As we cruise into the closing throes of the Democratic primary, and hold our breath for the big Clinton bash sure to come this weekend or Monday, ammunition against Clinton surfaces with a story about how she now decries the robbing of Indiana jobs her husband authorized.

The summary is this: George Soros and President Bill hooked up a major Chinese buy-out of an Indiana industry that sent jobs overseas to the People’s Republic eight years later. Hillary’s now knocking the deal as a blunder under Bush.

She never mentions that big-time Democratic contributor George Soros helped put together the deal to sell the company or that the sale was approved by her husband’s administration.

This is just another example of how Clinton’s Edwards-brand populism ignores the fact that she’s bought and paid for by multinationals and their foreign interests. Indiana best remember the sale, for it’ll be a chilling vision of things to come if they cast votes for Hillary.

Showing some of the inimitable quality he offers to the Presidency, Obama spoke off the cuff today about Reverend Wright, declaring himself to be “outraged” over his former pastor’s comments.

Obama said, “I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday.”

Obama noted that Wright “obviously hadn’t shown any concern” for him, but more importantly, hadn’t shown concern for the movement of change he is trying to accomplish.

At a time when Wright’s baggage is plummeting Obama in all pertinent polls, his statements may be the redemption his candidacy so dearly needs. 

Would it make you slightly less likely, less likely or more likely to know that Hillary has used the most conniving, dark-hearted trick in modern politics to spread lies about Obama?

That’s what a push poll sounds like.  And that’s just what she’s doing – using a push poll to mangle North Carolina’s understanding of Obama’s record.

The sick thing, people, is that these things work unless people know they’re poison, not truth.  So spread the word about this one.  E-mail, blog, make calls – do all you can to clue people on to what she’s doing.  And visit the site that discovered it, so that you have the proper sense of outrage when you tell your friends.

Update: She’s done it before, in California, and was caught too late.  The biggest asset of push-polling is that it’s under the radar, so be sure to tell everyone you can this is going on.

With Pennsylvania being the very model of an inconclusive contest, neither Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton has or even can acknowledge that this war is over, as is explained by a superb piece of analysis by Elizabeth Drew.

Drew notes the reasons Hillary Clinton will not win, deftly unraveling an argument often used by the Clintonites that has an advantage for Obama at its core:

…the congressional Democratic leaders don’t draw the same conclusion from Pennsylvania and also earlier contests that many observers think they do: that Obama’s candidacy is fatally flawed because he has as yet been largely unable to win the votes of working class whites. They point out something that has been largely overlooked in all the talk – the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries were closed primaries, and, one key congressional Democrat says, “Yes, he doesn’t do really well with a big part of the Democratic base, but she doesn’t do well with independents, who will be critical to success in November.”

I’ve pointed out this fact before – that Clinton’s sneering about her “big state” victories is hot air considering that the states she’s claimed are almost certain to go to Obama in a general election.

Still, even though the notion of Obama having to “close the deal” on a fight that he’s almost certain to win is contemptible vanity on Clinton’s part, that is what is demanded: A victory she is expected to win, must go to him. This can only be Indiana.

Will Indiana end the trench warfare? It would give Clinton a way to bow out without losing face. But it may be that nothing less than what brought an end to World War I will resolve it – a revolt in Clinton’s home base:

‘This is a war of attrition and it’s obvious that the numbers aren’t going to add up, so what’s the point?’” … “The hope is that at some point the superdelegates will get frustrated and join the Obama bandwagon.”

For the time being, we have scandal being stirred by surrogates this week. The week following, a smear job is sure to come on May 1st or 5th – Clinton’s “1918 Spring Offensive“; her last push for Paris, for redeeming the lost battle, for making the conflict too horrible for any to endure.

It is all quiet on the primary front now, but a week in the future, one can hear the guns of fear, lies and division sounding.

In an article entitled “Petraeus promotion ensures future for Bush war plan,” the customarily clever Julian Barnes asserted just that. But if one looks beyond the MoveOn ads and public babble, to the deeds on the field, another view comes clear: The opposite is true.

Barnes has it right in only one regard:

Petraeus has been the prime advocate of Bush’s policy of a large troop presence in Iraq. By naming Petraeus to a job that lasts into the next administration, Bush ensures that the new president will confront the military’s strongest voice for maintaining a big force in Iraq.

This is, however, not because Petraeus is a Bush shill. It is because he is smart. The lesson from the beginning about the Iraq war has been that a massive troop presence has been and will be necessary. If one was to go at all – and it was such a stupid idea that even a victory there would be tantamount to a defeat – one had to go large.

Critics of Bush should be the first to acknowledge this. Bush is known for bottomless defense contract projects to private military companies. He is famed for not having enough troops to protect Iraqis, their natural treasures or their infrastructure, beside the oil ministry. His lack of troops left weapon caches unguarded, neighborhoods vulnerable to ethnic cleansing and our forces outstripped.

That Petraeus knows that he has to correct the basic inadequacy Bush inflicted on our threadbare military presence speaks to his intelligence. Now that we are in that strategic disaster, we need to have at least the minimum of troops necessary to accomplish our limited mission there.

But beyond this accidental similarity, Bush and Petraeus are fiercely divergent. Petraeus is a more devious and determined opponent to Bush’s policies than Moktada al-Sadr. A glance at the past shows this.

Remember how we support the Maliki government? As soon as Petraeus got in, he began raiding the militias that Maliki’s people were using to suck in arms from Iran. Maliki denounced him.

And remember how we don’t talk to terrorists, and are just fighting rogue elements? Petraeus’ arrival saw him cut a deal with Moktada al-Sadr via his Intelligence personnel, in defiance of Maliki and Bush both.

And remember all those contractors? Petraeus’ tenure has seen a shift away from the robber baron corporate handling of Iraq, with more local talent and Armed Forces’ elbow grease. It’s hardly an end to the defense industry bonanza, but he does what he can, and he does it in defiance of the “Bush war plan.”

It’s uncertain how this will pan out, regionally. Petraeus is almost certain to keep his focus on the clearest target America has: Al-Qaeda. That means a shift to Afghanistan. Even Barnes admits Petraeus’ control of “The Other War” means a change from the “Hold on for dear life” strategy we have now:

…as Centcom commander, Petraeus will have plenty of opportunities to inject new ideas into the Afghanistan fight. Petraeus knows how to work with allied commanders, and his reputation will ensure that people listen to his ideas, Crane said.

“This job will give Gen. Petraeus more of a chance to influence what is going on in Afghanistan,” said Crane, a retired Army colonel who helped Petraeus write the Army’s 2006 counterinsurgency field manual.

“If you were someone who thought Afghanistan was in need of a fresh approach, you should be excited about Gen. Petraeus’ appointment.”

Along with Afghanistan’s warring tribes and opium-dependent economy, Petraeus will inherit the problems of al-Qaeda’s actual core, Pakistan, and its brain and bloodstream, Saudi Arabia.

He will also be given power over the realm of the pirates off the enormous Horn of Africa, who this week struck twice again to seize hostages for ransom.

And, lastly and yet most significantly for the strategic direction of the US in the region, he will be given watch over the two nuclear aspirants in the Middle East – Syria and Iran. Balancing belligerence to counter actual belligerence from both nations, in Lebanon and Iraq respectively, will be a delicate act. It will surely win him little favor with the anti-war set, as Petraeus will not permit Iranian meddling in Iraq. But so long as there are opportunities for peace, as well as war, to exploit, Petraeus has shown himself canny to detect and seize on them. Syria’s proposal of a lasting peace agreement with Israel, centered around an exchange of control over the Golan Heights, could be such a promise.

Syria has said it will wait for a new administration to take power in the USA before actual talks with Israel begin. Just like with the missions in the various nations Petraeus takes over, so much depends on a new commander-in-chief in Washington.

Yet this much is certan: To look at Petraeus’ actual record is not to see a commander dedicated to a failed war policy. It is a portait of someone, like many Americans, who has simply been doing his level best to clean up the messes of the administration. It is not the promise of a continuation, but of change we can believe in.

The top story buzzing about the Drudge Report and wire services this morning is a story on how tired the Democratic candidates are after all this campaigning. I, for one, am tired of those kinds of empty-headed puff pieces that seem to attract the American attention like a Sugar Daddy stuck to an old shoe.

In honor of my growing exhaustion with this campaign’s fixation on exhaustingly moronic topics, I bring you a Top Ten list of other stories that need to be put to rest:

10. Family Fluff – I don’t need to hear about these people’s kids. Let’s wait a few years before infusing their home lives with soap opera high hokum in an entertaining Shotime series.

