Presidential Pariah

By Victor Davis Hanson

We are in one of the longest presidential campaigns in modern memory -- and haven't even started focusing on the general election.

It's been enough to drive most of us mad, but if there's one person in particular suffering the most, it may be President Bush.

It's been noted here before that we have not had an election since 1952 in which an incumbent president or vice president was not running in at least partial defense of an existing administration's record.

That means Bush is not just a lame duck but an easy target for all three current candidates -- none of whom have any investment in the president's legacy.

Consider that the last president in a similar position was Harry Truman. He left office with an approval rating in the 20s, and it took years before historians revised the standard negative and mostly unfair view of him.

When there is no incumbent in a long race, almost everything of the last four years becomes fair and uncontested game. In 2004, Bush defended his record for months on the stump; now it has become almost second nature for all three candidates to denounce it daily.

John McCain has distanced himself from Bush as much as he can, even as his Democratic opponents dub him John McBush -- when they are not outdoing each other in their denunciation of the president.

Last week, I asked a fierce Bush critic what he thought were the current unemployment rate, the mortgage default rate, the latest economic growth figures, interest rates and the status of the stock market.

He blurted out the common campaign pessimism: "Recession! Worst since the Depression!"

Then he scoffed when I suggested that the answer was really a 5 percent joblessness rate in April that was lower than the March figure; 95 to 96 percent of mortgages not entering foreclosure in this year's first quarter; .6 percent growth during the quarter (weak, but not recession level); historically low interest rates; and sky-high stock market prices.

There are serious problems -- high fuel costs, rising food prices, staggering foreign debt, unfunded entitlements and annual deficits. Yet a president or vice president running for office (and covered incessantly by the media) would at least make the argument that there is a lot of good news, and that the bad that offsets it could be shared by a lot of culpable parties, from the Congress to the way we, the public, have been doing business for the last 20 years.

Bush, like Truman, will have to leave his final assessment for posterity. But for a variety of historic reasons as well as his own self-interest, Bush should at least take his now-unpopular case to the people, with more press conferences, public addresses, stump speeches and one-on-one interviews.

Bush's own legacy will be affected by who succeeds him. Ronald Reagan received great press after leaving office in part because a Republican followed him for four years -- quite the opposite from the senior George Bush who was thrown out of office in 1992 and blamed for assorted sins the next eight years. Likewise, compare the image of Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton when a president from the opposite party followed each into office.

Second, public perceptions, such as ongoing consumer confidence or support for the war, can dramatically affect policy success or failure. Defending past decisions can sometimes improve their outcomes.

Third, it would elevate the arguments of all three candidates if someone could remind them that energy and food problems, foreign policy crises and economic woes usually involve bad and worse choices.

The American people are more interested in exactly how they are going to improve things, rather than hearing each hour how our collective problems are simply the fault of one man. Searing "Bush did it" into the public conscious won't resolve our energy, economic or foreign policy challenges.

The truth is that America is providing unprecedented amounts of money to address the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Tax cuts brought in greater, not less total revenue. International trade agreements created more, not fewer, jobs. Security measures at home, and losses suffered by terrorists abroad, in part explain the absence of a second 9/11.

And drilling in ANWR and off the coasts and building more nuclear power plants, refineries, and clean coal plants -- if the Congress would only approve -- could provide a short-term mitigation of energy prices until we reach a new generation of clean-burning and renewable fuels.

George Bush could learn from "Give 'em Hell, Harry." A disliked Truman never went silent into the night, but defended his record until the very end -- and was ultimately rewarded for it.

It's Obama, Warts and All

By KARL ROVE

Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama each took a state Tuesday. But the result was a damaging loss for the woman who was once the overwhelming front-runner for the Democratic nomination. Here are some observations on the race:

- Mr. Obama is now the prohibitive favorite. Tuesday night, he took at least 94 delegates to Mrs. Clinton's 75 and leads the former First Lady by 176 delegates in the AP tabulation. He has 1,840 of the 2,025 delegates needed to win. Mr. Obama needs only 185 – or 38% – of the 486 outstanding delegates (217 to be elected in the six remaining contests, and 269 superdelegates yet to endorse a candidate). Mrs. Clinton needs 341, or 70% of those left to be awarded.

