Although known for being tough on his subordinates, he also developed a reputation for nuanced diplomatic negotiations with friendly nations, and with some with whom the United States has more prickly ties.

...there was no question that the admiral’s premature departure stemmed from what were perceived to be policy differences with the administration on Iran and Iraq, where his views competed with those of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq, who is a favorite of the White House.

Mr. Obama’s victory was built on a wave of support among blacks, who made up half of those who turned out to vote, according to exit polls conducted by television networks and The Associated Press. The polls found that roughly 90 percent of black voters supported Mr. Obama, but only a third of white voters did.

The skirmishing is just one front of an increasingly charged battle that on Tuesday drew in remarks by Geraldine A. Ferraro, the former New York representative who is a Clinton supporter, that Mr. Obama owed his success partly to his race.

The federal officials sought to emphasize that Mr. Spitzer, a Democrat, had not been singled out by the Republican administration, although allegations of political interference dogged the Justice Department during the tenure of the former attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales, who left office last year after lawmakers in both parties called for his removal. The Spitzer investigation began in July and Mr. Gonzales resigned in August last year; it is not clear whether he knew about it.

Could all this hurt Hillary, who Spitzer endorsed? Slate's Christopher Beam sees far broader damage:

"Addressing the Spitzer flap raises the ghosts of scandals past, namely Monica Lewinsky. Clinton has so far managed during this campaign to avoid public mention of her husband's diddling. If the Spitzer controversy drags out, it could become a painful reminder of the final White House years. (Of course, you could argue that it would make people sympathize with her all over again.)

"But in the end, the Spitzer fallout is more likely to damage the party than Hillary's candidacy. For the past eight years, most of the lying, cheating, child molestation, and public sex has been the proud reserve of Republicans (or at least they excel at getting caught). The Spitzer scandal could flip that story line toward Democrats. Just as voters recoiled from Mark Foley's indiscretions in 2006, they could easily cast Spitzer as the incarnation of Democratic hypocrisy."

Nora Ephron:

"I feel sad. I liked him. It's tragic. Etc.

"But having read every word of the indictment, may I suggest that should he stay on, Spitzer will probably have far more time to focus on being governor, in that he won't have to spend hours on the phone with someone named Temeka arguing over his 55 per cent deposit, his in-store credit, the cash limits on bank machine withdrawals in late-night Washington, and ways for Kristen the prostitute to get into her hotel room without her having to give her name at the check-in desk downstairs.

"Meanwhile, Spitzer, who a year ago had a shot at national office, is today a laughingstock because of his reckless involvement in . . . what? Let's just say this right out: in nothing. He arranged for a date with a hooker and she crossed a state line. This violates something called the Mann Act, which was passed in 1910, before women could vote. It's the legal equivalent of an old chestnut, it seems barely constitutional, and no one with half a brain could possibly think of it as anything worth prosecuting anyone for. Although Eliot Spitzer might. This is the problem these guys get into: they're so morally rigid and puritanical in real life (and on some level, so responsible for this priggish world we now live in) that when they get caught committing victimless crimes, everyone thinks they should be punished for sheer hypocrisy."

Salon's Glenn Greenwald is one of the few to challenge the media verdict:

"Regarding all of the breathless moralizing from all sides over the 'reprehensible,' outrageous crimes of Eliot Spitzer: are there actually many people left who care if an adult who isn't their spouse hires prostitutes? Are there really people left who think that doing so should be a crime, that adults who hire other consenting adults for sex should be convicted and go to prison?"

The new data show Americans getting an average of 8.5 hours per night in 2005, compared with eight hours in 2000. Most of the extra minutes of weekly sleep are coming on Saturday nights: 9.5 hours of which were spent slumbering in 2005, compared with 8.8 hours in 2000.

Despite their spirited squabbling, the two Democratic candidates are united in the view that one of the big benefits of electing either of them would be an improvement in America's reputation and relations with the world. Hillary Clinton promises to send special envoys to foreign capitals the day after she's elected. Barack Obama offers to reach out to America's foes as well as friends. Unfortunately none of this will matter if they continue to spout dangerous and ill-informed rhetoric about trade.

For the rest of the world—particularly poorer countries—nice speeches about multilateralism are well and good. But what they really want is for the United States to continue its historic role in opening up the world economy. For a struggling farmer in Kenya, access to world markets is far more important than foreign aid or U.N. programs. If the candidates think they will charm the world while adopting protectionist policies, they are in for a surprise.

Already the mood is shifting abroad. Listening to the Democrats on trade "is enough to send jitters down the spine of most in India," says the Times Now TV channel in New Delhi. The Canadian press has shared in the global swoon for Obama, but is now beginning to ask questions. "What he is actually saying—and how it might affect Canada—may come as a surprise to otherwise devout Barack boosters," writes Greg Weston in the Edmonton Sun. The African press has been reporting on George W. Bush's visit there with affection and, in some cases, by contrasting his views on trade with the Democratic candidates'. The Bangkok Post has compared the Democrats unfavorably with John McCain and his vision of an East Asia bound together, and to the United States, by expanding trade ties.

For Obama, the backlash could be greatest because he's raised the highest hopes. A senior Latin American diplomat, who asked to remain unnamed because of the sensitivity of the topic, says, "Look, we're all watching Obama with bated breath and hoping [his election] will be a transforming moment for the world. But now that we're listening to him on trade—the issue that affects us so deeply—we realize that maybe he doesn't wish us well. In fact, we might find ourselves nostalgic for Bush, who is brave and courageous on trade and immigration."

Al Qaeda successfully regrouped in tribal areas of Pakistan after a 2006 agreement between Pakistan's government and tribal leaders.

Mr. Hayden said CIA operations officers are working aggressively to locate, capture or kill bin Laden, who ordered the September 11 terrorist attacks. U.S. military and government agents are working to "create the opportunity" to get bin Laden.

