Posted by WLS: 

Now that there is a presumptive Dimocrit nominee for the general election, I’m going to start a recurring series of postings commenting on non-answers given by Obama to direct questions posed to him by the media and others. 

The problem I expect to see develop in the very near term is the dramatic curtailment of Obama’s availability to answer questions in a format that provides for any level of candidness.  He is clearly an effective speaker when working with a teleprompter and a script, but his impromptu responses to media questions are largely void of substance.  When they do have substance they often amount to a dodge of the issue, but sometimes they contain some nugget of information about the stealth candidate that is illuminating with respect to his real beliefs.  As these more revealing comments appear I’m going to highlight them, and the implications of those comments in future policy issues.

Yesterday Obama appeared on Wolf Blitzer’s show on CNN.  As an initial entry in this series, I present the following “answer” on a simple question about whether he might advocate an increase in the capital gains tax rate:

[Blitzer]   Because they’re arguing already that you want to increase capital gains taxes, for example, on investments, and stocks, and things like that.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: A lot of middle-class people have those kinds of accounts. If they’re…

OBAMA: If they have, — Wolf, if they have a 401(k), then they are going to see those taxes deferred, and they’re going to pay ordinary income when they finally cash out. So, that’s a phony argument. And this is something that you have seen the Republicans consistently do, is they try to make this broad- based argument about, he’s going to raise your taxes as a cover for them eliminating taxes for people like myself and you, who can afford to pay a little bit more…

Now this was a pretty straight-forward question — whether he’s suspectible to GOP claims that he will raise the capital gains tax rate, and what that means for middle class Americans.   

Rather than address the question — by saying, for example, that the capital gains tax rate it too low and should be raised, or that  it is fine where it is and will be left alone — he answers with a complete obfuscation. 

401(k) plans have nothing to do with capital gains taxes.  Contributions to 401(k) plans are made with pre-tax earnings, and the withdrawals upon eligibility are taken as ordinary income and taxed accordingly at the tax rate applicable to the retiree — including that part of the plan’s funds the constitute appreciation/ capital gains.    

Wolf Blitzer is too much of an idiot to follow-up by pointing out that Obama hadn’t answered the question, and the issue of raising the capital gains tax rate extends far beyond simply raising taxes on the “rich”.  

To suggest that American households only own stocks in their 401(k) plan — and to ignore completely the issue of capital gains taxes on investment accounts, college savings accounts, on the sale of homes, farms, or other real property –  reflects either ignorance of basic tax issues, or an unwillingness by Obama to state his positions honestly.

Frankly, I think its more of the former than the latter. 

Obama would be only the most recent example in my life of a Harvard Law School egghead who lacked a basic comprehension of day-to-day issues facing ordinary Americans.  Some of the dumbest people I’ve ever met — including some of the worst lawyers I’ve ever encountered — were graduates of elite East Coast academic institutions.   

[Guest post by DRJ]

Matthew J. Franck at NRO’s The Corner is not generally impressed with McCain’s Gang of 14, his votes for Ginsburg and Breyer, or his recent speech on the judiciary. But when he compares McCain’s position on judges to Obama’s, he thinks the choice for McCain is easy.

Here are excerpts from Obama’s July 2007 speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. First, Obama claims the Supreme Court is rolling back abortion rights and discusses how he would stop it:

“Some people argue that the federal ban on abortion was just an isolated effort aimed at one medical procedure—that it’s not part of a concerted effort to roll back the hard-won rights of American women. That presumption is also wrong.
***
With one more vacancy on the Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a woman’s fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe versus Wade and that is what is at stake in this election.
***
I have worked on these issues for decades now. I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught Constitutional Law. Not simply as a case about privacy but as part of the broader struggle for women’s equality. Steve and Pam will tell you that we fought together in the Illinois State Senate against restrictive choice legislation—laws just like the federal abortion laws, the federal abortion bans that are cropping up. I’ve stood up for the freedom of choice in the United States Senate and I stand by my votes against the confirmation of Judge Roberts and Samuel Alito [Applause]

So, you know where I stand. But this more is than just about standing our ground. It must be about more than protecting the gains of the past. We’re at a crossroads right now in America—and we have to move this country forward. This election is not just about playing defense, it’s also about playing offense. It’s not just about defending what is, it’s about creating what might be in this country. And that’s what we’ve got to work together on.”

