robert Louis Stevenson's story, "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde,' there's a possible pathological shifting of positions and roles by Mrs. Clinton (not to mention her husband, former President Bill Clinton, who seems also to be highly tempermental and moody these days).

What a contrast with Obama, and for that matter Sen. John McCain. Neither Obama or McCain would ever talk about obliterating anyone. Neither of them would suggest in any way that they are another Ahmadinejad. Now, Hillary Clinton has.

And that's why, the more I think about it, the more uncomfortable I become with the idea that this politician could ever obtain power. Not only our country, but the world, might be at risk.

Prior to the vote in North Carolina and Indiana, I wonder whether it might not be possible to commit Hillary for mental examination by a battery of psychiatrists. It's obvious from her cut and slash campaign that she has a problem, and it might well be a dire problem.

Mentioning the word 'dire,' reminds me of Gen. Reginald Dyer, the British general who ordered his troops to fire on demonstrators in Amritsar in 1919, slaughtering hundreds.

That destroyed the prospects of British rule in India, and no less an Empire advocate than Winston Churchill gave a speech in the British House of Commons condemning Dyer and insisting that he be punished.

There is a difference between bellicosity, such as Churchill and Charles de Gaulle exhibited against the Nazis, and anyone who is willing to contemplate the extinction of entire peoples. We certainly don't need a General Dyer in charge at the White House beginning next year.

So I think this election is mighty important. I hope ever so much that the major party candidates are Obama and McCain. Neither one of them, as I said, is a Hillary Clinton.

--

The Chinese government is offering today to meet with representatives of the Dalai Lama to discuss the Tibetan situation. This is the second time this week that calmer heads seem to be prevailing in Beijing. Earlier in the week, China announced it would withdraw a ship carrying arms for the dictator of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe.

Is this a ploy designed to defuse controversy over the Beijing Olympics? Perhaps. But still it is welcome news. Any sign that the Chinese government is willing to reconsider its backing for dictatorships in Tibet, Zimbabwe, Burma and North Korea is good news for the world.

--

Someone reminds me that this blog has been devoted in the past to lamenting the decline of the L.A. Times. I still feel that way, but since I don't read the newspaper on my African cruise am hardly in a position from the Indian Ocean to comment in detail on what is happening there. Those commentaries will resume when I return home at the end of May.

--

I took a trip to see coral today off small Seychelle islands, but the glass bottom boat was not as good as the one on Santa Catalina island. What we saw, however, was plenty of dead coral, and very little live coral. The tour guide said that, as in many places, global warming is killing coral. The ocean is simply getting too warm.