Poll: McCain's Backers Less Fired up than Obama's
John McCain is facing an excitement deficit.
By Alan Fram, Associated Press Writer

While overall interest in the presidential campaign has swelled since last fall, backers of Barack Obama are more fired up and express more loyalty to their candidate than McCain's do, a poll by The Associated Press and Yahoo News showed Friday. In addition, individual groups backing Obama -- African-Americans, Democrats and liberals -- are more enthusiastic than whites, Republicans and conservatives, who are more aligned with McCain, the GOP senator from Arizona.

Obama faces hurdles of his own. The poll shows lagging fervor for the Democratic senator from Illinois by supporters of his vanquished rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton. And there are lots of dispirited and undecided independents, who are expected to be pivotal on an Election Day now less then four months off.

The passion and interest shown by blocs of voters are important because they affect who will be motivated to vote. For now, the numbers favor Obama: 38 percent of his supporters say the election is exciting compared to 9 percent of McCain's. Sixty-five percent of Obama's backers say they are hopeful about the campaign, double McCain's, and the Democrat's supporters are three times likelier to express pride.

"Being African-American, you know, I do have some biases," said John Douglas, 67, of Villa Rica, Ga., an Obama supporter. He said the pride and thrill he feels about the possibility of the first black president "has been building up for my lifetime, it's been building up since the inception of our country."

Half of McCain's supporters say the race makes them frustrated, more than double Obama's backers who say so. By 2-to-1 or more, McCain backers are likelier than Obama's to say the campaign makes them bored, angry and helpless. And while 16 percent of those preferring Obama say they may change their candidate, 24 percent of McCain's say they might do the same.

From the London Times:

American and Iraqi forces are driving Al-Qaeda in Iraq out of its last redoubt in the north of the country in the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.

After being forced from its strongholds in the west and centre of Iraq in the past two years, Al-Qaeda's dwindling band of fighters has made a defiant "last stand" in the northern city of Mosul.

A huge operation to crush the 1,200 fighters who remained from a terrorist force once estimated at more than 12,000 began on May 10.

Operation Lion's Roar, in which the Iraqi army combined forces with the Americans' 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment, has already resulted in the death of Abu Khalaf, the Al-Qaeda leader, and the capture of more than 1,000 suspects.

The group has been reduced to hit-and-run attacks, including one that killed two off-duty policemen yesterday, and sporadic bombings aimed at killing large numbers of officials and civilians.

Last Friday I joined the 2nd Iraqi Division as it supported local police in a house-to-house search for one such bomb after intelligence pointed to a large explosion today.

Even in the district of Zanjali, previously a hotbed of the insurgency, it was possible to accompany an Iraqi colonel on foot through streets of breeze-block houses studded with bullet holes. Hundreds of houses were searched without resistance but no bomb was found, only 60kg of explosives.

American and Iraqi leaders believe that while it would be premature to write off Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Sunni group has lost control of its last urban base in Mosul and its remnants have been largely driven into the countryside to the south.

Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq's prime minister, who has also led a crackdown on the Shi'ite Mahdi Army in Basra and Baghdad in recent months, claimed yesterday that his government had "defeated" terrorism.

"They were intending to besiege Baghdad and control it," Maliki said. "But thanks to the will of the tribes, security forces, army and all Iraqis, we defeated them."

The number of foreign fighters coming over the border from Syria to bolster Al-Qaeda's numbers is thought to have declined to as few as 20 a month, compared with 120 a month at its peak.

Brigadier General Abdullah Abdul, a senior Iraqi commander, said: "We've limited their movements with check-points. They are doing small attacks and trying big ones, but they're mostly not succeeding."

Major-General Mark Hertling, American commander in the north, said: "I think we're at the irreversible point."

"Senator Obama this morning said that he wants a foreign policy that is "tough, smart, and principled."  

This afternoon, I ask:

Was it tough when Senator Obama voted to order U.S. forces to retreat from Iraq on a fixed timeline--regardless of the recommendations of our military commanders, regardless of conditions on the ground?

Was it smart when Senator Obama opposed the surge and predicted that it would fail to improve security?

Was it principled when Senator Obama said that he would order U.S. troops to retreat from Iraq, regardless of the humanitarian consequences for millions of innocent Iraqis--even genocide?

Was it tough and principled when Senator Obama said he would be open to changing his plan for Iraq after going there and talking to General Petraeus--only to change that position a few hours later after being heatedly criticized by organizations like Moveon.org?  

I say respectfully, the answer to all of those questions is no.
 
Senator Obama also said this morning that he wants a foreign policy that recognizes that we have interests "not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London." But what Senator Obama does not seem to recognize is that--in an interdependent world--what happens in Baghdad affects our interests in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London. What Senator Obama does not seem to understand is that--had we taken the course he had counseled and retreated from Iraq--the United States would have suffered a catastrophic defeat that would have left America and our allies less safe not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London."

Obama broke his word on:
Public Financing
Electronic Wiretapping
President Bush's Policy On Religious Based Organizations
Gun Control
Abortion
An Undivided Jerusalem
The Pledge to Debate McCain "Anywhere, Anytime"
NAFTA
Capitol Punishment
On Opposing A Border Wall With Mexico

"Senator Obama promises to withdraw from Iraq within 16 months. But his top foreign policy adviser said he's not really going to rely on that plan. I guess that plan is just words, too. We need a president who will solve problems. Who will fight for our families long after the speeches are over and the cameras are gone. That's the choice in this campaign: Solutions you can rely on - versus words you can't." (Mark Halperin, "Clinton Remarks On Obama Iraq And Environmental Policies," Time's "The Page" Blog, thepage.time.com, 3/11/08)

"This administration did not believe in global warming," Schwarzenegger told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos in an exclusive interview that will air Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

"They just didn't believe in it or they didn't believe that they should do anything about it, since China is not doing anything about it and since India is not willing to do the same thing, so why should we do the same thing?" Schwarzenegger said.