On other Supreme Court cases that Obama views as threats to the rights of women:

“We know, we know it’s not just one decision. It’s the blow dealt to equal pay in the Ledbetter [v. Goodyear] case, it’s the blow dealt to integration in the school desegregation case, it’s an approach to the law that favors the powerful over the powerless—that holds up a flawed ideology over the rights of the individual. We don’t see America in these decisions—that’s not who we are as a people. We’re a country founded on the principle of equality and freedom. We’re the country that’s fought generation after generation to extend that equality to the many not restrict it to the few. We’ve been there before and we’re not going back.”

Obama concludes by pointing out that people may not agree on the details but they can agree on the big picture. Thus, people may not agree on whether parents should have notice of their daughters’ abortions or whether there should be partial birth abortions, but all Americans agree they want their daughters to have the “same opportunities as their sons.”

Obama’s goal is to focus on common ground, on the big picture, that we all ultimately want good things for our families - while refusing to yield on the details. Details like how the law should be written or whether men like Roberts and Alito make good nominees.

EDIT: Obama makes it clear that his idea of a good Supreme Court Justice is Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Many Democrats use the term Swift-boating to mean an unfair attack against a candidate. By that standard, alert Instapundit reader Scott Slater provides an early example of Swift-boating by the Democrats:

“Dear Glenn,

Got the 2008 Democratic Presidential Survey in the mail today.

Question #7 - “Do you believe that John McCain’s pledge to keep troops in Iraq for another 100 years will be a liability in the General Election?”

I answered “No. He didn’t say that. You are smearing him.”

Question #11 asks “How likely do you think it is that John McCain and his Republican allies will launch a “Swift Boat” style smear campaign against our presidential nominee?”

I checked “Not Likely, but I noticed you have (see question 7).”

It doesn’t sound like Scott sent in a contribution with his response.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe predicted that Hillary Clinton will end her campaign in early June if she’s not the party’s nominee. His words are apparently intended to reassure superdelegates and party leaders that Hillary will not hurt party unity by unduly continuing her candidacy.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is focusing on electoral votes and electability:

“The delegate math may be complicated, but the electoral math is easy,” Clinton said, arguing that presumptive Republican nominee John McCain is a “formidable opponent” and that she has won more “swing states” — such as Ohio, New Jersey and Pennsylvania — than Obama.”

And Barack Obama is lobbying party leaders and superdelegates in Washington DC. He met briefly with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland as well as some Clinton supporters, Democratic Reps. Ellen O. Tauscher of Alamo and Alcee Hastings of Florida.

Last night Karl Rove said that if he were advising Obama, he would recommend that Obama spend most of the summer in Washington DC pursuing bipartisan legislation that supports his claim he’s a uniter. Rove’s point was there is no evidence Obama is the bipartisan he claims to be.

However, after reading Tom Maguire’s post on Obama The Answer Man, I doubt Obama is interested in any group projects this summer.

– DRJ

An article in the L.A. Times has this amusing lede:

Hillary Rodham Clinton may be short on delegates, money and time, but she faced an even more ominous and intractable impediment Wednesday: a growing consensus in the media that her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination is doomed.

Wow. A “growing consensus in the media.”

Wow.

You can’t fight City Hall, and you sure can’t fight a “growing consensus in the media.”

Except when that growing consensus is wrong, of course. Which happens an awful lot.

[Guest post by DRJ]

George Stephanoulos told ABC’s Charlie Gibson that he thinks Hillary Clinton is staying in the race because she believes there is a slim chance she can win. If she does quit, it will only be after wins in West Virginia or Kentucky.

He also thinks she would accept the VP slot “if it was offered in the right way.” He’s not sure Obama will offer.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Here we go again. Thomas DeFrank in the NY Daily News uses quotes from white Indiana voters to suggest that whites who won’t vote for Obama are either ignorant or racists:

“With Clinton posing alongside pioneering Indy speedster Sarah Fisher, there were almost no African-Americans to be seen. Many in the white, working-class crowd were simply not ready to back Barack Obama - for reasons that are disturbing.
***
Obama did manage to pull in many white voters, but still encountered similar sentiments from a man who refused to shake his hand at a diner in Greenwood, Ind.

