Monica Crowley

O'Reilly Tonight

I will be on The O'Reilly Factor TONIGHT (Thursday, July 17th) on the FOX News Channel at 8pm and 11pm ET. Please tune in and check it out.

Slow on the Uptake

For all of Barack Obama's charisma, rhetorical skills, fundraising machinery, talented advisers, and organizational ground game, he is awfully slow to the draw on things directly related to him.

On Sunday, the New Yorker released its cover depiction of Barack and Michelle Obama, with him in Islamic dress, with her as a modern-day Angela Davis (complete with AK-47 and combat boots), standing in the Oval Office as a portrait of Osama bin Laden hangs on the wall and an American flag burns in the fireplace.

His first reaction came in the form of a statement from his campaign, calling the cover "tasteless and offensive." Obama's first direct reaction was to say, "I have no comment."

A few days passed. The controversy deepened. Commentators opined. The great national debate over the cover's appropriateness continued. Obama, possibly not wanting to draw more attention to it, continued to say nothing. And still, the debate dominated the airwaves and blogs.

It was only until Tuesday night when Obama addressed the cover himself. Appearing on Larry King Live, he said, "I've seen and heard worse. [Still], in attempting to satirize something, they probably fueled some misconceptions about me instead."

And then he dropped the opportunistic bomb. He called the cartoon "actually an insult against Muslim Americans." He went on about "wonderful Muslim Americans" across the country and "for this to be used as sort of an insult, or to raise suspicions about me, I think is unfortunate."

Obama hearts Muslims, just not at his campaign rallies.

After refusing to include two Muslim women from an Obama photo op a few weeks ago, his campaign knows they've got a Muslim problem: can't ignore them (he is, after all, Mr. Inclusion), but can't embrace them too much (or people might think he's a Muslim too.)

What to do? Ah, yes. Take the New Yorker cover, express "outrage" over its "offensiveness," and then rush to defend the virtue of Muslim Americans. That's one way to get well with them. More "healing," I suppose.

The rather long lag time it took for Obama to figure out how to respond to this---and how to exploit it---isn't new. When the controversy surrounding his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, blew up, Obama took days to respond, and when he finally did, the reaction was at first tepid, and then grew increasingly stronger as the scandal grew. He didn't recognize the damage it was doing to him because Wright's comments weren't anything new to his ears. He didn't respond forcefully because he didn't see the need to, until the scandal threatened to engulf him.

The New Yorker cover controversy shows the same pattern.

Is this the man you want in charge when international and domestic crises strike? Very few of those kinds of crises offer a heads-up. Will he not see them until they are upon us? And then, will he react tepidly because he doesn't recognize their gravity?

Legitimate questions, which, of course, we're not allowed to ask of Illinois' Junior Senator.

Trouble in Paradise

The bloom is off the Obama rose.

According to a report in today's Politico.com, Congressional Democrats are teed off at Barack Obama and his campaign for blowing them off. One senior Senate Democratic aide is quoted as saying: "They think they know what's right and everyone else is wrong on everything. They are kind of insufferable at this point."

Politico reports that the Democratic leaders are steamed that Obama hasn't done any fundraising for Democratic congressional candidates (You mean he thinks this year is all about him?!); that he shows up in members' districts with no advance warning; that they aren't in the Obama loop on talking points and strategy against John McCain; and that the Democratic leadership---House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid---are so out of it that they didn't hear about Obama's convention night speech plans until they were announced on a media conference call.

Some folks quoted in the Politico piece attribute such negligence to Obama's "confidence," while others say it's his "arrogance" and "sense of entitlement."

Obama is running as a "change" candidate in what everyone keeps telling us is a "change" election, so he needs to put distance between himself and the Democratic Washington establishment, especially since they are at 9% job approval. (The president, by the way, is at 28%, three times higher than Congress.)

But the Congress is a cantankerous bunch with access to every media outlet available. If they are steamed, the world will know it, and that won't be good PR for Obama.

He needs to remember that his fellow Democrat---Alex Forrest-like---will not be ignored. Or else.

Meanwhile, memo to Hillary: There's some buyer's remorse going on RE Obama. Girl, get those rollers out of your hair, put the Ben and Jerry's back in the freezer, and roll on those nylon stockings. The cavalry may come for you yet.

The Bailey Building and Loan

I feel like I'm watching "It's A Wonderful Life."

In the classic film, newly married George and Mary (played by Jimmy Stewart and Donna Reed) witness a run on George's family business, the Bailey Building and Loan, that leaves the bank in grave danger of collapse.

Today, we witness long lines at the IndyMac Bank in California, as customers wait to withdraw their savings after that bank failed late last week. The nation's two largest mortgage finance companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have lost half of their worth in just over a week, and the federal government is riding to the rescue. Regional and smaller banks are also vulnerable, with some predicting that up to 150 banks could fail over the next year. In a piece in the International Herald Tribune, Louise Story reports that despite the spectacle of a major lender failing, there have been just six bank failures this year and that only 90 banks appear on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's list of those considered at risk. In a capitalist system, if institutions take on excessive risk, perhaps they ought to fail; perhaps the free market ought to mete out the appropriate punishment.