AP

Barack Obama arrives at a primary election night rally in North Carolina, May 6, 2008.

Mr. Obama understands this. On Tuesday night, he added a big dollop of general election themes and pre-emptive defenses against coming attacks to his stump speech.

- Mrs. Clinton may battle until June and possibly until the convention in August. There's nothing Mr. Obama can or should do about it. After a long, bitter struggle, losing candidates often look for reasons to feel aggrieved. There is no reason to give her one. No pressure from Mr. Obama or party Chairman Howard Dean is better than pushing her out of the race.

- The Democrats' refusal to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations at their convention is an unresolved problem. If they insist on not seating these delegations, Democrats risk alienating voters in states with 44 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House. And here Mr. Obama is at greater risk than Mrs. Clinton, especially in Florida. He trails John McCain badly in Sunshine State polls today, while Mrs. Clinton leads Mr. McCain there.

- The length of the Democratic contest has been – in some ways – a plus for the party. The AP estimates that more than 3.5 million new voters registered during the competitive primary season. And the hundreds of millions of dollars spent energizing Democratic turnout will leave organization and energy in place for November. Mr. Obama is a better candidate for having been battle tested. And Mr. McCain has to fight hard for attention. He's mentioned in less than 20% of the coverage in recent months, while Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are talked about in 60% to 70% of the coverage.

- The length of the Democratic contest has been – in some ways – a minus. It has revealed weaknesses in Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton. Mrs. Clinton came across as calculating, contrived, stiff and self-concerned. Mr. Obama is increasingly seen not as the Second Coming, but as a typical liberal Chicago pol with a thin record, little experience, an array of troubling relationships and, to top it off, elitist sensibilities. Nominating him will now test the thesis that only a Democrat running as a moderate can win the White House.

The primary has created a deep fissure in Democratic ranks: blue collar, less affluent, less educated voters versus the white wine crowd of academics and upscale professionals (along with blacks and young people). Mr. Obama runs behind Mrs. Clinton's numbers when matched against Mr. McCain in key industrial battleground states. Less than half of Mrs. Clinton's backers in Indiana and North Carolina say they would support Mr. Obama if he were the nominee. In the most recent Fox News poll, two-and-a-half times as many Democrats break for Mr. McCain (15%) as Republicans defect to Mrs. Clinton (6%) and nearly twice as many Democrats support Mr. McCain (22%) as Republicans back Mr. Obama (13%). These "McCainocrat" defections could hurt badly.

State and local Democrats are realizing the toxicity of their probable national ticket. Democrats running in special congressional races recently in Louisiana and Mississippi positioned themselves as pro-life, pro-gun social conservatives and disavowed Mr. Obama. The Louisiana Democrat won his race on Saturday and said he "has not endorsed any national politician." The Mississippi Democrat is facing a runoff on May 13 and specifically denied that Mr. Obama had endorsed his campaign. Not exactly profiles in unity.

- As much as Mr. Obama's cheerleaders in the media hate it, Rev. Jeremiah Wright remains a large general-election challenge for Mr. Obama. Not only did Mr. Obama admit on "Fox News Sunday" that Mr. Wright was a legitimate issue, voters agree. Mr. Obama's favorable ratings have dropped since Mr. Wright emerged as an issue. More than half of Mrs. Clinton's supporters say it is a meaningful reflection on Mr. Obama's character and judgment.

- This will be a very difficult year for Republicans. The economy's shaky state, an unpopular war, and the natural desire for partisan change after eight years of one party in the White House have helped tilt the balance to the Democrats.

Mr. Obama is significantly weaker today than he was three months ago, but Democrats have the upper hand in November. They're beatable. But it's nonsense to think this year is going to be a replay of George H.W. Bush versus Michael Dukakis or Richard Nixon versus George McGovern.