Asked whether bin Laden is alive, Mr. Hayden said: "We have ... no evidence he's not. And frankly, we think there would be evidence. ... Given the iconic stature, his death would cause a little more than a wake in the harbor."

Bin Laden's efforts to avoid capture have limited his role in al Qaeda's operations, Mr. Hayden said.  "He's putting a lot of his energy into hiding right now."

A National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program warned that Iran halted work on only one of three aspects of its nuclear program. Iran could "always weaponize inside the timelines we've projected for fissile material."

Work on weaponization was halted in 2003, but weaponization and missile delivery system development has continued, he said.

The Federal Reserve moved dramatically yesterday to prevent surging interest rates on prime mortgages from short-circuiting the economy during the critical spring home selling season, sparking the best day on Wall Street in five years.

Adm. Fallon, who was the first Navy officer to head Central Command in the Middle East, noted the Esquire article finalized his decision to retire early.

"Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president's policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the CentCom region," he said. "And although I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command Area of responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America's interests there."

Democrats charged that Adm. Fallon's departure was another sign the Bush administration did not tolerate military commanders who spoke their mind.

Adm. Fallon was known for his conciliatory views on China when he was commander of the Pacific Command, and according to military officials, he restricted U.S. intelligence-gathering efforts against China to avoid upsetting military exchange programs with the Chinese. He also was known to upset some working-level military officers at the Army-oriented Central Command who said the admiral had little understanding of ground combat.

In the past, Adm. Fallon also clashed with Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, over plans to draw down troops in Iraq. He favored a more rapid drawdown of troops than Gen. Petraeus, military officials said.

Congress and the administration should immediately announce (before spring planting) they are getting rid of the ethanol mandates they just passed. These mandates have driven up the cost of food for not only Americans but everyone else on the planet, including those who are close to starvation.

Senior officials in the United Kingdom and the United Nations have said in recent days that rush toward biofuels puts millions at risk because of the global escalation of food prices. The politicians now have the perfect excuse for the policy reversal. Recently released peer-reviewed scientific studies now show ethanol and other biofuels are actually worse for the environment than are fossil fuels.

Second, new peer-reviewed scientific papers show the feedback mechanism for CO2 in the major climatic models has been incorrectly specified and, as a result, we will not have runaway global warming (a major climatic model builder has acknowledged the error). Third, the Northern Hemisphere had a record cold winter, and recent indications are the planet is not warming according to the projections of the models.

In fact, the record (measured) warmth occurred back in the 1930s, not in recent years. In light of all these new facts, it would be grossly irresponsible to continue the ethanol mandates, given the suffering they cause.

...chaos has erupted and the plantation progressives don't know what to do, except to blurt out pent-up racial resentments. Then, the victims, whom they spent the last few decades training in hair-trigger racial sensitivity, turn on them in righteous fury, detecting nuances of racism in everything from Andrew Cuomo's description of Obama's press conferences as "shuck and jive" events to Bill Clinton's belittling Jesse Jackson comparison to Ferraro's sniffing at his "luck."

I found not only that I didn't trust the current government (that, to me, was no surprise), but that an impartial review revealed that the faults of this president—whom I, a good liberal, considered a monster—were little different from those of a president whom I revered.

Bush got us into Iraq, JFK into Vietnam. Bush stole the election in Florida; Kennedy stole his in Chicago. Bush outed a CIA agent; Kennedy left hundreds of them to die in the surf at the Bay of Pigs. Bush lied about his military service; Kennedy accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book written by Ted Sorenson. Bush was in bed with the Saudis, Kennedy with the Mafia. Oh.

And I began to question my hatred for "the Corporations"—the hatred of which, I found, was but the flip side of my hunger for those goods and services they provide and without which we could not live.

And I began to question my distrust of the "Bad, Bad Military" of my youth, which, I saw, was then and is now made up of those men and women who actually risk their lives to protect the rest of us from a very hostile world. Is the military always right? No. Neither is government, nor are the corporations—they are just different signposts for the particular amalgamation of our country into separate working groups, if you will. Are these groups infallible, free from the possibility of mismanagement, corruption, or crime? No, and neither are you or I. So, taking the tragic view, the question was not "Is everything perfect?" but "How could it be better, at what cost, and according to whose definition?" Put into which form, things appeared to me to be unfolding pretty well.

THE EDITORS: Most conservatives are willing to support McCain this fall, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, and are willing to work with him before and afterward. But conservatives are not, and should not be, willing to go along with McCain no matter what.

Both women are keenly aware — as are their husbands — of their competence, accomplishments, and potential. They know they run the show, man the stopwatches, get the daughters squared away, manage the brush fires, get the bills paid, meals planned — while bringing down their own six-figure salaries — and still have to play wifey to the dude who is never surprised when matching socks materialize neatly joined in his bureau drawer.

Are we harder on women than we are on men? Here’s a hint: If President Hillary Clinton were caught having an affair with a male intern her daughter’s age, would she ever be received again in public except for her own funeral?

American public support for the military effort in Iraq has reached a high point unseen since the summer of 2006, a development that promises to reshape the political landscape.

According to late February polling conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 53 percent of Americans — a slim majority — now believe “the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals” in Iraq. That figure is up from 42 percent in September 2007.

The percentage of those who believe the war in Iraq is going “very well” or “fairly well” is also up, from 30 percent in February 2007 to 48 percent today.  ...

“How could Democrats possibly hand McCain a better issue than to let him run on his record of advocating a robust U.S. presence in Iraq with all the positive battlefield news that is filtering out of that country?” asked Michael O’Hanlon, a national security adviser at the Brookings Institution who has been at the center of the Iraq debate since the war’s outset.

“Thinking about where we were at the time of the congressional elections, it’s ironic that the Iraq issue could actually be the one that most favors the Republican...

Pew also found that 49 percent favor bringing the troops home as soon as possible while 47 percent say the troops should stay in until the situation stabilizes — statistical parity between the two positions.

McCain is betting, however, that the public will view the war through a forward-looking lens. For months, he has argued that Democrats intend to “retreat” in Iraq and ensure failure.

The public may soon come to view that as “a correct narrative,” said O’Hanlon, a Democrat whose views on the war have made him the bête noire of many in the antiwar liberal base.

Perhaps as a result of the uptick in support for the war or his own military record, McCain is well-positioned to retake the party’s traditional advantage on national security issues.

Almost half of registered voters now believe it is “very likely” that McCain would be an “effective commander in chief,” according to CBS polling. Less than one-quarter said the same of Obama and Clinton.

In addition, CBS found that a clear majority of Americans were “confident” that McCain could “handle an international crisis” — 56 percent said so for McCain, 47 percent for Obama and only 39 percent for Clinton.

So now we are in this silly situation, in which at one time Obama was happy enough to remind some that his middle name was Hussein and now it is a slur for other less well-intentioned to do so; in which his wife’s browbeating of America was salve to guilty liberals and now it is considered illiberal to question her assumptions; in which a candidate who rose to prominence as a “black” candidate and garners majority margins of 90% among African-American against a very liberal female opponent insists that he has transcended race and to suggest otherwise is, well, racist.

McCain may become a proper antidote for all this. Unlike the verbose Michelle Obama, he really has suffered in his life; unlike Barack Obama he really has reached across the aisle and paid a price for it; and unlike Obama's promises of transparency, he really does talk in specifics and bluntly rather than in mellifluous platitudes. And as for an against-the-odds candicacy, in postmodern America a 71-year-old survivor of communist torture and malignant melonoma seems to match the narrative of a young Ivy-League graduate of mixed ancestry.

Although known for being tough on his subordinates, he also developed a reputation for nuanced diplomatic negotiations with friendly nations, and with some with whom the United States has more prickly ties.

...there was no question that the admiral’s premature departure stemmed from what were perceived to be policy differences with the administration on Iran and Iraq, where his views competed with those of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq, who is a favorite of the White House.

Mr. Obama’s victory was built on a wave of support among blacks, who made up half of those who turned out to vote, according to exit polls conducted by television networks and The Associated Press. The polls found that roughly 90 percent of black voters supported Mr. Obama, but only a third of white voters did.

The skirmishing is just one front of an increasingly charged battle that on Tuesday drew in remarks by Geraldine A. Ferraro, the former New York representative who is a Clinton supporter, that Mr. Obama owed his success partly to his race.

The federal officials sought to emphasize that Mr. Spitzer, a Democrat, had not been singled out by the Republican administration, although allegations of political interference dogged the Justice Department during the tenure of the former attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales, who left office last year after lawmakers in both parties called for his removal. The Spitzer investigation began in July and Mr. Gonzales resigned in August last year; it is not clear whether he knew about it.

Could all this hurt Hillary, who Spitzer endorsed? Slate's Christopher Beam sees far broader damage:

"Addressing the Spitzer flap raises the ghosts of scandals past, namely Monica Lewinsky. Clinton has so far managed during this campaign to avoid public mention of her husband's diddling. If the Spitzer controversy drags out, it could become a painful reminder of the final White House years. (Of course, you could argue that it would make people sympathize with her all over again.)

"But in the end, the Spitzer fallout is more likely to damage the party than Hillary's candidacy. For the past eight years, most of the lying, cheating, child molestation, and public sex has been the proud reserve of Republicans (or at least they excel at getting caught). The Spitzer scandal could flip that story line toward Democrats. Just as voters recoiled from Mark Foley's indiscretions in 2006, they could easily cast Spitzer as the incarnation of Democratic hypocrisy."

Nora Ephron:

"I feel sad. I liked him. It's tragic. Etc.

"But having read every word of the indictment, may I suggest that should he stay on, Spitzer will probably have far more time to focus on being governor, in that he won't have to spend hours on the phone with someone named Temeka arguing over his 55 per cent deposit, his in-store credit, the cash limits on bank machine withdrawals in late-night Washington, and ways for Kristen the prostitute to get into her hotel room without her having to give her name at the check-in desk downstairs.

"Meanwhile, Spitzer, who a year ago had a shot at national office, is today a laughingstock because of his reckless involvement in . . . what? Let's just say this right out: in nothing. He arranged for a date with a hooker and she crossed a state line. This violates something called the Mann Act, which was passed in 1910, before women could vote. It's the legal equivalent of an old chestnut, it seems barely constitutional, and no one with half a brain could possibly think of it as anything worth prosecuting anyone for. Although Eliot Spitzer might. This is the problem these guys get into: they're so morally rigid and puritanical in real life (and on some level, so responsible for this priggish world we now live in) that when they get caught committing victimless crimes, everyone thinks they should be punished for sheer hypocrisy."

Salon's Glenn Greenwald is one of the few to challenge the media verdict:

"Regarding all of the breathless moralizing from all sides over the 'reprehensible,' outrageous crimes of Eliot Spitzer: are there actually many people left who care if an adult who isn't their spouse hires prostitutes? Are there really people left who think that doing so should be a crime, that adults who hire other consenting adults for sex should be convicted and go to prison?"

The new data show Americans getting an average of 8.5 hours per night in 2005, compared with eight hours in 2000. Most of the extra minutes of weekly sleep are coming on Saturday nights: 9.5 hours of which were spent slumbering in 2005, compared with 8.8 hours in 2000.