9. Closing The Deal – Just let the fight go on without opining why a junior Senator hasn’t beaten the reigning Goddess of the Democratic Party in contests that vastly demographically favor her.

8. Heroic Verse – Contests should not be called “epic” by any press claiming a modicum of respectability. This goes for “bruising” 9-point losses and “bionic” opponents.

7. He Said, She Said – When one candidate accuses the other of something, and the other claims they’re distorting, do your damn homework and tell us which is right. Don’t just piddle on about “negative attacks” like they were in a schoolyard brawl and both need a time out. Explain.

6. Spinning Big States – When a campaign claims a Democrat might not win New York and California, they should be put out of their misery, not put on the air.

5. Blacks Not Allowed – Stories about how America’s “not ready” for a black president aren’t insightful, they’re ignorant of all glaring, honest-to-blog evidence to the contrary.

4. Getting Tough – Unless one has knifed multiple people to death or can drink Sterno like it was Squirt, they’re all a bunch of soft DC academes, and we don’t need to hear about their toughness. Truman was a nerd, and he crushed fascism and founded the Cold War.

3. Religion – God save us from an electorate that depends on its candidates embracing a belief in an invisible pro-American superhero named Jesus.

2. TIME Magazine – The penultimate pest, TIME is the most vapid, poll-driven, scandal-dependent, air-headed, phoned-in, random, spiteful rag on the Web. My theory? Mark Halperin and Joe Klein are pissed that their book, ‘The Way To Win,’ didn’t prove Hillary’s road map to the White House like it was intended.

1. Patriotism – Ironically, I think the qualification that matters least for the leader of the country is their love of it. Many a great leader – Claudius, Henry II, Napoleon – hated their country by all indications. Much more important is a love of things like social justice, truth and kicking ass. And if a candidate loves their country in the dewy-eyed, “yes, Master” way the Sean Hannity/Laura Ingraham crowd seems to demand, they’re not going to see problems to fix, but fanatic populations to exploit.

The most significant military genius of our times has been appointed to the most significant command in the world, as Army General David Petraeus was picked today by the President to head up CENTCOM. This is more than just a change of the brass on the shelf. This is the beginning of a new era of American war fighting in the toughest region of the world.

Petraeus is a figure of change because he is our American Pompey. Pompey was the Roman general who used a surge of resources and political will to win a tough war in the 60s BC not only by fighting better, but by winning the peace.

Pompey brought down an epidemic of piracy in the Mediterranean that made al-Qaeda look like the Falun Gong; his keys to victory were a phenomenal aptitude for organizing despite lean forces and a willingness to exercise amnesty over violence.

Petraeus has introduced the same to the American war in Iraq: He had to struggle as hard against a threadbare and mercenary Pentagon to get his Division, the 101st, into place in Iraq for the invasion as he did against Saddam’s forces, a conflict well recorded by Rick Atkinson’s “In The Company of Soldiers.”

Petraeus then took a page from Pompey’s book when, as Commander of Coalition Forces in Iraq, he masterminded and executed the “Sunni Uprising” – or, as it could objectively be called, the bribery and persuasion of our chief insurgent enemy to switch sides. Just like Pompey’s follow-up to the pirate campaign found him marching against the Greek King, Mithridates, buying off bandits and persuading towns to fly Rome’s banner in exchange for political agency, Petraeus offered the same to the Sunni provincial leaders. Often this demanded he undercut the Iraqi government in Baghdad, and even fly in the face of stated Bush administration policy.

In fact, if Petraeus, like his predecessors, had complied with Bush’s oath that we “do not negotiate with terrorists” and refused to recognize the militias as the dominant political forces on the ground, we would not have any measure of what success we have today. He cut deals with local leaders, feeding them funds long stymied by the corrupt Maliki regime set on starving them out. He worked out a backroom cease fire with Moktada al-Sadr, in direct defiance of Maliki. This has led to an unparalleled amount of public works in Iraq that actually stick. And, most importantly to the American military enterprise against its dogged enemies, it has allowed him to systematically focus on those opposed to our interests – first, al-Qaeda, and now, al-Sadr.

So what will Petraeus bring to the total command over Africa and the Middle East that comes from CENTCOM leadership? The same ingenuity and defiant dedication to success that Pompey brought to his total command of forces in the same region:

He will opportunistically circumvent stale, stubborn administration policies preventing him from talking to our enemies. He will focus on the core objective of counter-insurgency – eliminating the public support for the bandits – by whatever means necessary, including armistices and foreign aid. And he will continue to show a brilliance for organization – for making do with little and retaining the initiative against an adversary that is, by definition, unpredictable.

Pompey’s adventures were cunning above all else, and never let the stupidity of his government obscure his mission. His actions led to an era of domination that was the foundation of the future “Pax Romana” – the Roman epoch of prosperity, influence and military supremacy.

Petraeus, our Pompey, has the cards stacked against him too: A callow political leadership, a redoubtable enemy and awful terrain.

From what he has shown so far, his achievements will be no less legendary.

Hillary Clinton has hit new heights of shameless powermongering as she went so far as to assault her own party, and the impassioned Democrats who make things happen in politics. Now painfully aware that if nothing had changed since last spring, she would be on her way to the White House, Clinton complained that a pernicious force in the Democratic Party had connived against her. That force? Activists.

At a small closed-door fundraiser after Super Tuesday, Sen. Hillary Clinton blamed what she called the “activist base” of the Democratic Party — and MoveOn.org in particular — for many of her electoral defeats…

Clinton’s remarks depart radically from the traditional position of presidential candidates, who in the past have celebrated high levels of turnout by party activists and partisans as a harbinger for their own party’s success — regardless of who is the eventual nominee — in the general election showdown.

This should make it abundantly clear to whatever Americans have not yet received the memo, Clinton is solely in it for herself. It is not ideology that drives her, or dedication to a cause greater than her own gain, but rather a lust for power coupled with a thorough contempt for those opposed to her. It is further enlightening – and amusing – that it was an organization formed to assist Bill Clinton in getting past the Impeachment proceedings of the late ’90s that she is attacking, MoveOn, and how she’s attacking them.

Her sneering dismissal of choice? Take a page literally from Karl Rove’s playbook and accuse MoveOn of opposing the Afghanistan war:

Clinton:“MoveOn didn’t even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that’s what we’re dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers.”

“What we’re dealing with,” according to this self-touted champion of liberalism, is a group so dastardly that they might have opposed using military action to topple a government that, despite some nasty company, did not actually attack us. By that same rationale, we should have smoked Pakistan’s military junta a long time ago. Then again, MoveOn never used that rationale, because they never opposed the Afghanistan war.

But Hillary’s problem is not so much with the war, or liberal ideology or lack thereof: Her problem is with activism itself. The notion that she cannot simply babble on about two strictly contradictory positions without some blogger catching her appals her. The threat that comes from commentators or anchors for a moment exercising journalistic integrity and presenting the public with research that proves she lies, flies in the face of her sense of fairness. Indeed, just the idea that Democrats would vote for the candidate that is best qualified and best spoken, as opposed to the one with the most popular last name, guts her notion of political mechanics.

It is the complacent, not the active, she depends on. It is the obedient, not the intellectually curious, she needs. And in the end result, it is not the passionate or the clever, the visionary or the knowledgeable who get valued – it is the loyal. Those loyal above all else – especially above truth – are Hillary’s people.

Certainly not, as she showed last week, the Democrats. Certainly not Americans.

I don’t particularly like their aesthetic, but this group voices it well:

Last week’s much-derided attempt by Jimmy Carter to stir some substance into the Middle East peace process has resulted in a tasty morsel rising: HAMAS has announced it will offer a 10-year truce to Israel if Israel withdraws from the lands it seized in 1967.

Is this a cure-all? Not by a long shot. Is it something new? No again – HAMAS has been repeatedly offering versions of this land-for-peace swap. The reason why this is significant is that it brings up the possibility of peace talks with HAMAS, defying a public perception that they’re fringe zealots hellbent on the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people. They may be zealots, but they are not fringe, nor are they adamant against a peace process. They depend on it, and it on them.

HAMAS rose to power among the Palestinians more because of its public works than its extremism. Palestinians who wanted feisty, anti-Semitic, fight-to-the-end rhetoric could look to the PLO’s “Al Aqsa Brigade” or to HAMAS; their loathsome hate speech isn’t what distinguished these groups. The distinction has become that one gets nothing done, is corrupt, cannot control its militias and sucks up to the US and Israel, and the other is HAMAS.

This isn’t just to point out why Palestinians are trending toward HAMAS, and thereby explain their dogged support for it even during this agonizing siege. It is also to explain why HAMAS matters to the peace process, contrary to Secretary Rice’s efforts to turn her nose up and sniff at them.

HAMAS can get things done. It’s seen as having integrity, it can actually enforce a truce that it declares and it has a functional alternative public infrastructure going in the Gaza streets – the kind of soup-kitchen and free-clinic set-up that helped them rise. To ignore them is to only prolong the process as is – which could be the wisest course for IDF strategy anyway, if not in the long-term for Israel and the Palestinians – by ignoring the only player with enough “street cred” to cut a deal with.

In short, HAMAS is a flock of scary dudes, but they have graduated from the level of a local gang, they’re the only player with integrity, and so they have to be worked with. Relying on the PLO just pours aid money into Abbas’ pocket indefinitely, and nobody really trusts them to keep their side of any bargain, anyway.

With Carter putting HAMAS back at the headlines, at further expense to his reputation and in defiance of the indolent and out-of-touch US State Department, we can see that the peace process can be budged. And we’re reminded who peace deals are really struck between: Between enemies.

Apparently we will have to wait until Monday for Hillary to drop the other shoe, as Friday’s usually fatal Happy Hour featured only things to be cheery about.

First, three significant players in the Democratic Party – including the popular economic sage of the Clinton administration, former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich – endorsed Obama late today.

Former Clinton Cabinet member Robert Reich said Friday he was endorsing Barack Obama — and not Hillary Rodham Clinton — in the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Two other Democratic elder statesmen, former Sens. Sam Nunn of Georgia and David Boren of Oklahoma, also said they were supporting the Illinois senator.

Reich brings a lot of weight with him, especially given that his middle-of-the-road, progressive policies appeal to a wide audience of American consumers. A Rhodes scholar and close Clinton friend, Reich is also a frequent commentator on NPR, where he speaks with an economist’s pragmatism and a comedian’s wit, urging powerful pro-middle class approaches to today’s ills.

Nunn and Boren are centrists as well, with national security backgrounds nearly unrivaled in today’s political scene.

In this, Reich, Nunn and Boren bring a lot to Obama’s arsenal: They are Democrats with gravitas, politicians with singularly extensive experience and centrists who can court independents and swing voters. Boren spoke eloquently to this latter point; what I consider to be perhaps most attractive of Obama’s qualities:

“Our most urgent task is to end the divisions in our country, to stop the political bickering, and to unite our talents and efforts. Americans of all persuasions are pleading with our political leaders to bring us together. I believe Senator Obama is sincerely committed to that effort. He has made a non-partisan approach to all issues a top priority.”

The second big news item to break was a synopsis of the effects I’ve been covering in the last three “Battle of the Bull” articles – that Obama has emerged from this long road of trials only stronger for having endured them. Though diehard opponents to the Democrats may have a few more cartridges of ammunition in their larder, Obama’s reasoned and mature responses to his crises has inspired talk of elevating politics above scandal. Whether or not this will be the result, he has undoubtedly been tempered and proven tough.

Newsweek covers the story succinctly with the results of a poll showing Obama soaring above Clinton:

The survey of 1,209 registered voters found that Obama now leads Clinton by nearly 20 points, or 54 percent to 35 percent…

And lastly, the wire services have been abuzz with a piece rehashing Clinton’s woes – focusing on the inevitability of her defeat.

Clinton leads in Pennsylvania polls in advance of Tuesday’s primary there, with 158 convention delegates at stake. A victory is essential to her chances of winning the nomination, but far from sufficient.

It is in that paragraph that the crucial tone is found: That short of a blowout victory, Clinton will not be seen as changing the sure course of Obama’s rise to the candidacy. Even with such a victory, he still seems overwhelmingly likely. She cannot win PA for winning. The death knell has been struck.

Today ends with the clink of glasses rather than the crash of a kitchen sink, but surely the claws will come out. Clinton will deliver the hardest blow of her Tonya Harding Offensive some time soon, likely at late on Monday. Then we’ll see whether the storm Obama has weathered along this long journey to April 22nd will blow him over, or continue sailing him to victory.

James Kotecki of Politico.com has delivered the goods despite being home for Passover, vlogging another insightful and humorous edition of his daily news coverage.