- Mr. McCain is very competitive. He is the best candidate Republicans could have picked in this environment. With the GOP brand low, his appeal to moderates and independents becomes even more crucial.

My analysis of individual state polls shows that today Mr. McCain would win 241 Electoral College votes to Mr. Obama's 217, with 80 votes in toss-up states where neither candidate has more than a 3% lead. Ironically, Mrs. Clinton now leads Mr. McCain with 251 electoral votes to his 203 with 84 in toss-up states. This is the first time she's led Mr. McCain since I began tracking state-by-state results in early March.

Mr. McCain is realistic enough to know he will fall behind Mr. Obama once the Democratic nomination is settled. He's steeled himself and his team for that moment. And he's comforted by a belief that there will be plenty of time to recapture the lead. Mr. McCain saw Gerald Ford come from 30 points down to lose narrowly to Jimmy Carter in 1976, and watched George H.W. Bush overcome a 17-point deficit in the summer to hammer Michael Dukakis in the fall of 1988.

- The battlegrounds will look familiar. It will be the industrial heartland from Pennsylvania to Wisconsin, minus Indiana (Republican) and Illinois (Democrat); the western edge of the Midwest from Minnesota south to Missouri; Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada in the Rocky Mountains; Florida; and New Hampshire.

Mr. Obama will argue he puts Virginia and North Carolina into play (doubtful), and may make an attempt at winning one or two of Nebraska's electoral votes (it awards its electoral votes by congressional district). Mr. McCain will say he can put New Jersey and Delaware and part of Maine (it splits its vote like Nebraska) in play. But it's doubtful he'll win in Oregon or Washington State, although he believes he can.

- Almost everything we think we know right now will be revised and even overturned during the next six months. This has been a race in which conventional wisdom has often been proven wrong. The improbable or thought-to-be impossible has happened with regularity. It has created a boom market for punditry and opinion offering, and one of the grandest possible spectacles for political junkies in decades. Hold on to your hat. It's going to be one heck of a ride through Nov. 4.

Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

Gunmen Kill Chief of Mexico’s Police

MEXICO CITY — Gunmen assassinated the acting chief of Mexico’s federal police early Thursday morning in the most brazen attack so far in the year-and-a-half-old struggle between the government and organized crime gangs.

Omar Torres/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Edgar Millan Gomez, the acting chief of Mexico's federal police, in January.

Mexican police have been under constant attack since President Felipe Calderón took office in December 2007 and launched an offensive against drug cartels who had corrupted the municipal police forces and local officials in several towns along the border and on both coasts.

Since then, Mr. Calderón has sent thousands of federal agents and troops into those areas to establish law and order, provoking a powerful backlash from drug cartels, who have killed some 200 officers, among them at least 30 federal agents.

The police chief, Edgar Millán Gómez, was ambushed by several men wearing rubber gloves and carrying weapons as he entered his apartment building in the Guerrero neighborhood of Mexico City with two bodyguards at 2:30 a.m. He was hit nine times in the chest and one hand. He died a few hours later at Metropolitan Hospital.

Commander Millán was the highest ranking official to be killed since President Calderón’s campaign against drug dealers began. Intelligence officials said it is highly likely he was murdered in retribution for the arrest on Jan. 21 of Alfredo Beltrán Leyva, one of the leaders of a cartel based in Sinaloa state.

“It was in response to his role in the arrest,” said one intelligence officer, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release classified information. “It’s the worst casualty we have suffered so far.”

Commander Millán, 41, had served for the last year as the federal police official in charge of the anti-drug operations throughout the country. A month ago, he was promoted to become the acting chief of the entire force.

His death was the tenth assassination of a federal police official in the last two months. Last week, gunmen also shot and killed the head of the organized crime division in the public security ministry, Roberto Velasco Bravo.