Despite their spirited squabbling, the two Democratic candidates are united in the view that one of the big benefits of electing either of them would be an improvement in America's reputation and relations with the world. Hillary Clinton promises to send special envoys to foreign capitals the day after she's elected. Barack Obama offers to reach out to America's foes as well as friends. Unfortunately none of this will matter if they continue to spout dangerous and ill-informed rhetoric about trade.

For the rest of the world—particularly poorer countries—nice speeches about multilateralism are well and good. But what they really want is for the United States to continue its historic role in opening up the world economy. For a struggling farmer in Kenya, access to world markets is far more important than foreign aid or U.N. programs. If the candidates think they will charm the world while adopting protectionist policies, they are in for a surprise.

Already the mood is shifting abroad. Listening to the Democrats on trade "is enough to send jitters down the spine of most in India," says the Times Now TV channel in New Delhi. The Canadian press has shared in the global swoon for Obama, but is now beginning to ask questions. "What he is actually saying—and how it might affect Canada—may come as a surprise to otherwise devout Barack boosters," writes Greg Weston in the Edmonton Sun. The African press has been reporting on George W. Bush's visit there with affection and, in some cases, by contrasting his views on trade with the Democratic candidates'. The Bangkok Post has compared the Democrats unfavorably with John McCain and his vision of an East Asia bound together, and to the United States, by expanding trade ties.

For Obama, the backlash could be greatest because he's raised the highest hopes. A senior Latin American diplomat, who asked to remain unnamed because of the sensitivity of the topic, says, "Look, we're all watching Obama with bated breath and hoping [his election] will be a transforming moment for the world. But now that we're listening to him on trade—the issue that affects us so deeply—we realize that maybe he doesn't wish us well. In fact, we might find ourselves nostalgic for Bush, who is brave and courageous on trade and immigration."

Al Qaeda successfully regrouped in tribal areas of Pakistan after a 2006 agreement between Pakistan's government and tribal leaders.

Mr. Hayden said CIA operations officers are working aggressively to locate, capture or kill bin Laden, who ordered the September 11 terrorist attacks. U.S. military and government agents are working to "create the opportunity" to get bin Laden.

Asked whether bin Laden is alive, Mr. Hayden said: "We have ... no evidence he's not. And frankly, we think there would be evidence. ... Given the iconic stature, his death would cause a little more than a wake in the harbor."

Bin Laden's efforts to avoid capture have limited his role in al Qaeda's operations, Mr. Hayden said.  "He's putting a lot of his energy into hiding right now."

A National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program warned that Iran halted work on only one of three aspects of its nuclear program. Iran could "always weaponize inside the timelines we've projected for fissile material."

Work on weaponization was halted in 2003, but weaponization and missile delivery system development has continued, he said.

The Federal Reserve moved dramatically yesterday to prevent surging interest rates on prime mortgages from short-circuiting the economy during the critical spring home selling season, sparking the best day on Wall Street in five years.

Adm. Fallon, who was the first Navy officer to head Central Command in the Middle East, noted the Esquire article finalized his decision to retire early.

"Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president's policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the CentCom region," he said. "And although I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command Area of responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America's interests there."

Democrats charged that Adm. Fallon's departure was another sign the Bush administration did not tolerate military commanders who spoke their mind.

Adm. Fallon was known for his conciliatory views on China when he was commander of the Pacific Command, and according to military officials, he restricted U.S. intelligence-gathering efforts against China to avoid upsetting military exchange programs with the Chinese. He also was known to upset some working-level military officers at the Army-oriented Central Command who said the admiral had little understanding of ground combat.

In the past, Adm. Fallon also clashed with Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, over plans to draw down troops in Iraq. He favored a more rapid drawdown of troops than Gen. Petraeus, military officials said.

Congress and the administration should immediately announce (before spring planting) they are getting rid of the ethanol mandates they just passed. These mandates have driven up the cost of food for not only Americans but everyone else on the planet, including those who are close to starvation.

Senior officials in the United Kingdom and the United Nations have said in recent days that rush toward biofuels puts millions at risk because of the global escalation of food prices. The politicians now have the perfect excuse for the policy reversal. Recently released peer-reviewed scientific studies now show ethanol and other biofuels are actually worse for the environment than are fossil fuels.

Second, new peer-reviewed scientific papers show the feedback mechanism for CO2 in the major climatic models has been incorrectly specified and, as a result, we will not have runaway global warming (a major climatic model builder has acknowledged the error). Third, the Northern Hemisphere had a record cold winter, and recent indications are the planet is not warming according to the projections of the models.

In fact, the record (measured) warmth occurred back in the 1930s, not in recent years. In light of all these new facts, it would be grossly irresponsible to continue the ethanol mandates, given the suffering they cause.

...chaos has erupted and the plantation progressives don't know what to do, except to blurt out pent-up racial resentments. Then, the victims, whom they spent the last few decades training in hair-trigger racial sensitivity, turn on them in righteous fury, detecting nuances of racism in everything from Andrew Cuomo's description of Obama's press conferences as "shuck and jive" events to Bill Clinton's belittling Jesse Jackson comparison to Ferraro's sniffing at his "luck."

I found not only that I didn't trust the current government (that, to me, was no surprise), but that an impartial review revealed that the faults of this president—whom I, a good liberal, considered a monster—were little different from those of a president whom I revered.

Bush got us into Iraq, JFK into Vietnam. Bush stole the election in Florida; Kennedy stole his in Chicago. Bush outed a CIA agent; Kennedy left hundreds of them to die in the surf at the Bay of Pigs. Bush lied about his military service; Kennedy accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book written by Ted Sorenson. Bush was in bed with the Saudis, Kennedy with the Mafia. Oh.

And I began to question my hatred for "the Corporations"—the hatred of which, I found, was but the flip side of my hunger for those goods and services they provide and without which we could not live.

And I began to question my distrust of the "Bad, Bad Military" of my youth, which, I saw, was then and is now made up of those men and women who actually risk their lives to protect the rest of us from a very hostile world. Is the military always right? No. Neither is government, nor are the corporations—they are just different signposts for the particular amalgamation of our country into separate working groups, if you will. Are these groups infallible, free from the possibility of mismanagement, corruption, or crime? No, and neither are you or I. So, taking the tragic view, the question was not "Is everything perfect?" but "How could it be better, at what cost, and according to whose definition?" Put into which form, things appeared to me to be unfolding pretty well.

THE EDITORS: Most conservatives are willing to support McCain this fall, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, and are willing to work with him before and afterward. But conservatives are not, and should not be, willing to go along with McCain no matter what.

Both women are keenly aware — as are their husbands — of their competence, accomplishments, and potential. They know they run the show, man the stopwatches, get the daughters squared away, manage the brush fires, get the bills paid, meals planned — while bringing down their own six-figure salaries — and still have to play wifey to the dude who is never surprised when matching socks materialize neatly joined in his bureau drawer.

Are we harder on women than we are on men? Here’s a hint: If President Hillary Clinton were caught having an affair with a male intern her daughter’s age, would she ever be received again in public except for her own funeral?

American public support for the military effort in Iraq has reached a high point unseen since the summer of 2006, a development that promises to reshape the political landscape.

According to late February polling conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 53 percent of Americans — a slim majority — now believe “the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals” in Iraq. That figure is up from 42 percent in September 2007.

The percentage of those who believe the war in Iraq is going “very well” or “fairly well” is also up, from 30 percent in February 2007 to 48 percent today.  ...

“How could Democrats possibly hand McCain a better issue than to let him run on his record of advocating a robust U.S. presence in Iraq with all the positive battlefield news that is filtering out of that country?” asked Michael O’Hanlon, a national security adviser at the Brookings Institution who has been at the center of the Iraq debate since the war’s outset.

“Thinking about where we were at the time of the congressional elections, it’s ironic that the Iraq issue could actually be the one that most favors the Republican...

Pew also found that 49 percent favor bringing the troops home as soon as possible while 47 percent say the troops should stay in until the situation stabilizes — statistical parity between the two positions.

McCain is betting, however, that the public will view the war through a forward-looking lens. For months, he has argued that Democrats intend to “retreat” in Iraq and ensure failure.

The public may soon come to view that as “a correct narrative,” said O’Hanlon, a Democrat whose views on the war have made him the bête noire of many in the antiwar liberal base.

Perhaps as a result of the uptick in support for the war or his own military record, McCain is well-positioned to retake the party’s traditional advantage on national security issues.

Almost half of registered voters now believe it is “very likely” that McCain would be an “effective commander in chief,” according to CBS polling. Less than one-quarter said the same of Obama and Clinton.

In addition, CBS found that a clear majority of Americans were “confident” that McCain could “handle an international crisis” — 56 percent said so for McCain, 47 percent for Obama and only 39 percent for Clinton.

So now we are in this silly situation, in which at one time Obama was happy enough to remind some that his middle name was Hussein and now it is a slur for other less well-intentioned to do so; in which his wife’s browbeating of America was salve to guilty liberals and now it is considered illiberal to question her assumptions; in which a candidate who rose to prominence as a “black” candidate and garners majority margins of 90% among African-American against a very liberal female opponent insists that he has transcended race and to suggest otherwise is, well, racist.

McCain may become a proper antidote for all this. Unlike the verbose Michelle Obama, he really has suffered in his life; unlike Barack Obama he really has reached across the aisle and paid a price for it; and unlike Obama's promises of transparency, he really does talk in specifics and bluntly rather than in mellifluous platitudes. And as for an against-the-odds candicacy, in postmodern America a 71-year-old survivor of communist torture and malignant melonoma seems to match the narrative of a young Ivy-League graduate of mixed ancestry.

However, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a homegrown Sunni insurgent group that American intelligence says is foreign led, continues to be a threat, especially in southern Arab Jabour.

As Sen. Barack Obama nears the Democratic presidential nomination, a corruption trial of his former fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko on charges of influence peddling begins in Chicago today. Sen. Hillary Clinton's operatives have tried frantically, but not effectively, to interest the media outside Chicago in Obama's possible connection with his home state's latest major scandal.

Obama bought a mock Georgian mansion on Chicago's South Side on June 15, 2005, the same day Rezko's wife bought a plot next door from the same seller. Obama then purchased from Rezko another parcel at above-market value. Federal prosecutors recently revealed that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi billionaire who lives in London, wired $3.5 million to the financially strapped Rezko in Chicago less than a month before the Obama-Rezko purchases. James Bone, an investigative reporter for the Times of London, wrote last Tuesday that "the money transfer raises the question of whether funds" from Auchi "helped" Obama buy his house. ...

Chicago Sun-Times reporters Chris Fusco and Tim Novak (no relation) asked last week how it was possible for Auchi to get government permission to visit Chicago in 2004 despite his French criminal conviction. Obama aides were quoted as saying that Auchi never reached out to the senator, and representatives of both men say neither has any recollection of meeting the other. But the Times of London reported last week that "the two may have had a brief encounter" at the Four Seasons Hotel in Chicago. It is an indistinct part of an indistinct story Hillary Clinton's handlers wish had attracted attention before now.

Mr. Obama has strenuously denied suggestions that the same-day sale enabled him to pay $300,000 under the house's asking price because Mrs. Rezko paid full price for the adjoining lot, or that he asked the Rezkos for help in the matter. Both actions would be clear violations of Senate ethics rules barring the granting or asking of favors.

Still, there are anomalies. Mr. Obama admits that he and Mr. Rezko took a tour of the house before it and the adjoining plot were sold. Financial records given to federal prosecutors a year later show Mrs. Rezko had a salary of only $37,000 and assets of $35,000. In court proceedings at that time, to explain how much his bail should be, Mr. Rezko declared that he had "no income, negative cash flow, no liquid assets."

So where did the money for Mrs. Rezko's $125,000 down payment -- and the collateral for her $500,000 loan from a local bank controlled by Amrish Mahajan, like Mr. Rezko a Chicago political fixer -- come from?

The London Times reports that, three weeks before the land transactions, Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi billionaire living in London, loaned $3.5 million to Mr. Rezko, who was his Chicago business partner. Mr. Auchi's office says he had "no involvement in or knowledge of" the property purchase. Mr. Auchi is a press-shy property developer (estimated worth: $4 billion) who was convicted of corruption in France in 2003 for his involvement in the Elf affair, the biggest political and corporate fraud inquiry in Europe since World War II. He was fined $3 million and given a 15-month prison term that was suspended provided he committed no further crimes.

As top Obama adviser David Axelrod said on ABC yesterday, when the Clinton campaign's Howard Wolfson used the word "unusual" to describe the Obama/Rezko land deal: "With all due respect, I would think that the Clinton campaign would be the last person to be wanting to characterize any real estate transaction as unusual."

U.S. plans call for a modest number of interceptors, dozens at first, a hundred or so later, maybe 200 or 300 after that. The program is limited because the threat is measured in tens of missiles, not hundreds and certainly not thousands. With North Korea and Iran building ballistic missiles with significant and increasing range, a modest defense is a prudent first step toward countering a known threat.

Everybody admires John McCain's service as a fighter pilot, his courage as a prisoner of war. There's no issue there. He's a great man and an honorable man. But having served as a fighter pilot--and I know my experience as a company commander in Vietnam--that doesn't prepare you to be commander-in-chief in terms of dealing with the national strategic issues that are involved. -- Ret Gen Wes Clark

McCain was, in fact, a prisoner of war for around five and a half years, during which time he was tortured repeatedly.  "I mean, hello? This is supposed to be a qualification to be president? I don't think so." -- Expert Gloria Steinem

But do you remember how touchy Democrats got four years ago whenever anyone questioned whether John Kerry was qualified to be president simply by virtue of being a "war hero"?

On a more substantive note, this is from another AP dispatch:

Obama criticized Clinton expressly for failing to read the classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons capabilities, a report available at the time of her October 2002 vote authorizing the Iraq war. "She didn't give diplomacy a chance. And to this day, she won't even admit that her vote was a mistake--or even that it was a vote for war," Obama said.

"When it came time to make the most important foreign policy decision of our generation the decision to invade Iraq Senator Clinton got it wrong," Obama said.

He said that Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a fellow Democrat from neighboring West Virginia, had read the intelligence estimate as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and had voted against the war resolution.

Rockefeller, who is now chairman of that committee, endorsed Obama on Friday and campaigned with him on Saturday.

Just one problem: As blogress Clarice Feldman points out, and as the Senate roll-call confirms, Rockefeller voted for the war. We guess it was too good to check!

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign announced he would co-sponsor legislation introduced yesterday by his political ally Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) to ensure that John McCain can become president, even though he was born in the Panama Canal Zone," reports the Washington Post's Web site:

The issue of McCain's eligibility was raised in a New York Times article noting the constitutional requirement that a U.S. president be a "natural-born citizen" had never been fully defined.

The McCaskill bill, submitted immediately after she scrawled it onto a notepad on the Senate floor in response to the Times story, would establish the eligibility of anyone born to a U.S. citizen who is serving overseas as an active or reserve member of the U.S. armed forces. . . .

"Senator McCain has earned the right to be his party's nominee, and no loophole should prevent him from competing in this campaign," Obama said.

We have to agree with blogress Ann Althouse that this is a ridiculous stunt. No one seriously disputes that McCain is a natural-born citizen, and thus eligible to run for president. And if he were constitutionally disqualified--as are, say, Govs. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer Granholm, both naturalized citizens--Congress could not remedy this by statute.

There is only one thing the public can be certain of regarding the Democratic presidential nomination: without a miracle, there will be a brokered convention. Senator Barack Obama was leading Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the delegate count going into the Super Tuesday II primary elections on March 4. Obama held 1,193 primary delegates to Clinton's 1,038.  The status of the super delegates is meaningless because their pledges today may not carry any meaning come the Democratic nominating convention in Denver during the last week of August.

A Democratic candidate needs to reach a minimum of 2,025 delegates to clinch the nomination outright. Clinton will not reach that figure before the last primary election is held in Puerto Rico on June 7. Neither will Obama. The Illinois senator needs 832 more delegates to reach the magic number of 2,025. There are only 981 remaining primary delegates that are up for grabs. Three hundred seventy delegates will be decided on March 4 and 611 will be divvied up across 12 primaries between March 8 and June 7. Obama would have to win an astonishing 85% of the remaining 981 delegates in order to claim the Democratic nomination outright. There are no winner-take-all primaries for the Democrats. Obama will never get the needed 832 delegates.

This means that neither Obama nor Clinton will tally the needed 2,025 delegates when the primary election season is completed. The pair will have eleven weeks between Puerto Rico's primary election on June 7 and the convening of the Democratic convention on August 25 to persuade super delegates to support their candidacy. A lot can happen in 11 weeks. There will be horse trading, influence peddling and cajoling. It will be a real knife fight to the end. Layer on top of this real-world events. Everything from the economy, Iraq, terrorism and damaging revelations of the ties between Obama and Antoin "Tony" Rezko, the land developer currently under federal indictment, could greatly influence the super delegates' commitments.

A high-ranking officer in the New Mexico National Guard is unhappy about the ethanol mandate causing problems on the Southern Border:

The third storm front is food. America's well-intentioned but misguided emphasis on ethanol has caused food prices to rise beyond the poor's income. Corn prices have tripled and tortilla prices have soared. Food riots and protests are now common throughout Mexico and confidence in the government is eroding.

The result is this: income flows to Mexico are falling while social unrest is rising.

Predictably, this storm is now manifesting in violence in Mexico's northern states and it is becoming apparent that Mexico is having difficulties maintaining stability. Meanwhile, drug cartels are having no such monetary problems.

Russert: Senator Obama, would Israel be justified in launching an attack on Iran if they felt their security was jeopardized?

Obama: I think it's important to back up for a second, Tim, and just understand, number one, Iran is in a stronger position now than it was before the Iraq war because the Congress authorized the president to go in. And so it indicates the degree to which we've got to make sure, before we launch attacks or make judgments of the sort, that we actually understand the intelligence and we have done a good job in sorting it through.

Now, we don't know exactly what happened with respect to Syria. We've gotten general reports, but we don't know all the specifics. We got general reports in the run-up to the Iraq war that proved erroneous, and a lot of people voted for that war as a consequence.

Now, we are a stalwart ally of Israel, and I think it is important to understand that we will back them up in terms of their security. But it is critical to understand that until we have taken the diplomatic routes that are required to tighten economic sanctions - I have a plan right now to make sure that private pension funds in this country can divest from their holdings in Iran. Until we have gathered the international community to put the squeeze on Iran economically, then we shouldn't be having conversations about attacks in Iran. And I think what Mayor Giuliani said was irresponsible, because we have not yet come to that point. We have not tried the other approach.

You hear it everywhere: Tuesday is Hillary Clinton's last stand. If she can't win Ohio and Texas, she's history.

True, mostly. But it's not the whole story. The rest goes like this: This is Barack Obama's third chance to knock her out. If he can't close the deal this time, maybe he can't close the deal, period.

However, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a homegrown Sunni insurgent group that American intelligence says is foreign led, continues to be a threat, especially in southern Arab Jabour.

As Sen. Barack Obama nears the Democratic presidential nomination, a corruption trial of his former fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko on charges of influence peddling begins in Chicago today. Sen. Hillary Clinton's operatives have tried frantically, but not effectively, to interest the media outside Chicago in Obama's possible connection with his home state's latest major scandal.

Obama bought a mock Georgian mansion on Chicago's South Side on June 15, 2005, the same day Rezko's wife bought a plot next door from the same seller. Obama then purchased from Rezko another parcel at above-market value. Federal prosecutors recently revealed that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi billionaire who lives in London, wired $3.5 million to the financially strapped Rezko in Chicago less than a month before the Obama-Rezko purchases. James Bone, an investigative reporter for the Times of London, wrote last Tuesday that "the money transfer raises the question of whether funds" from Auchi "helped" Obama buy his house. ...

Chicago Sun-Times reporters Chris Fusco and Tim Novak (no relation) asked last week how it was possible for Auchi to get government permission to visit Chicago in 2004 despite his French criminal conviction. Obama aides were quoted as saying that Auchi never reached out to the senator, and representatives of both men say neither has any recollection of meeting the other. But the Times of London reported last week that "the two may have had a brief encounter" at the Four Seasons Hotel in Chicago. It is an indistinct part of an indistinct story Hillary Clinton's handlers wish had attracted attention before now.

Mr. Obama has strenuously denied suggestions that the same-day sale enabled him to pay $300,000 under the house's asking price because Mrs. Rezko paid full price for the adjoining lot, or that he asked the Rezkos for help in the matter. Both actions would be clear violations of Senate ethics rules barring the granting or asking of favors.

Still, there are anomalies. Mr. Obama admits that he and Mr. Rezko took a tour of the house before it and the adjoining plot were sold. Financial records given to federal prosecutors a year later show Mrs. Rezko had a salary of only $37,000 and assets of $35,000. In court proceedings at that time, to explain how much his bail should be, Mr. Rezko declared that he had "no income, negative cash flow, no liquid assets."

So where did the money for Mrs. Rezko's $125,000 down payment -- and the collateral for her $500,000 loan from a local bank controlled by Amrish Mahajan, like Mr. Rezko a Chicago political fixer -- come from?

The London Times reports that, three weeks before the land transactions, Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi billionaire living in London, loaned $3.5 million to Mr. Rezko, who was his Chicago business partner. Mr. Auchi's office says he had "no involvement in or knowledge of" the property purchase. Mr. Auchi is a press-shy property developer (estimated worth: $4 billion) who was convicted of corruption in France in 2003 for his involvement in the Elf affair, the biggest political and corporate fraud inquiry in Europe since World War II. He was fined $3 million and given a 15-month prison term that was suspended provided he committed no further crimes.

As top Obama adviser David Axelrod said on ABC yesterday, when the Clinton campaign's Howard Wolfson used the word "unusual" to describe the Obama/Rezko land deal: "With all due respect, I would think that the Clinton campaign would be the last person to be wanting to characterize any real estate transaction as unusual."

U.S. plans call for a modest number of interceptors, dozens at first, a hundred or so later, maybe 200 or 300 after that. The program is limited because the threat is measured in tens of missiles, not hundreds and certainly not thousands. With North Korea and Iran building ballistic missiles with significant and increasing range, a modest defense is a prudent first step toward countering a known threat.