“I can’t stand him,” the man said. “He’s a Muslim. He’s not even pro-American as far as I’m concerned.”

Such feelings leave Clinton and the Democratic Party in a tough spot. With the largest number of remaining delegates nowbeing party insiders, they have to decide if Obama can overcome enough of that antipathy - essentially deciding if enough working-class whites will back away from the black candidate, whether because of the false Muslim rumors, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright flap or old-fashioned racism.”

This might be a more convincing argument if whites were voting 9-to-1 for Hillary the way blacks are voting for Obama. It also sounds like the national media wants to shame whites into voting for Obama, which doesn’t strike me as a good way to win votes.

I found DeFrank’s speculation about Hillary far more interesting. He reports the Clintons believe a Democrat will win the Presidential election no matter how contentious the nomination process. That would certainly explain Hillary’s willingness to stay in the race until the convention, since an Obama win means this will be her only shot at the Presidency. As DeFrank says, there’s no downside for her.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Hillary Clinton vows to fight on after a narrow win in Indiana and a huge loss in North Carolina. Although she is behind in pledged delegates, votes and money, Clinton surrogates argue she is more electable and a known quantity compared to Obama.

A campaign aide revealed she loaned her campaign $6.4M in the past month.

You go, Hillary.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

97% reporting:
Clinton - 640,297 - 42% - 20 delegates
Obama - 859,573 - 56% - 31 delegates

85% reporting:
Clinton - 578,794 - 42%
Obama - 777,194 - 56%

45% reporting:
Clinton - 366,610 - 41%
Obama - 519,946 - 57%

21% reporting:
Clinton - 212,189 - 36%
Obama - 358,317 - 62%

14% reporting:
Clinton - 160,925 - 35%
Obama - 291,999 - 63%

9% reporting:
Clinton - 102,787 - 34%
Obama - 191,292 - 64%

4% reporting:
Clinton - 56,099 - 34%
Obama - 105,862 - 64% - CNN projects Obama the winner.

Results from CNN.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

99% reporting:
Clinton - 637,389 - 51% - 32 delegates - CNN calls Indiana for Hillary.
Obama - 615,370 - 49% - 29 delegates

95% reporting:
Clinton - 606,497 - 51% - 32 delegates
Obama - 589,888 - 49% - 29 delegates

86% reporting:
Clinton - 557,166 - 52%
Obama - 516,713 - 48%

79% reporting:
Clinton - 512,331 - 52%
Obama - 476,696 - 48%

65% reporting:
Clinton - 428,568 - 53%
Obama - 377,107 - 47%

50% reporting:
Clinton - 323,690 - 55%
Obama - 264,884 - 45%

44% reporting:
Clinton - 284,097 - 56%
Obama - 223,904 - 44%

37% reporting:
Clinton - 227,839 -56%
Obama - 176,791 - 44%

5% reporting:
Clinton - 46,380 - 59%
Obama - 32,335 - 41%

Results from CNN.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Neil Cavuto briefly interviewed Ron Paul on Fox News this afternoon, and it reminded me what I like about Ron Paul. They primarily discussed the McCain and Clinton proposal to eliminate the gas tax during the summer months. Paul said it was a good idea but only if Congress also agreed to cut spending by the same amount. I agree but we all know that won’t happen with this Congress.

Paul also discounted calls to tax the oil companies, saying it was a bad idea to tax profits because we want companies to make a profit. Paul said it would be a bad move to give government the power to decide when profits were too high. Why not tax iPhones and iPods?

Finally, Paul indicated he would stay in the Presidential race so Republicans who share his views will have a voice. Unfortunately, I’m afraid too many people would count a Ron Paul vote as a vote against the war. If I voted for Ron Paul, it would be a vote for free markets and against Congress.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

The first polls close soon so leave your predictions here.

The conventional wisdom is Obama will win North Carolina but by what percentage? And what about Indiana?

– DRJ