A Whiff of ... Something

This Washington Post/ABC poll must be a big deal, since it not only led ABC's "World News" but "NBC Nightly News," where David Gregory said it showed Obama ahead in Iowa. His lead, though, is within the survey's margin of error.

The numbers: Obama 30, Clinton 26, Edwards 22.

"The factors that have made Clinton the clear national front-runner -- including her overwhelming leads on the issues of Iraq and health care, a widespread sense that she is the Democrats' most electable candidate, and her strong support among women -- do not appear to be translating on the ground in Iowa, where campaigning is already fierce and television ads have been running for months.

"Obama is running even with Clinton among women in Iowa, drawing 32 percent to her 31 percent, despite the fact that the Clinton campaign has built its effort around attracting female voters . . .

"Nationally, Clinton is viewed as a candidate of change, winning 41 percent of Democrats who say they are seeking a new direction in a recent Post-ABC poll. But in Iowa, Obama dominates the so-called 'change' vote, winning 43 percent of those voters, compared with 25 percent for Edwards and 17 percent for Clinton."

The latest exhibit of liberal media bias, courtesy of the Boston Globe:

"In throwing her support behind presidential candidate Hillary Clinton with an unprompted, heartfelt speech at a New Hampshire rally last month, Carole Simpson, the longtime ABC news anchor-turned-Emerson College journalism instructor, flung herself into the partisan fires . . .

"Simpson, 65, said she immediately regretted her actions and offered her resignation the next day, which university officials refused to accept. Now Simpson is considering an offer from the Clinton campaign to stump for the candidate, namely before black audiences in the South. She and other university officials have agreed she will not teach political journalism courses if she campaigns for Clinton.

" 'I know I made a mistake. It was definitely the wrong venue for my first foray into free speech,' Simpson said. 'But I'd really like to see her win.' "

McCain picks up a more traditional endorsement -- from Tom Kean of the 9/11 panel -- but I wonder about the wisdom of his latest musings. He says he "wants to challenge the system of protection that forces presidents to live life in a bubble. 'It's my intention, if we win this nomination, to reject Secret Service,' he said during one of his many conversations with reporters on his Straight Talk Express this weekend. 'Why do I need it?' He adds: 'The day that the Secret Service can assure me that if we're driving in the motorcade and there's a guy in a rooftop with a rifle, that they can stop that guy, then I'll say fine. But the day they tell me, 'well, we can't guarantee it,' then fine, I'll take my chances.' "

I remember McCain chafing at accepting Secret Service (at his wife's urging) in 2000, and I understand not wanting to be trapped inside the inevitable bubble. But I also remember Lee Harvey Oswald and John Hinckley (I raced to the hospital where Reagan was taken after the shooting). And in the modern era it just seems reckless for a president not to be guarded 24 hours a day.

McCain is practically endorsed by Andrew Sullivan in his Sunday Times of London column: