Readers have dropped me emails to ask where they can view the now famous Rick Warren interviews with pro-abortion Sen. Barack Obama and pro-life Sen. John McCain. Go to www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/16/warren.forum/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

I am now half-way through my third book written about or by Sen. Obama. Next week I will be writing about an interview I'm conducting with the author of one of them.

Many things stand out about Obama. Near the top is an absolutely incredible run of good fortune, an ability to see openings and take advantage of them, and a coolness under pressure. Exceptions to the latter are very rare.

One exception was Obama's response to the information you find at www.nrlc.org. Clearly frustrated, he angrily accused NRLC of "lying" in asserting that while a state Senator Obama had voted against a state bill virtually identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. 

I understand fully why he did so. It wasn't because what NRLC said was untrue. The documentation is unassailable.

It is rather because Obama knows the tremendous price he will pay if the American public learns not only that he played a key role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions, but that he has spent the last four years covering up his involvement.

If you go to www.nrlc.org or read the last week's worth of TN&Vs, you will know the full chronology. A particularly helpful synopsis  of Obama's latest spurious explanation ("Fathering More Lies: Obama's latest spin on Born-Alive") appeared yesterday. Ramesh Ponnuru's fine essay can be found at http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Nzk2M2VkMWQ2YTk4ZDVkMTM0YjM3ZjU4YTNhZDEzMjQ=.

While his campaign has now conceded (according to the New York Sun)  that Obama had voted against an identical bill while in the state Senate, Obama's campaign has offered explanation after explanation, rationale after rationale, to provide what it calls "context." But it is not context that is provided but obfuscation and misdirection.

For all the zigs and zags, all the irrelevant rabbit trails down which he has led reporters, the bottom line can be briefly summarized as follows.

Truth: It is incontrovertible that an Illinois hospital had a policy of inducing the live birth of "fetuses" (usually before the point that their lungs were sufficiently developed to allow sustained survival, but nevertheless capable of being born alive). Many were born alive. This is what the term "live-birth abortion" refers to.

Falsehood: Obama's defenders insist that Illinois law required doctors to provide medical care. As Ponnuru wrote, "Illinois law has rules -- loophole-ridden rules, but rules -- requiring treatment of babies who have 'sustainable survivability.'"

It did not, repeat did not, have a law that applied to babies old enough to be born alive, but not old enough to survive indefinitely. Babies can be and often are born alive a month or more before they are "viable" -- that is, capable of long-term survival outside the womb.

How can we be so sure? Nurse Jill Stanek, who blew the whistle on the hospital's live-birth abortion policy, wrote the Illinois Attorney General for clarification.

He responded "that no law had been broken," Ponnuru wrote. "That's why legislators proposed a bill to fill the gap."

Stay tuned here and at www.nrlc.org. More details keep coming in almost by the hour.