CALIFORNIA YANKEE

More On Addressing Obama's Muslim Problem

In an article entitled "Holding Muslims at arm's length," Bilal Kaleem, executive director of the Boston chapter of the Muslim American Society, says Obama should address his Muslim issue head on:

"I would suggest that he might have to do the same thing [on Islam] that he did on race. He addressed it head-on in a landmark speech. He gave his speech in a mature way. If he could speak in the same way to that, it could be inspiring for our country and the world."

That's pretty much what I suggested last week:

Like Romney did with the Mormon issue, and Obama himself did with the race issue, Obama must deal with these rumors head on. Obama should give a speech, in which he repeats that he is not Muslim, and goes on to explain why but it should be fine with Americans if Obama were Muslim.

Just like the scene in "Broadcast News," in which the Albert Brooks character, at home, feeds lines to the William Hurt character, who is delivering a news cast -- I say it here, it comes out there.

Obama And Hillary: A False Unity

During the primary fight, before the Rules Committee handed the nomination to Obama, poll after poll found that a significant number of Democrats would vote for Senator McCain in November if Obama was the nominee.

The Hillary/Obama Unity charade didn't seem to do much to change Obama's deserter problem:

Obama still has a problem with Democrat deserters. Report after report about the Hillary/Obama Unity charade details a continued lack of unity within the Democrats' ranks:

Miller wasn't buying Clinton's plea for unity in Unity. “Obama is a fraud, and I'm going to vote for John McCain, the first time I've ever voted for a Republican.” She told me “the Democratic Party is a house divided. It's not over" and that she wouldn't rest until "Hillary and Hillary's supporters have their voices heard.” (Portsmouth Herald, June 28, 2008)

“I don't believe he's the right person for the job,” said Thomas, 49, of Merrimack, N.H., who showed up at yesterday's event wearing a Clinton campaign button. “Even in this speech it's promises, promises, promises. Realistically, how does he think he’s going to make all these changes?” (Valley News, June 28, 2008)

“I’m not supporting Obama,” the Merrimack small business owner said. “I don’t think he’s vetted. I don’t think he’s experienced enough.” (CBS News, June 28, 2008)

Malka Yaacobi, a musician from Cambridge, Massachusetts, said that she voted for Clinton in the primaries, and Obama still did not sit right with her. “I will not say I’ll vote for him,” she said. “ …I don’t trust him and he doesn’t have experience.” (CBS News, June 28, 2008)

"I think she has to say that right now, because I think what’s going on right now is politics," Lewis said. "This is the candidate that won the swing states," she said, pointing to a Hillary Clinton for President sign. "This is the candidate that won the large states, and she has the popular vote! If the vote were taken today, hands down, Hillary Clinton would be the delegate winner." (ABC News, June 28, 2008)

Eileen Quill, a 64-year-old retired teacher from nearby Sunapee who had supported Clinton, said: "I think she's usually a wonderful public speaker, and so is he, but she looked a little stiff and the whole thing wasn't entirely comfortable." (Associated Press, June 28, 2008)

Not everyone received the unity memo, however. Carmella Lewis of Denver chanted “Hillary” while Mr. Obama spoke, smirked throughout his remarks and then stuffed her ears with scrunched-up tissue. “I can’t listen to him,” Ms. Lewis said. “No way are we voting for Obama. We’re all voting for McCain.” (New York Times, June 28, 2008)

One Clinton voter who was not impressed was Carmella Lewis, a Clinton delegate from Denver. Lewis traveled to Unity to see her candidate one last time, and jeered throughout the event, while waving an autographed Clinton campaign sign. At one point while Obama was speaking, she plugged her ears with tissue paper. "I can't stand him," she said. "I'm either not voting, or I'm voting for John McCain." (Washington Post, June 28, 2008)

Yes, Obama still has a problem with Democrat deserters. As I posted yesterday, a new Associated Press-Yahoo News poll finds that only 53 percent of Hillary supporters support Obama. Nearly one quarter of those who backed Hillary say they will vote for John McCain:

Twenty-three percent of Clinton's backers picked Republican John McCain over Obama. Of the rest, 16 percent were undecided, 5 percent were for independent candidate Ralph Nader and 3 percent said someone else.

Definitely a false unity.

