We have known what Barack Obama’s message is for a year: change. Change Washington’s political culture, change the way we engage our enemies, change the tax structure, and change reliance on a largely private health care insurance system. His countermessage: John McCain is against change and wants more of George W. Bush’s policies.

So what is McCain supposed to do about this? For starters, he really does need an over-arching theme. Victory in Iraq and preserving tax cuts are not a theme: they’re policy positions. George W. Bush had a theme–compassionate conservatism–which turned out to be not much of either, but it was a theme. And biography, no matter how compelling, is also not a theme. Running against an extreme liberal with a grab bag of wacky associates and no record of accomplishment could be an asset. But, again, it’s not a theme.

When McCain comes up with a theme, one he can explain in a sentence (a few words would be better), we will know that he has an actual strategy to beat Barack Obama. In the end, voters have to vote for something: Something (however flaky) will beat nothing every time.

For nearly a week, the Israeli Prime Minister’s office has been shrouded in scandal–a scandal so major, we’ve been told, that it will probably be the scandal that forces the scandal-ridden Israeli Prime Minister from office. What exactly happened? Nobody really knows and, thus far, only the New York Post has uncovered any substantive details. Yesterday, the Post reported that Olmert had received money from Long Island millionaire Morris Talansky during his term as mayor of Jerusalem. How much money? What was the purpose of this payoff? Again, nobody knows.

This dearth of information is the consequence of a stringent Israeli gag order. Indeed, even while references to the Post’s fine investigative journalism have abounded, the Israeli media has been completely prevented from mentioning Talansky’s name. (One station, Keshet TV, went as far as blurring the text in a photo it provided of the Post’s web-based scandal coverage.) Of course, when it comes to protecting national security-relevant information–as in the case of Israel’s bombing of an alleged Syrian nuclear facility last September–these blackouts are par for the course in Israel. But corruption in high government offices is not a national security issue–it is a political one, and withholding vital information from the public disturbingly undermines Israel’s democratic processes.

Yet the gag order exposes far more than the limits of civil liberties in Israel. Rather, it demonstrates the alarming extent to which Israel’s political culture, quite literally, stands on ceremony. Indeed, the police have argued that lifting the gag order on Israel’s day of mourning for its fallen soldiers–today–would “harm the public interest.” Moreover, as the gag order currently extends through May 11th, it appears as though its ultimate goal is to keep Olmert in power at least until Israel’s 60th birthday celebration passes a few days later. After all, the government has long planned this event–which will be attended by President Bush, among other foreign leaders and luminaries–as a showcase of Israel’s political, economic, artistic, and scientific achievements, and it seems determined to not let Olmert’s corruption, no matter how extensive, interfere.

One thus has to wonder: does Israel’s national security establishment believe that the Jewish state’s international standing is so tenuous that protecting an A-list birthday party warrants such profound limitations on free speech?

Barack Obama can fix his rhetoric (as he did last night). But can he fix his demographics? He won big in North Carolina and nearly bumped Hillary Clinton off in Indiana. He won the expectations game in a big away. Still, some perspective is in order:

[H]is victory in North Carolina depended heavily on his overwhelming (91%) share of the black vote, which made up about a third of the primary electorate. Mrs. Clinton won 61% of white Democrats in North Carolina, according to the exit polls, and 65% of white Democrats in Indiana. Mrs. Clinton also broke even among independents. Clearly Mr. Obama’s early promise of a transracial, postpartisan coalition has dimmed as the campaign has progressed and voters have learned more about him.

The question remains whether the McCain campaign is determined and nimble enough to snatch those Hillary Clinton voters away and keep Obama boxed in with a narrow base of African Americans, young people, and ultra-liberal voters. What we know is that, given running room, Obama will sprint to the center and expand his appeal to the very voters whom he let slip through his grasp in Ohio and Pennsylvania. And he will do an effective job of arguing that McCain will represent a third Bush term.

McCain’s challenge is both to define his opponent as outside the political mainstream and to avoid being defined as a Bush clone. It will take a clear and concerted effort by the McCain team–more than biography and an appeal to “experience.” Neither got Hillary Clinton very far.

If you want to know what Hillary’s strategist, Harold Ickes, might whisper in the ears of superdelegates if she decides to stay in and fight, here is a good taste. Nothing quite beats Paul Begala lecturing Donna Brazile that Democrats can’t win with a coalition of “eggheads and African Americans.” After that exchange, you can probably add one more superdelegate (Brazile) to the Obama column. Gotta love that Clinton light touch.

But before Republicans get excited about the possibilty of vicious infighting that will torment Democrats, those Republicans should keep in mind two things. First, eventually there will be a nominee (whether May or June or August) and a final night of the convention where everyone will raise hands together and declare undying loyalty. Most of those Clinton supporters, especially ones committed enough to vote in a primary, will vote Democratic in November. And there are a lot more registered Democrats than there used to be.