I thought to bring this to your attention, as I adore Kotecki’s work and admire his ability to produce this show daily. It also serves to point out that we seem to be looking at a pre-PA Primary weekend that’s quiet – too quiet. Expect Hillary to reveal that Obama was behind the recent ricin plot, liberal – no pun intended – repetition of “Obama, Muslim, Obama” from her surrogates and other stinky kitchen sinks to come by Happy Hour.

And in the meantime, enjoy Kotecki TV:

I was right – last night was Obama’s Bastogne. He was surrounded by Stephanopoulos and Gibson, raked by venomous and relentless fusillades of rumor, scandal and insubstantial sleaze. He was hammered by incoming images of Hillary’s supporters in the audience, including no less than eight lingering close-ups of Chelsea. And he was charged, again and again, by Clinton, who came armed with the “moderators” complimentary list of Obama’s most tabloid negatives, digging away and ducking without recourse.

And he came through beautifully. Like Bastogne, he deflected every assault with a combination of intelligence, grit and skill. And like Bastogne, the fame of his performance has turned a defense into a inspired counteroffensive.

That performance was seen by over 10 million viewers at one point, and has kept the wonks and wire services, political sites and pundits chattering since. The buzz is not only that Obama did well. Even more importantly, it is that the people who ran the debate were his opponents, and that his opponents should be ashamed for it.

For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. …

To this observer, ABC’s coverage seemed slanted against Obama. …

To say the least. Of the “first 52″ the author, Shales, refers to above, only one negative of Clinton’s was brought up: Her Bosnia “misstatement.” They let her babble about how even Wesley Clark said Bosnia was a dangerous situation at the time – cue shot to Wesley Clark in audience, nodding, by ABC – as if that had any relevance to her lying, and then they let it set at that. It was more an opportunity for her to re-write history for the viewers than a challenge.

Fortunately, practically everyone is calling it like it was. Cameron Fredman’s excellent assessment of it is indicative of the droves of coverage, from the LA Times to the Huffington Post, that is criticizing Clinton and her feckless tools, Steph’ and Gibson.

Even Obama pointed out that it was an ambush, in his usual graceful way.

Practically everyone is picking up the story the way it should be told: A victory by a higher level of politics over the petty, pathetic tabloid-babble of the past. It was doomed to be a beating when Obama went in there, but he went all the same.

And there we find a rare and critical aspect to how heroism is born of politics and warfare – why events like Antony’s eulogy of Caesar and the defense of Bastogne resonate:

There is a fine line between them being catastrophes and legends. Rolling into Bastogne with lesser men than fought there could have made the story one of foolhardy suicide: “Disaster As 101st Division Lost Due To Arrogant Command” rather than the proudest stand of the Screaming Eagles. It is the character of the person that saves boldness from becoming brainlessness – it is the intelligence, the grit, the skill.

Obama walked into the O.K. Corral outnumbered and outgunned, but not overmatched. He came out looking like a greater among craven lessers. He came out with a heroic moment.

We are all improved for knowing it. It is a sign of hope that the tide at last may be turning against the politics of the past.

The Battle of the Bull rages on this week as Obama, McCain and Hillary trade blows over bitterness and flag pins, and the parallels I can draw with the Battle of the Bulge just keep racking up.

For one, both were last ditch offensives by corrupt, mismanaged forces that kept scrapping when they should have bowed out for the sake of decency long before. Both are cases of the attacker taking advantage of a stupid strategic mistake of the defender. Both bloodied each side hideously. The terrain they contested was small towns in forested, hilly country. And, most importantly, in the end result, the defender was standing strong – and only gained ground strategically.

Obama has nearly emerged from the crucible of Bittergate, and already he is better off than when he entered it according to polls. Yesterday had him at the largest national advantage over Clinton yet – 11 points.

When all voters – not just the Democratic electorate – are figured in, Obama is even further advantaged, climbing to a staggering 13-point lead at 51% over 38%. And only he holds a candle to the untouchable Senator McCain within the margin of error.

Regionally, an LA Times poll shows vast improvements as well. In Indiana, a crucial state where Obama was trailing badly, he has now surged ahead.

A new Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll of likely Democratic voters gives Clinton a 46 percent to 41 percent edge in Pennsylvania, and a similar 40 percent to 35 percent lead for Obama in Indiana. In North Carolina, Obama has a larger, 13- point advantage.

This all adds up to what looks to be a long battle ahead. The fracas tonight will certainly have a critical bearing on the results to come next Tuesday.