McCain Proposes Oil Independence By 2025

This week Senator McCain proposed a plan to free America from foreign oil suppliers by 2025. Its a plan Newsweek calls a "grown-up" energy plan.

McCain's plan for energy independence is called The Lexington Project --"named for the town where Americans asserted their independence once before." You can read the plan here.

The Lexington Project has left the Obama-ites sputtering. Some pundits thought Obama had the advantage so far in offering an energy "vision." But Newsweek is much more impressed with McCain's Lexington Project:

Frankly, however, no one really cares what Obama said last October. And there's no question that McCain's flurry of concrete proposals—including a call for 45 more nuclear power plants, a $300 million prize to the designer of a new electric car battery, overturning the 27-year ban on offshore drilling and a $5,000 tax credit for people who buy "zero-emissions" cars—prompted Obama to spend most of his own energy speech this week knocking those ideas down. That in turn generated a GOP Web video declaring that "Obama is Dr. No," complete with a Bond-like theme song.

In fairness, I note that FactCheck.org finds that the Dr. No video distorts Obama's positions on clean-energy innovation and nuclear power.

The Presidential Race Is Closer Than Some Would Have You Believe

Time Magazine calls it "tight":

Illinois Senator Barack Obama enters the General Election with a tight lead, 43% to 38%, over Arizona Senator John McCain, according to a new TIME magazine poll of likely voters. The poll shows Obama gaining only a slight bounce from Hillary Clinton's departure from the campaign early this month.

When undecided voters leaning towards Obama and McCain are accounted for, the race narrows to 47% to 43%, barely above the poll's 3.5% margin of error. Thirty percent of those who remain undecided said they lean towards McCain and 20% said they were leaning toward Obama, with 46% citing no preference.

In his article in Time, Jay Newton-Small notes Obama's lead is getting smaller:

After five months of bruising primaries, Obama's lead now is narrower than the one he held over McCain in TIME's poll this past February: 48% to 41%, including leaners. The bright spot for Obama is with Latino voters, a group he overwhelmingly lost to Clinton in the primaries, but now leads 51% to 34% over McCain. Among Catholics, another group Obama struggled with in Democratic primaries, McCain leads Obama 57% to 43%.

The two split Independents, a target demographic for both campaigns, with 44% supporting Obama and 43% McCain's. Obama overwhelmingly won the likability contest with 58% of respondents saying he's more likeable to McCain's 23%. Obama also led McCain among women 45% to 39%.

Gallup reports the McCain and Obama are tied:

Gallup Poll Daily tracking over the past week or so, along with a large sample USA Today/Gallup poll conducted last week with 1,600 national adults, indicates that the race for the presidency at this point is quite close. Barack Obama has held a modest lead for the most part, but over the past several days, even that small lead has evaporated to the point where Obama and John McCain are tied among registered voters. In fact, the tie has now persisted for two straight Gallup Poll Daily tracking reports (each report consisting of a three-day rolling average of more than 2,600 registered voters).

Indeed, Gallup's tracking results have been quite steady over the weeks -- spanning thousands of interviews -- showing little dramatic change from day to day or week to week.

Two other polls -- Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg (June 19-23) and Newsweek (June 18-19) -- found Obama with a double-digit lead over McCain and have gotten much more attention. Gallup Editors, Frank Newport, Jeff Jones, and Lydia Saad analyze the disparity in the polls:

Frank Newport:

It is more typical than not that well-done scientific polls measuring voter sentiment come up with roughly the same estimates. So the difference in estimates between these polls and the Gallup polls is unusual.

[. . .]

As is always the case, there are some slight differences in the way the polls are conducted. The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll asks a "right direction/wrong direction" question before the ballot. Our Gallup Poll Daily tracking asks a registered voter screen before the ballot. The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll includes the phrase "or would you vote for a candidate from some other party?" Our Gallup poll does not include this phrase. It is unclear how the order of these questions may affect the polling results.

Jeff Jones:

We've said before that things are shaping up as a potentially good year for the Democratic Party. That is evident in the party identification figures in our tracking polls. (The USA Today/Gallup polls show similar numbers). Over the past week of Gallup Poll Daily tracking, an average of 34% of Americans have identified themselves as Democrats, with just 24% saying they are Republicans. (About 40% do not identify with either major party.)