Second, Obama is a fast learner. His speech last night included a heavy dose of heartfelt appreciation for America, reverence for the land of opportunity and lots of empathy for working class voters. Like a vacuum cleaner, he is sucking up the Clintonian message to blue collar voters and absorbing the rhetoric which has successfully lured a coalition of working class whites, seniors and women. Don’t expect any more Snobgate slip-ups.

In short, the fun for conservatives is at an end.

As Lake County finally shows its hand, Hillary Clinton’s lead slips away. Whether she narrowly hangs on or whether she loses by a few thousand votes hardly seems to matter. Today the conversations will no doubt start as to how to reach a “graceful” end, as Bill Kristol described it. The Republicans will not enjoy the luxury of watching a hard-fought Democratic race much longer.

Lake County, home of Gary and a stronghold for Barack Obama, is holding out. No votes reported until those last minute absentee ballots are hand counted. Hmm. Michael Barone and Bob Beckel have stories aplenty about “rough and ready” politics there from past elections. The upshot is that most of the morning papers won’t have a banner with “Hillary Wins Indiana.” As she delivers her speech she lacks the certainty of knowing that she won what her campaign is now touting as the “tie breaker,” a term Barack Obama in  a loose moment used to describe that contest.

Clinton’s speech is somewhat meandering and she vows to go on to the White House. It does not have the feel of a victorious night. She and her campaign have the right to be peeved about the Lake County voting shenanigans but she has a bigger problem: she’s running out of time and races.

If Hillary had taken the Obama challenge more seriously last year, and had refined her message then as she has now, and had been able to speak in the calm, controlled, un-shrill cadence of the speech she is delivering right now, Obama would not have burst out of the gates with Secretariat speed as he did. She really has found a powerful political voice — only she found it too late for the nomination, it appears. But not too late to be the vice-presidential nominee for her party.

“It is not weakness but wisdom to talk not just to our friends but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did and Kennedy did and Truman did,” he just said. Let’s see now. Roosevelt went to war with Japan and Germany; he did not “talk” to them. Truman dropped two atomic bombs on Japan. Kennedy did do some negotiating, so he’s got something there, but he also led the United States to the brink of war over Cuba. The more apposite examples, here, would be Richard Nixon (SALT treaty), Ronald Reagan (Reykjavik summit) and Jimmy Carter. Nixon and Reagan were Republicans, and Carter is currently looking for any terrorist whose boot he can lick. Maybe this is a line Obama should drop from his stump speech.

It may be that particularly in North Carolina, and particularly among very liberal and African American voters, Reverend Wright helped Barack Obama seal the deal. The problem is that this and related controversies may have seriously unraveled the Democratic coalition he will need in the fall. But it is a long way to November and Obama will have plenty of new patriotic rhetoric to throw out, as he did tonight, to try to repaint his portrait.

So what if the whole Jeremiah Wright scandal has actually helped Obama among Democrats because, to them, it makes him seem more like a victim?

He is smiling as he gives his victory speech. He is talking about uniting the Democratic Party. He is being magnanimous to Hillary Clinton. He gets in the math - 200 delegates from the nomination - and reminds those superdelegates he won a “big” state.

The key thing about this night for the Democrats is that it appears Barack Obama has actually done better than expected. It’s the first time we’ve been able to say this about Obama since early February. Ever since, it’s always been Hillary doing better than anybody expected. Her “better thans” have run out.

CBS gives the nod to Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama managed to lose a state next to Illinois and lose among the familiar list of demographic groups - working class, women, seniors, etc. - that once seemed potential members of an impressive coalition. How big will she win and can it “balance” his win in North Carolina? Unclear, but she is unlikely to get the praise of the pundit class. The media and many Democrats will soon forget this was a “jump ball” state, discount her victory and inform her that the race is “over.” And the Democrats can ponder just how impressive a general election candidate Obama will be.

Barack Obama would have wrapped up the nomination weeks ago. He took over 90% of African American voters who make up a third of the electorate in securing his apparently comfortable win. In Indiana Hillary Clinton is leading by a healthy margin, but the race is not yet called. Did Obama make progress with whites, women, seniors, rural voters - any one not in his core group of African Americans and young voters? No, accordingly to available exits (which are reweighted as real votes come in.)

So do superdelegates feel comfortable with a candidate who continues to maintain his delegate lead but is unattractive to key groups and is losing appeal with Republicans and independents? If they don’t they aren’t saying, and there is little they can do about it, absent further wins or new troubling information about Obama. The Democrats may have their nominee soon, but he may not be what they hoped for when the bulk of those votes were cast months ago.

It may prove decisive that he has won North Carolina — may, as I indicated below, mean he’s effectively crossed the finish line. But if the Indiana results hold up, and Hillary wins by 10 to 15 points, it will indicate nothing has changed in the dynamic of the Democratic race. He will, once again, have won a state because of a large black vote and a large student vote. She will have won a large, industrial Midwestern state dominated by lower-middle-class white Democratic voters. So the weakness she has exposed in his candidacy will remain.

The fact that Barack Obama apparently won North Carolina so easily — the race was called the minute the polls closed — ensures that Hillary Clinton will come under the most withering personal assault of her career should she fail to drop out of the race tomorrow. It will be far worse than the Republican “attack machine” because it is going to come from her fellow party members, her peers, and even a great many of her supposed friends. This is the kind of heat she has never had to feel. Ever. She may be tough enough to withstand it, but in what way could she possibly benefit from doing so?

They are useless. Sen. Claire McCaskill on CNN wisely said, “If the top number is wrong you have to question all the numbers below it.” But networks have nothing to talk about, so that is what they are covering, knowing the numbers are in all likelihood inaccurate. Just in case you thought they were in the business of informing the public.

In the back and forth between John McCain and the Democrats over today’s speech on judges, Barack Obama’s campaign chief uttered this unintentionally incriminating comment:

Barack Obama has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what’s truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves.

Actually, judges aren’t supposed to stand up for some poorly defined notion of social–let alone economic–justice. The job of federal court judges is to interpret the Constitution and statutes. As for letting people “fend for themselves,” there are two other branches of government out there (you’ve heard of them, maybe?) which spend quite a bit of time attempting to achieve social fairness and practicing economic redistribution.

So, if McCain’s staffers were smart, they’d respond to David Axelrod’s confession that his boss believes in judicial imperialism with: “See, told you so.”

In today’s Los Angeles Times, Mahdi Army commander Abu Baqr cops to getting weapons from Iran to use against Americans.

He still hates Iran. But now, he said, he accepts its weapons to fight the U.S. military, figuring he can deal with his distaste for the Iranians later. So he takes bombs that can rip a hole in a U.S. tank and rockets that can pound Baghdad’s Green Zone without apology or regret.

“I think that the Iranians are more dangerous than the Americans. I hate them and I don’t trust them,” he said in an interview over soft drinks. But the militia has limited resources, he said, and “therefore, when somebody gives you or offers help, it’s hard to say no.”

He laughed: “If it came from Israel, we would use it.”

This supports what the U.S. has been saying for a long time: Iran is arming Iraqis who kill Americans. When General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified on Capitol Hill last month, General Petraeus engaged in the following exchange with Joe Lieberman:

LIEBERMAN: Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups in Iraq are responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands - excuse me - hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?

PETRAEUS: It certainly is. I do believe that is correct.

Yet, in an interview shortly after the testimony, when ABC News asked Ryan Crocker if Americans were in a “proxy war” with Iran, Crocker responded, “It may be that the Iranians see it in that light, we certainly do not.”

If one country decides to go to war (proxy or otherwise) with another country and the second country doesn’t acknowledge it, does that mean only one country is at war? With today’s admission from Abu Baqr, we have to admit that we’re choosing not to defend ourselves in the proxy war with Iran. Of course, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton has just announced he’s all for moving things out of the “proxy” realm altogether. It’s hard to figure out just what it will take before the U.S. decides to do something about Iran.

People magazine has an interview with John and Elizabeth Edwards, who say they aren’t going to endorse anyone and will be “saving their political capital for their own causes.” Hmm. Or making certain they remain players in a Democratic administration. John does a better job of concealing his preferences: loves the enthusiasm generated by Obama, but wants more substance; is impressed with Hillary Clinton’s grit, but doesn’t like all that old politics. Elizabeth is having none of that. She rolls her eyes about the impact of nominating the first African-American (”What about the great symbolic thing about a woman . . . “) and calls Obama’s health care plan and ads “misleading.”

So who carries more weight with Democratic voters? Elizabeth became the darling of the netroots for defending her husband against Ann Coulter and ferociously attacking George Bush, and Clinton could do worse than having Elizabeth touting her health care plan. But the real news will be if John and his 26 pledged delegates get off the fence. For now, the interview is a sign of how divided and indecisive the Democratic electorate as a whole appears to be (at least before the election returns tonight).

Sometimes you can smell a ridiculous idea a thousand miles away.

With support from the Richard Lounsbery Foundation, the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs is partnering with Dancing Ink Productions LLC to launch a project called “Understanding Islam through Virtual Worlds.”

The project will culminate in a series of activities in virtual worlds tailored to bring together Muslims and non-Muslims. It will also produce a range of audio, video, and transcript products, along with a policy recommendation paper which will include a list of specific recommendations for the U.S. government on how to use virtual worlds to promote international understanding. The paper will be distributed through government briefings.

Are Muslim/non-Muslim relations so bad that the two groups can only meet up as avatars in cyberspace? I guess nothing brings strangers to a fuller understanding of a different culture than seeing that culture’s representatives as literal cartoons. The PC, multi-culti dream has been realized.