In the Bulge Battle, ‘Bastogne’ stands out as a famed clash – a town encircled by the Axis, holding out against all odds, as the larger forces swayed around. Tonight will be Obama’s Bastogne, as he debates Clinton on ABC.

He is encircled by the controversy of his Bittergate statements; bombarded by bastardized babble about taking money from lobbyists (take note and read what the article actuall says; he isn’t). No fresh endorsements – save by the owner of the Steelers – have rushed to his aid, even though the General Patton of this race, Al Gore, is rumored to be on the way. And worse yet, the ground is entirely held by the enemy: The one of the “moderators” of tonight’s event is none other than inveterate Clinton shill and former Bill Clinton campaign communications director, George Stephanopoulos. No “objective” commentator has been more vocal about Hillary’s unbeatable prowess than George; Obama is truly walking into a lion’s den.

But, like Bastogne and like the lion’s den, if he comes out looking strong, he stands to gain from whatever beating he takes tonight. Clinton’s main strike against her with the voters is not her policies but her personality – increasingly seen as untrustworthy and erratic. News of her ever-more-frequent “misspeaking” is still off its leash. Should Obama present himself as the cool customer to Hillary’s nutty histrionics, he could do better than weather this.

He could look like the tide of this fatal battle is turning in his favor, no matter how hard the enemy flails. That’s just the quality you need to seem what every candidate wants to seem; what Obama has truly been for some time now:

Inevitable.

In the biggest “non story” of this entire two-year election season – which is no small distinction, I assure you – Hillary has laid into Barack for his description of some smalltown Americans as “bitter,” sparking a fierce battle of words.

The former first lady seized on comments by Obama last week in which he labeled working class voters as “bitter,” describing his words as “divisive” and condescending toward a large segment of US voters.

Obama’s comments were, indeed, stupid. At a time when he most needs to seem the man of the people, he speaks about them in perjorative generalizations. There may be some truth to what he said, but there was not wisdom.

How critical a blunder was this? The large-scale effects do not seem devastating. Obama’s poll numbers are still holding strong, nationally. Disaffection among the electorate, largely and rightly blamed on Hillary, grows, as evidenced by her being booed by a large crowd in Pennsylvania. And Obama is forced to call Hillary’s tactics for what they are, a move initiated reluctantly, but a move with merit nevertheless.

“I may have made a mistake last week in the words that I chose, but the other party has made a much more damaging mistake in the failed policies they’ve chosen and the bankrupt philosophy that they’ve embraced for the last three decades …” Obama said.

Staying on the offensive is Obama’s optimal strategy, and his position seems solid for now, but the most grievous effect of his words is immediate. And in this ADHD American political culture, immediate is enough. Obama has not suffered nationally, but he suffered locally, dropping back to double-digits behind in Pennsylvania.

This can make all the difference in the long run. A knockout blow in PA was within his reach, and Obama almost certainly cost himself this. If he goes on to be beaten by more than single digits, people will begin calling for his blood, and polishing trophies for the ‘Comeback Kid.’ America wants to keep this story exciting, and nothing excites like conflict and surprise twists.

Whenever I see pirates in the news – and let me tell you, I don’t see them enough – I think to myself, “This can’t possibly end well for them.” Today, the French of all people proved me right, capturing six of the twelve mateys that seized La Ponant last week.

[French General] Georgelin said six pirates — out of a dozen hostage-takers — were taken into custody and would be tried in French courts. All six “gave themselves up without too much difficulty,” he added.

And this brings to light the sad secret of the sea dogs: They’re not particularly brave or proficient at combat. For all their ruling of the Mediterranean for centuries, it took about three months for the Roman General, Pompey, to wipe them out with a force that began less their size. Caribbean-era clashes usually ended in bloodless surrender, unless the pirate was a government-financed freebooter. Pirates like grog, wenches and loot; indulgent creatures by nature, they shy from actual work, including most forms of fighting.

This also means that, once given a bit of money, they scurry away. Take note that only half the pirates and only a portion of the ransom money paid them was apprehended.

“Naturally, absolutely no public money was paid in this affair,” Georgelin said. He added: “Check with the ship owner. In capturing the pirates, we also recovered some interesting bags … We recovered part of the ransom that was probably paid.”

Ransom and retreat means repeat business. And in the world’s second-oldest profession – a close cousin to tax collection – this means we’re sure to see from the pirates again soon.