The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll showed a slightly larger Democratic advantage, 39% to 22%, while the Newsweek poll had a similar 36% to 22% Democratic lead. It is often hard to rely on party identification as an explanation for poll differences, however, because it can vary depending on where it is placed in a given survey (i.e., what questions it follows; just as the ballot can) and can show short-term movement in response to the prevailing political situation. As a result, it is common for polls that show a party's candidate with an advantage on the ballot to also show that party doing well in terms of party identification. The two often move in sync.

Lydia Saad:

"House effects" is an easy way out for discounting why one poll shows a more Republican or Democratic result than another does, but that only suffices when there are consistent differences between polls across time.

There may be something to this given observed differences between Gallup and the Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll. Looking back at all times since 2007 when Gallup and Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg have asked the Obama-McCain horse race question at similar times, the Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll consistently shows a wider lead for Obama -- ranging from 5 to 10 points. The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg and Gallup tend to be close on the percentage for Obama, but the Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg typically shows a lower percentage than Gallup for McCain, and a correspondingly higher proportion of voters falling into Other/Unsure category.

[. . .]

The story is quite different, however, relative to the Gallup versus Newsweek comparison. Until now, the two polls have shown remarkably comparable results for most similarly timed surveys since 2007. The only time the two were not within a few points of each other was a year ago in June, when Newsweek showed a larger lead for Obama than what Gallup found. It is difficult to compare the same periods of time in this instance because Gallup did not conduct its tracking interviews on one of the two days in which Newsweek was in the field.

One great value of Gallup Poll Daily tracking is that we complete the same number of interviews per night, and each night is an independent random sample. So along with our three-day rolling averages, we can look at the results by individual day to see what's happening.

Take these national polls with a large grain of salt. June polls have not been good predictors of the November outcome. Only one of the last five June election-year polling averages has correctly predicted the popular vote winner in November - Bill Clinton in 1996.

Michael Dukakis lead George Herbert Walker Bush by an average of 8.2 percent in June of 1988. Bush went on to win the general election by 7.8 points.

The first President Bush led Bill Clinton by 4.9 percent In June of '92, but managed to lose in November by 5.6 percent.

George W. Bush led by 4.7 percent in June 2000, won the election, but lost the popular vote to Al Gore by 0.5 percent.

John Kerry led in the June 2004 polls by an average of 0.9 percent, but lost the popular vote, and the election, to the incumbent President Bush by 2.4 points.

44-44 graphic courtesy of Angus Reid Global Monitor.

Obama's Gun Obfuscation

Yesterday, reporting on reactions to the Supreme Court's decision striking down the D.C. gun ban, the Associated Press headlined "McCain backs gun decision, Obama straddles issue."

Here's video of Obama straddling the issue:

Just before the Supreme Courts decision was public, Obama disavowed his "inartful" statement calling the D.C. gun laws constitutional.

Wait. There's more.

Scholar John Lott Recalls Obama Stating: "I Don't Believe That People Should Be Able To Own Guns." John Lott:

"In fact, I knew Obama during the mid-1990s, and his answers to IVI's question on guns fit well with the Obama that I knew. Indeed, the first time I introduced myself to him he said 'Oh, you are the gun guy.' I responded 'Yes, I guess so.' He simply responded that 'I don't believe that people should be able to own guns.'" (John R. Lott, Jr., "Obama And Guns: Two Different Views," Fox News, www.foxnews.com, 4/7/08)

In 2004, Obama Voted Against Self-Defense Rights.

"[Obama] opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation." (Ryan Keith "Obama Record In State Legislature Offers Possible Ammunition For Critics," The Associated Press, 1/17/07)

Obama Was Director Of Anti-Gun Joyce Foundation, Which Spent Millions On Gun-Control Causes.

"Adding even further skepticism to Obama's claim of support for the 2nd Amendment is his previous service as a director of the Joyce Foundation. Since 2000, the Joyce Foundation has provided over $15 Million in funding to radical gun control organizations such as the Violence Policy Center and the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. The Joyce Foundation is tightly linked to the Soros Open Society Institute -- an extremist group that advocates a worldwide ban on civilian firearm ownership." (Illinois State Rifle Association, "ISRA Blasts Candidate Obama On His Record Of Hostility Toward Law-Abiding Firearm Owners," Press Release, 8/24/04)

In 2004, Running For U.S. Senate Obama Called For Federal Legislation To Pre-Empt State Concealed Carry Laws.

