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.   

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

Mr. Felch and Ms. Dolan,

I believe your recent front-page article on DNA cold case statistics misstated the meaning of the math you discuss.

Your article said:

Jurors were not told, however, the statistic that leading scientists consider the most significant: the probability that the database search had hit upon an innocent person.

In Puckett’s case, it was 1 in 3.

The 1-in-3 number does not pertain to the probability that the database search had hit upon an innocent person. Rather, the 1-in-3 number pertains to the probability that a database search will result in a single match — whether that match is to an innocent person or a guilty one.

If we ignore the existance of independent evidence of Puckett’s guilt, the statistical chance Puckett is innocent depends in part on the probability that the database contains the guilty party. Your article gives no information on what this probability is (although the fact that the database consists of California-based felons suggests that the chances are better than one would find in a purely random database). Without knowing the probability that the database contains the guilty party, you can’t conclude that the 1-in-3 figure accurately represents the chances Puckett is innocent. Your article confuses two distinct concepts and requires correction.

You state:

In every cold hit case, the panels advised, police and prosecutors should multiply the Random Match Probability (1 in 1.1 million in Puckett’s case) by the number of profiles in the database (338,000). That’s the same as dividing 1.1 million by 338,000.

Actually, you have that upside down. Multiplying (1 in 1.1 million) by 338,000 is the same as dividing 338,000 by 1.1 million — not dividing 1.1 million by 338,000.

Your article continues:

For Puckett, the result was dramatic: a 1-in-3 chance that the search would link an innocent person to the crime.

Again, this is wrong. There is a 1-in-3 chance that the search would link someone to the crime. Whether that person is innocent or not depends on the likelihood that the database contains the guilty party (as well as the quality of other evidence tying that defendant to the crime).

I am not the only person saying this. A similar point was made by Eugene Volokh in this post. And I made the point in more detail in this blog post of mine.

I think the paper owes readers at least two corrections — one of the 1-in-3 statistic, and one on the upside-down division. Given the prominence of the error on the 1-in-3 statistic, which appeared on the front page of the Sunday paper, I hope your paper will make an effort to give this correction the prominence it deserves.

cc: Readers’ Representative

I’ll let you know what I hear in response.

P.S. When I say “Rather, the 1-in-3 number pertains to the probability that a database search will result in a single match — whether that match is to an innocent person or a guilty one.” I meant to express this concept: “Rather, the 1-in-3 number pertains to the probability that a database search will result in a single match, period. If we get a single match, we won’t know whether it was to an innocent person or a guilty person without learning more.” In other words, without prior knowledge of the likelihood that the database has the guilty person, all we know is the chance of a hit — not the chance of a hit to an innocent person.

Get ready, Californians.

Democrats in the California Legislature plan to solve the $20B budget shortfall by taxing your six-packs ($1.80 per pack), iTune downloads ($0.08 per download), and plastic grocery bags ($0.25 each). Other proposals include increased taxes on porn magazines, sex toys, yachts, and gas-guzzling vehicles.

At least they aren’t taxing California blogs. Yet.

– 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

Apparently the special parking and permits granted to the Bay Area Code Pink to protest the Marine Corp recruiting center in Berkeley hasn’t done the trick. Now Code Pink is calling on area witches, crones and sirens to bewitch the Marines:

“Friday, May 9th: Witches, Crones, Sirens: perform rituals of leaving, cast a spell of peace and love over the station, rendering nil the recruiting of our youth to become fodder for this occupation of Iraq.”

Catherine Moy at Move America Forward broke the story and adds this detail:

“This should be no surprise. One of Code Pink’s mamas is Miriam Simos, a bisexual feminist witch living in Berkeley who goes by the name “Starhawk.” I’m sure Starhawk and the rest of the witches of Code Pink will work up a real witches’ brew of hate for our Marines.”

I hope Code Pink ends up with three witches. The symbolism would be perfect.

– DRJ

A 10-year-old Idaho girl has given birth after being raped, allegedly by a 37-year-old illegal immigrant.

The accused is in the Fremont County, Idaho, Jail on other rape charges.

– DRJ

Iraqi sources report that al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Ayyub al-Masri has been captured in Mosul. If this report is correct, al-Masri almost made it to his 2-year anniversary as commander. He took over al Qaeda in Iraq after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed June 7, 2006 in a U.S. airstrike northeast of Baghdad.

As discussed in this post, al-Masri’s top two aides were killed in October 2007, including one who was in charge of foreign suicide bombers.

Apparently al-Masri is in Iraqi custody. Imagine the information al-Masri could share regarding plans for suicide attacks and the identities of possible suicide bombers. If he is turned over to the Americans, what interrogation techniques should be allowed to get information from al-Masri about planned attacks and personnel?

UPDATE: Once again, it looks like reports of al-Masri’s death or capture are untrue or, at least, premature.

– 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

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.