Everybody admires John McCain's service as a fighter pilot, his courage as a prisoner of war. There's no issue there. He's a great man and an honorable man. But having served as a fighter pilot--and I know my experience as a company commander in Vietnam--that doesn't prepare you to be commander-in-chief in terms of dealing with the national strategic issues that are involved. -- Ret Gen Wes Clark

McCain was, in fact, a prisoner of war for around five and a half years, during which time he was tortured repeatedly.  "I mean, hello? This is supposed to be a qualification to be president? I don't think so." -- Expert Gloria Steinem

But do you remember how touchy Democrats got four years ago whenever anyone questioned whether John Kerry was qualified to be president simply by virtue of being a "war hero"?

On a more substantive note, this is from another AP dispatch:

Obama criticized Clinton expressly for failing to read the classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons capabilities, a report available at the time of her October 2002 vote authorizing the Iraq war. "She didn't give diplomacy a chance. And to this day, she won't even admit that her vote was a mistake--or even that it was a vote for war," Obama said.

"When it came time to make the most important foreign policy decision of our generation the decision to invade Iraq Senator Clinton got it wrong," Obama said.

He said that Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a fellow Democrat from neighboring West Virginia, had read the intelligence estimate as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and had voted against the war resolution.

Rockefeller, who is now chairman of that committee, endorsed Obama on Friday and campaigned with him on Saturday.

Just one problem: As blogress Clarice Feldman points out, and as the Senate roll-call confirms, Rockefeller voted for the war. We guess it was too good to check!

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign announced he would co-sponsor legislation introduced yesterday by his political ally Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) to ensure that John McCain can become president, even though he was born in the Panama Canal Zone," reports the Washington Post's Web site:

The issue of McCain's eligibility was raised in a New York Times article noting the constitutional requirement that a U.S. president be a "natural-born citizen" had never been fully defined.

The McCaskill bill, submitted immediately after she scrawled it onto a notepad on the Senate floor in response to the Times story, would establish the eligibility of anyone born to a U.S. citizen who is serving overseas as an active or reserve member of the U.S. armed forces. . . .

"Senator McCain has earned the right to be his party's nominee, and no loophole should prevent him from competing in this campaign," Obama said.

We have to agree with blogress Ann Althouse that this is a ridiculous stunt. No one seriously disputes that McCain is a natural-born citizen, and thus eligible to run for president. And if he were constitutionally disqualified--as are, say, Govs. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer Granholm, both naturalized citizens--Congress could not remedy this by statute.

There is only one thing the public can be certain of regarding the Democratic presidential nomination: without a miracle, there will be a brokered convention. Senator Barack Obama was leading Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the delegate count going into the Super Tuesday II primary elections on March 4. Obama held 1,193 primary delegates to Clinton's 1,038.  The status of the super delegates is meaningless because their pledges today may not carry any meaning come the Democratic nominating convention in Denver during the last week of August.

A Democratic candidate needs to reach a minimum of 2,025 delegates to clinch the nomination outright. Clinton will not reach that figure before the last primary election is held in Puerto Rico on June 7. Neither will Obama. The Illinois senator needs 832 more delegates to reach the magic number of 2,025. There are only 981 remaining primary delegates that are up for grabs. Three hundred seventy delegates will be decided on March 4 and 611 will be divvied up across 12 primaries between March 8 and June 7. Obama would have to win an astonishing 85% of the remaining 981 delegates in order to claim the Democratic nomination outright. There are no winner-take-all primaries for the Democrats. Obama will never get the needed 832 delegates.

This means that neither Obama nor Clinton will tally the needed 2,025 delegates when the primary election season is completed. The pair will have eleven weeks between Puerto Rico's primary election on June 7 and the convening of the Democratic convention on August 25 to persuade super delegates to support their candidacy. A lot can happen in 11 weeks. There will be horse trading, influence peddling and cajoling. It will be a real knife fight to the end. Layer on top of this real-world events. Everything from the economy, Iraq, terrorism and damaging revelations of the ties between Obama and Antoin "Tony" Rezko, the land developer currently under federal indictment, could greatly influence the super delegates' commitments.

A high-ranking officer in the New Mexico National Guard is unhappy about the ethanol mandate causing problems on the Southern Border:

The third storm front is food. America's well-intentioned but misguided emphasis on ethanol has caused food prices to rise beyond the poor's income. Corn prices have tripled and tortilla prices have soared. Food riots and protests are now common throughout Mexico and confidence in the government is eroding.

The result is this: income flows to Mexico are falling while social unrest is rising.

Predictably, this storm is now manifesting in violence in Mexico's northern states and it is becoming apparent that Mexico is having difficulties maintaining stability. Meanwhile, drug cartels are having no such monetary problems.

Russert: Senator Obama, would Israel be justified in launching an attack on Iran if they felt their security was jeopardized?

Obama: I think it's important to back up for a second, Tim, and just understand, number one, Iran is in a stronger position now than it was before the Iraq war because the Congress authorized the president to go in. And so it indicates the degree to which we've got to make sure, before we launch attacks or make judgments of the sort, that we actually understand the intelligence and we have done a good job in sorting it through.

Now, we don't know exactly what happened with respect to Syria. We've gotten general reports, but we don't know all the specifics. We got general reports in the run-up to the Iraq war that proved erroneous, and a lot of people voted for that war as a consequence.

Now, we are a stalwart ally of Israel, and I think it is important to understand that we will back them up in terms of their security. But it is critical to understand that until we have taken the diplomatic routes that are required to tighten economic sanctions - I have a plan right now to make sure that private pension funds in this country can divest from their holdings in Iran. Until we have gathered the international community to put the squeeze on Iran economically, then we shouldn't be having conversations about attacks in Iran. And I think what Mayor Giuliani said was irresponsible, because we have not yet come to that point. We have not tried the other approach.

You hear it everywhere: Tuesday is Hillary Clinton's last stand. If she can't win Ohio and Texas, she's history.

True, mostly. But it's not the whole story. The rest goes like this: This is Barack Obama's third chance to knock her out. If he can't close the deal this time, maybe he can't close the deal, period.