"In a February survey of Democratic primary candidates for the U.S. Senate by the Tribune, Obama said he opposed allowing ordinary citizens to carry concealed weapons and that a federal law banning concealed carried weapons except for law enforcement is needed." (Liam Ford, "Keyes Backs Law On Concealed Guns," Chicago Tribune, 8/25/04)

In Response To A 1996 Independent Voters Of Illinois Questionnaire, Obama Indicated That He Supported Banning The "Manufacture, Sale And Possession Of Handguns."

Question: "Do you support state legislation to ... ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?" Obama's Response: "Yes." (Independent Voters Of Illinois Independent Precinct Organization 1996 General Candidate Questionnaire, Barack Obama Responses, 9/9/96)

Hardly change you can depend on, but more change that works for Obama.

Only Half Of Hillary Supporters Back Obama

Obama still has a problem with Democrat deserters.

A new Associated Press-Yahoo News poll finds that only 53 percent of Hillary supporters support the Democrat's nominee to be. Nearly one quarter of those who backed Hillary say they will vote for John McCain:

Twenty-three percent of Clinton's backers picked Republican John McCain over Obama. Of the rest, 16 percent were undecided, 5 percent were for independent candidate Ralph Nader and 3 percent said someone else.

During the primary fight, before the Rules Committee stole the nomination for Obama, poll after poll found that a significant number of Democrats would vote for Senator McCain in November if Obama is the nominee.

Will Bower, co-founder of Party Unity My Ass, or PUMA, discusses the Just Say No Deal Coalition -- Democrats not voting for Obama -- in the following video:

So much for the Hillary/Obama unity charade.

Americans Prefer McCain For Commander And Chief

Gallup finds Americans express greater confidence in McCain than in Obama to handle the responsibilities of commander in chief and send troops into combat.

Watch Frank Newport, Gallup Poll Editor in Chief, explain the details in the following video report:

Bill Clinton's Grudge With Obama

Mark Ambinder reports Bill Clinton is unhappy with Obama:

Bill Clinton has a beef. A Democrat who has spoken directly to Clinton about his feelings said that the former president remains “miffed” for two reasons.

One is that he feels that Obama’s candidacy was essentially an anti-Clinton candidacy; that Obama ran against Clinton’s presidential record at times, implying that it was timeworn, divisive, and damaging to the party while adopting policy positions that seemed to flow directly from the Clinton oeuvre. Why should Clinton embrace a guy who spent the past twelve months bashing him and his accomplishments?

Two: Clinton is convinced that the Obama campaign went out of its way to portray the former president as a racist. Clinton wants a private meeting with Obama to sort these things out; he has reconciled himself to the reality of Obama’s nomination and does not want to sit on the sidelines.

I agree with Ambinder, in the end Bill and Obama will make up. I can't see Bill staying out of the general election battle.

The Washington Examiner's Mark Tapscott discusses this latest Clinton/Obama dust up with MSNBC's Chris Jansing in the following video report:

Supreme Court Affirms Second Amendment Rights, Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban

5 to 4 decision, Justice Scalia writes for the majority:

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

The Court's ruling significantly restricts the D.C. gun laws, enacted in 1976 as the strictest gun control law in the country. The justices did not bar all government regulation of firearms:

"The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns," Justice Scalia said, adding the Constitution bars an absolute handgun ban.

No wonder Obama disavowed his "inartful" statement calling the D.C. gun laws constitutional.

Not Even Obama Agrees With What Obama Says

Last year, in a story entitled, "Court to Hear Gun Case," the Chicago Tribune's James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins reported that "the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he '...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'"

That was then.

Now, anticipating the Supreme Court's ruling in the DC gun case, Obama, a former constitutional law lecturer at the University of Chicago, reconsiders:

With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Washington, D.C.'s, gun ban, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an "inartful" statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional.

"That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator's consistent position," Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.

The statement which Burton describes as an inaccurate representation of the senator's views was made to the Chicago Tribune on Nov. 20, 2007.

According to ABC, Senator McCain has been more straightforward when it comes to the D.C. gun law:

He [McCain] signed an amicus brief in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, signaling not only his belief in the Second Amendment but also his view that the DC gun ban is incompatible with it.

The D.C. ban prohibits residents from keeping handguns inside their homes and requires that lawfully registered guns, such as shotguns, be locked and unloaded when kept at home.