Still, the sight of hundreds of people making a run on their bank to withdraw their savings isn't comforting.

In the film, George and Mary take what would have been their honeymoon money and lend it to their fellow townspeople to tide them over and stop the panic. Once all of the money has been distributed, Bailey Building and Loan is left with $2.00.

I don't think anybody is going to be rushing to dole out personal savings to the folks waiting in the IndyMac lines. But the lesson is that the private sector---made up of enterprising, creative people---will find solutions when things go awry. George Bailey prevented his bank from failing, and that turned out to be a good thing for his town and his family. But absent modern George Baileys, perhaps it's OK for some of the weeds to be pulled out of the system. With great risk, sometimes you get great reward, and sometimes you get great failure. With the failures, though, there should be lessons learned and deterrents put in place, in order to prevent similar failures from happening again.

Despite its dark moments, "It's A Wonderful Life" is full of hope. After they successfully halt the bank run, George and the gang size up their remaining two bucks: "A toast!" he says. "A toast to Mama Dollar and to Papa Dollar..."

Now that's real American optimism. We could use a dash of it today.

Another Sad Goodbye

At two different times, both Tim Russert and Tony Snow called me "kid."

When I first met Tony Snow during the early days of Fox News, he greeted me with that genuine and all-consuming grin of his and sent me out on camera with, "Knock 'em dead, kiddo."

When I first met Tim Russert shortly after joining NBC, he wished me good luck on my new MSNBC show with, "Go get 'em, kid."

I loved their calling me "kid." It was their way of showing me that they were pulling for me, the way a good coach would pull for a rookie. Unlike many others in the media business, they were incredibly decent men who truly wanted their fellow colleagues to do well, succeed, flourish.

Both presided over big-time franchises. For Russert, "Meet the Press;" for Snow, Fox News Sunday, and then, of course, the biggest franchise of all: the White House.

They were smart, insightful, thoughtful men who came into our homes every week with a list of questions, a smile, and a true love for their country.

I'm sure they're now competing for the big "get:" maybe Lincoln or FDR. Or maybe, given that they were both men of faith, they are jockeying for a sit-down with Jesus.

Death came too soon for them. I was grateful to have known them, however briefly, and we were all lucky to watch them do what they did so well, however briefly.

Godspeed, Tony Snow.

Disinformation

A few days ago, the world's media reported that Iran had test-fired medium and long-range missiles, capable of reaching Israel and into the heart of Europe.  Secretary of Defense Robert Gates addressed the test, though his remarks were cautious. National security and foreign policy experts weighed in on the tests' meaning.  In this space, I wrote that that exercise, along with all of the other provocative and defiant acts by Tehran made Iran the world's most dangerous state-based threat.

Now it's being reported that the Iranians orchestrated a fraud: the missile test didn't happen the way the Iranians had portrayed it and the photos of it were doctored by Iran. Iran is being accused of staging and tweaking the evidence to suggest its missile technology is a lot more accurate and sophisticated than it actually is. The media is also being accused of fanning the flames of this Iranian propaganda.

What is the truth?  As with everything related to the Islamic regime in Tehran, it's impossible to really know. Was this "phony" missile test really phony?  Was it a decoy to deflect our attention from other, more nefarious, activities?  Was it meant to get us to focus on the missiles rather than the uranium?  Was it actually a test for something else, say, the ability to deliver a weapon for an electromagnetic pulse attack?  Was it all meant to throw us off the real scent?

The opaque nature of the Iranian regime makes it extremely difficult to read the tea leaves. One thing we do know: the Iranians are wily ones. Clever. Stealthy. Masters of deception. This missile "test" may or may not be disinformation. But there is plenty about Iran's nuclear and terrorist activity that we do know, and we mustn't let some Photoshopped pictures take our eye off the ball.

Twisting The Sister

Hillary Clinton can't seem to stop campaigning. Maybe it's because Barack Obama can't stop dissing her.

He claims he's put all of the animosity of the primary season behind him. He claims he's over her--and her husband's---real and perceived hits on him. He claims he wants to help her retire her $20 million plus campaign debt. He claims he wants party unity. He claims he wants her voters.

Then why does he slight her every chance he gets?  This week, they made a joint campaign appearance. She did her thing, then he got up and did his. Then he moved to leave. Her people were astonished: "Dude!"  He quickly turned on his heel and made his way back to center stage, where he apologized for forgetting to ask for dough to help retire her campaign debt. (His appeals have netted a grand total of less than $100,000, according to the New York Times this week.). Whoops, he said. Got carried away. Forgot to ask you to help Hillary.

Hillary stood off on the sidelines, undoubtedly rolling her eyes and doing a quiet seethe. Bill was probably watching at home, throwing "Girls Gone Wild" DVDs at the flat screen.

On the campaign plane, they didn't speak much. Some might say at all, given that Barack chose to sleep rather than chit chat with her.

The sisterhood--still steamed that the upstart from Chicago has stolen the brass ring from their girl--can't look on this with happy contentment. Obama had better figure out a way to turn their frowns upside down, or he might face an estrogen tsunami in November.

He could start by taking the arrogance down a notch. He's acting like it's all about him. Of all of the things he's ripped off from the Clintons, that's got to be the unkindest cut of all.

Nuclear Deal or No Deal

Over the past day or so, the Islamic "republic" of Iran test-fired medium and long-range missiles. Add this to Iran's longstanding and current enrichment of uranium, its work to weaponize that nuclear material, the direct support of international terror, including the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah and the dwindling but still lethal militias operating in Iraq, its pointed threats against Israel, and the apocalyptic worldview of its leadership, and we see the gravity of the Iranian threat.

For five years, the Iranians have run circles around the Europeans as they have blown off and exploited all diplomatic overtures and used the time to develop nuclear weapons. The Democratic rap on President Bush has been that he doesn't use allies or diplomacy. In the case of Iran, he has used both, according to the Democratic playbook, and both approaches have failed miserably. Diplomacy and reliance on wobbly allies have produced an Iran about to go nuclear.

If we had engaged in direct negotiations and they had failed, as they would have, then force would have been the logical and necessary final step. In light of Iraq, the domestic political will did not exist for the use of force against Iran if direct talks failed. That's one of the main reasons why we relied on allies and others to talk to the Iranians. We are about to come up against the potentially catastrophic result.

Sanctions have failed consistently. And any further attempt to level more extensive sanctions is blocked by Russia and China.

Each time we and our allies have offered a broader and sweeter package of incentives, the Iranians have blown us off. They are not interested in our carrots. They are only interested in having a nuclear weapon they could use as leverage and for intimidation, actually use against Israel, and pass off to a terrorist group to use against us and our allies.

How many more times do the Iranians have to tell us to shove it before we get it?  We're suffering from battered woman's syndrome. 

They are working 24-7 to get a nuke to establish themselves as the head of a new global Islamic pillar, and of course, to reserve the right to use.

The war on terror?  Here it is. In this nuclear "Deal or No Deal," Iran is repeatedly saying, "No deal."  We don't have much time left to decide whether to continue to put our heads in the sand, or to have a serious discussion about how best to do what the current president and those seeking to succeed him say is imperative: denying Iran a nuclear weapon.

Boy, Interrupted

Now that he doesn't have his wife's campaign to kick around anymore, the 42nd president has turned his Tourette's syndrome on John McCain.

At an event to celebrate former South African president Nelson Mandela, Bill Clinton--resplendent in a raspberry shirt-- insinuated that former POWs are borderline nuts:  something sets off a trigger, he said, and "all those bad dreams come back." (No insight from Bill on how Hillary dealt with her post-traumatic "bad dreams" after dodging a hail of Bosnian sniper fire.)

How did he ever keep his brilliant psychiatry expertise hidden from us during his glorious eight-year reign over the land?

The Skinny Santa is many things but subtle isn't one of them. Since McCain's candidacy is built on his biography, and his biography is built on his five and a half years as a POW during the Vietnam war, Clinton's comment was about as ambiguous as Hillary's crack about Bobby Kennedy getting assassinated in June.

If this is the Silver Fox's way of "campaigning" for Barack Obama, Obama may want to choose HIM as his running mate, just for the yuks. Hillary?  Boring!  Bill Richardson?  Yawn. Sam Nunn?  Snoreville!

C'mon, Barack, give the people what they want: Bill Clinton, in his pink shirt, bringing the full crazy.

You Want Fries with That?

Forget about Barack Obama's much-praised rhetorical skills, charisma, and the fact that he's perceived as "change" during a (so they tell us) "change" election. Forget about all of that. The real reason Obama may win is because he reads Cow-Calf Weekly.

Or at least some bright young thing on his staff does. Apparently, Beef magazine puts out a companion publication called Cow-Calf Weekly. In its June 6th edition, Troy Marshall bemoaned the fact that neither of the presidential candidates was paying much attention to agriculture: It's "so far down the list of priorities of either candidate that we aren't even on their radar screens," he wrote. (Read the whole thing at www.RuralJournalism.org.)

The June 27th edition of Cow-Calf Weekly featured a letter from, yes, Senator Obama: "Agriculture is a very high priority for me," he wrote. "I have held rural forums and meetings in most agriculture states and have released Rural Plans in states across the country..."

Then he targeted the apparently wider readership of Beef magazine: "Beef producers are a key component in a healthy and vibrant rural America. By strengthening USDA and working to enhance food safety and meat processing, my administration will assist the industry in providing a wholesome and safe product to your customers."

No Oprah hamburger lawsuits for Barack!

The point is not that Obama cares about strip steaks. The point is that his campaign is on top of every single imaginable issue, every concern of every possible voter, every nook and cranny of this election. McCain can't even nail down an overarching message, and Obama's got someone assuaging those concerned at Cow-Calf Weekly.

If Obama wins in November, it will be because of this kind of attention to minute detail, of making sure that every possible voter feels heard (even if Obama has no intention of actually following up once president.) This is what successful campaigns do.

Senator McCain: get with the program. Otherwise, you might find yourself with lots of time on your hands after November 4. Perhaps to catch up on back issues of Beef magazine.