"We don't wait for other countries to do the same thing. That's what makes America number one... And I think we have a good opportunity to do the same thing, also, with fighting global warming," he said.

The last time Democrats lost the Jewish vote was in the 1920 presidential election, won by Warren Harding. So why in this election - when an unpopular president and an unpopular war have left the Republicans in shambles - would there be such doubt over Barack Obama's ability? Not since Jimmy Carter's 1980 campaign have US Jews seriously questioned the foreign policy credentials of the Democratic nominee.

This administration's failure to communicate the long-term sacrifices required to defeat terrorism has shifted voters' priorities. It's a sobering reality when, according to recent polls, Americans consider the economy and healthcare more important than national defense. But US Jews remember the threats, past and present, of foreign dictatorships and terrorist regimes. Only a candidate who can lead our nation under such exigent circumstances will earn their support.

THE CASE for John McCain is the assurance of a transparent foreign policy, substantive dialogue and decisive leadership. In his 25 years of public service, McCain has demonstrated unwavering support for Israel, as well as a deep understanding of how America can help preserve its freedom.

Sen. Obama is more conditional with his foreign policy. In fact, the more he focuses on the abstract, the better his chances of winning. Some consider it anathema to criticize Obama's theme of "Change," but the type of change we can expect under his nebulous platform merits closer scrutiny. Consider the three major foreign policy differences between him and McCain: the Iraq war, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and their plans to combat terrorism.

McCain, who clearly pledged to support the removal of Saddam Hussein, has long criticized the Bush administration's actions in Iraq, citing insufficient troop levels, tactical mistakes and limited access to linguists and special forces. He said, "The problem is that the Pentagon has been reacting to initiatives of the enemy, rather than taking initiatives to which the enemy must react." 

Obama blames a "distracted" foreign policy in Iraq - allegedly fueling terrorism - for the lack of progress in the Middle East. But he overlooks the fact that every proposed peace accord has failed because of Islamic leaders' inability, and often their refusal, to eradicate terror. For all his masterful speeches, Senator Obama can only offer anti-war rhetoric. He sponsored legislation for a full withdrawal of troops from Iraq, regardless of the military assessment. And yet he recently told Iraqi FM Hoshyar Zebari that "an Obama administration will make sure we continue with the progress that's been made in Iraq."

ON ISRAEL, Obama overestimates both the potency and the appropriateness of negotiating with terrorist regimes. Speaking to Jewish leaders in Philadelphia, he described Hamas as having "developed great influence in the Palestinian territories, but they do not control the apparatus of power, they are not legitimately recognized as a state." Al-Qaida does not "control the apparatus of power," and yet Obama agrees we must eliminate it. So why should Israel accept a Palestinian state run by terrorists? Because he believes that a peace accord is more central to the Middle East conflict than eliminating Islamic terror.

McCain understands that no lasting peace can come without removing the gravest threat to peace. That's why he insists on preconditions with Iran and Syria.

Obama, who seeks to engage Iran without preconditions, said "We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist and abide by past agreements." Comforting words. But why would Obama shun Hamas yet welcome diplomacy with Iran and Syria, which finance Hamas, Hizbullah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other terrorist regimes?

Equally misguided are Obama's views on Israel's security barrier. In a 2004 interview with the Chicago Jewish News, he said: "The creation of a wall dividing two nations is yet another example of the neglect of this administration in brokering peace." Aside from his clumsy reference to Palestinians as a nation, Obama misses the entire purpose of the barrier - to protect innocent Israelis from homicide bombers. McCain has supported the barrier since its inception. He openly criticized Oslo proponents, who were more fixated on a Peace Prize than on lasting peace. "The Oslo Accord failed because it was based on the premise that the Palestinian and Israeli peoples could live peacefully together," said McCain. "The security fence will test whether they can live peacefully apart."

THE EXPERIENCE gap must not be understated. During a time when Israel considers disarming Iranian nuclear facilities, Senator McCain remains the best hope for securing the joint interests of America and Israel. McCain has worked with every major Israeli leader over the past three decades. He understands Jewish history, believes that Zionism has preserved the sole democracy in the region, and agrees that military action is often necessary to combat the shelling of vulnerable towns. It's a significant advantage to have a president who knows the players and the landscape while serving as our chief negotiator.

Obama will depend heavily on surrogates like Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser under president Carter and longtime critic of Israel.

Voters will soon discover that Obama's sense of what is historically relevant translates into a delusion that radical Islamic terror can be pacified solely with financial and diplomatic pressure. Under a McCain administration, the US will maintain a leadership role in pursuing terrorism wherever it resides. McCain said: "The NATO alliance is strong, but the world in which it operates is fundamentally dangerous, insecure and chaotic."

Today's challenges require a leader who has confronted such dangers and is prepared to answer the call of duty yet again; not one who has a fragmentary perspective on national security.

Jewish values are consistent with McCain's belief that we must serve causes greater than ourselves in order to preserve our ideals. Is it likely that Republicans will end their 88-year drought and win the Jewish vote? Perhaps not. But more Jews than in years past will be giving the Arizona maverick a second look this November.

And that's a reassuring sign of Change.

The writer, a managing general partner at SymAction Communications and an adjunct professor of communication at Pepperdine University, worked for Sen. McCain in Washington DC and Phoenix, Arizona.