One of Mr. Millán’s bodyguards, though wounded, managed to wrestle an attacker to the ground and arrest him. The man, Alejandro Ramírez Báez, 34, was wearing rubber gloves and carried a pistol with a silencer, the police said. Shells from an assault rifle were also found at the scene. The police said Mr. Ramírez has a criminal record, having been convicted twice for stealing cars. Still, it remained unclear who, if anyone, had hired him as an assassin, they said.

Mr. Millán, 41, started his carreer in Mexico’s intelligence service and then switched to the newly formed Federal Agency of Investigation in 2001, where he rose quickly to become the chief of the kidnapping division. He dismantled several notorious kidnapping rings and managed the successful release of Rubén Omar Romano, a well-known professional soccer coach.

Since 2006, he had overseen regional deployments of federal officers, even as a number of federal police forces were consolidated and given more authority. Last month, he took over the reins of the reorganized federal police as acting chief, when the previous chief was promoted, officials said.

“Early this morning, Mexico lost one of its bravest men, a police professional at the service of the nation,” the public security secretary, Genaro García Luna, said in a statement.

Russia's new president

Enter, pursued by a new bear

The West should hang tough with President Dmitry Medvedev

IT HAS been a busy week in Moscow. First Dmitry Medvedev was inaugurated president. A day later his predecessor, Vladimir Putin, became his new prime minister. Then on May 9th Moscow planned to mark the annual Victory Day celebrations with the first parade of tanks and nuclear missiles through Red Square since the end of the cold war. What should the watching West make of all this?

One of these three events seems to offer more hope than the other two. Mr Medvedev is the first Russian leader since the tsars to have come from neither the security services nor the old Communist Party. And judging by what he says, including in his inaugural speech, he has some liberal instincts and an understanding of why the rule of law matters. Yet he also arrives in office weighed down by two troubling burdens.

The first is Mr Putin. Moscow has been rife with speculation about who will really be in charge ever since Mr Putin chose his long-time protégé and lawyer as his successor. For now, the answer appears to be either that nobody knows, or that it will still be Mr Putin. In the run-up to the inauguration, Mr Medvedev has been far less visible than Mr Putin. Even at this week's ceremony, Mr Putin seemed the dominant figure. This is by no means a real transfer of power (see article).

Mr Medvedev's second burden is his inheritance. Mr Putin became acting president, on the last day of 1999, at an auspicious time for Russia. The economy was booming after the 1998 devaluation, oil prices were climbing and ordinary Russians (and the outside world) seemed relieved to have stability and order in place of the chaos that marked the final years of Boris Yeltsin's presidency. In contrast, Mr Medvedev comes in when the economic outlook is gloomier and inflation is soaring. The oil price seems unlikely to keep going up and there are ominous signs that Russia is having serious problems sustaining its oil output (see article). Moreover, Russia's relations with the West have hit new lows—which may explain Moscow's drum-beating Victory Day parade.

Do bears shoot in the woods?

Despite this, many in the West are itching to extend an olive branch to the new president. The Kremlin's power is immense, so even if Mr Medvedev starts in Mr Putin's shadow, he may in time emerge from it. It is always tempting to try a soft approach on a new Russian president, just as it was with Mr Putin. But this time, Western political leaders should be far more cautious. There is no sign that Russia is moving in a more liberal and democratic direction at home, or that it is going to be more accommodating to the West abroad. It seems far more likely that it will continue to play the divide-and-rule game started by Mr Putin, who deftly exploited differences among European Union leaders, in particular.

The best approach to Mr Medvedev will be to heed what he does, not what he says. For example, if he gave parole to Mikhail Khodorkovsky, an oligarch imprisoned without even a pretence at a fair trial, dropped Russia's belligerent posture towards Georgia, began to open up state-run television to alternative voices, and initiated a crackdown on corruption, then it would be right to respond in a friendly fashion. But hard evidence is needed before taking such a step. Above all, Western leaders must be united. Medved means bear in Russian—and the worst way to respond to a bear is to display overt weakness or to scarper in different directions.