Up first, we have this lovely button:

For the family that prays for Obama, stays together, or something like that. Well, if what the NY Post had about Obama potentially violating the Logan Act* by attempting to delay troop withdrawal from Iraq to suit HIS political purposes is true, risking lives as a result, he’s gonna need a lot of those prayers. See, it’s illegal – some might even say TREASONOUS – for a civilian to work against a presidential administration in a foreign country. Oopsy daisy!!

Then there is this nice little bumper sticker for all you Catholics out there! You can put this right next to the sticker for your parochial school!

Oh, great! Now I know what to get my good friend, Divine Democrat! Ahem.

And finally, last but not least, there is this:

All hail, the Obama Faithful!! Oh, wait – am I misreading that? Nope, I don’t think I am. That may not be exactly what they WANTED to convey, at least consciously, but that’s about what they seem to expect from their followers – complete and utter devotion. Praise Obama – he has come to liberate us from our pesky morals, our integrity, our sense of decency and fair play! That must be the “Change” Obama promised to bring us!! Hallelujah!!

And just in case you think I am making this up, here is the letter from the Obama Camp:

Dear friends,
Great news! We now have faith merchandise available for you to show your support for Barack Obama as a person of faith.

Check out the Believers for Barack, Pro-Family Pro-Obama, and Catholics for Obama buttons, bumper stickers and signs….

Believers for Barack rally signs and bumper stickers, along with all Pro-Family Pro-Obama merchandise, are appropriate for people of all faith backgrounds. We’ll soon be rolling out merchandise for other religious groups and denominations, but I wanted to get this out to you without delay.

Take good care,

Paul Monteiro
Deputy Director of Religous (sic) Affairs
Obama for America

Oh, YAY! And God-O-Meter said there will be more to come, like “Clergy for Change.” Oh, I cannot WAIT to get one of those! Actually, yes, yes I can. Many of you will like THIS one: “Pro-Israel Pro-Obama.” I wonder how HAMAS and The Nation of Islam will feel about that one…I guess Obama can ask his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, about that.

Now some of you heathens out there might be just a bit sceptical about Obama’s reaching out to the religious among us. Some of you might just be bitterly clinging to his comments about religious folk bitterly clinging to their guns and religion. Oh, ye of little faith!! He cares about you, he really does. Didn’t you see the BUTTON?? Or the STICKER?? C’mon! Don’t play hard to get! Obama loves you, this I know! For his minions have bludgeoned me with that claim for weeks now! I mean – because he shows us in so many ways: FISA, public campaign funds, off-shore drilling, NAFTA, gun control…Oh, I could go on and on with all the ways Obama’s Words have touched our lives. Praise the One who can stop the waters rising, and slow their very movement! Now the Faithful may proudly display the object of their veneration right on their cars and their lapels! Will wonders never cease?!

But wait! There is one more left to see. This courtesy of my talented partner who wanted to make sure we were all represented. Here it is:

Step right up! Order yours today!!

* Text of the Logan Act: Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

I guess Obama’s attempt at getting Murdoch’s media to support him appear to be wasted.

From Political Wire we learn about Obama’s whining to Fox News chief Roger Ailes in a summer meeting. I guess he thought he would get the same softball treatment from Fox News that he did from CNN and MSNBC:

In Vanity Fair, Michael Wolff reports on a “secret courtesy meeting” between Sen. Barack Obama and Fox News chief Roger Ailes earlier this summer.

“Obama lit into Ailes. He said that he didn’t want to waste his time talking to Ailes if Fox was just going to continue to abuse him and his wife, that Fox had relentlessly portrayed him as suspicious, foreign, fearsome — just short of a terrorist.

“Ailes, unruffled, said it might not have been this way if Obama had more willingly come on the air instead of so often giving Fox the back of his hand.

Well another round won by McCain/Palin!

The New York Post had this to say in their endorsement:

THE Post today enthusiastically urges the election of Sen. John S. McCain as the 44th president of the United States.

McCain’s lifelong record of service to America, his battle-tested courage, unshakeable devotion to principle and clear grasp of the dangers and opportunities now facing the nation stand in dramatic contrast to the tissue-paper-thin résumé of his Democratic opponent, freshman Sen. Barack Obama.

Big Mac Gets Big Bounce in Polls

Sarah Palin to Face the Media

Get MORE Election Coverage at NYPost.com

McCain has been in Washington for many years now, but he is not of Washington. He knows where the levers of power are located – and how to manipulate them – but he is not controlled by them.

McCain’s selection of the charming, but rock-solid, outsider Sarah Palin as his running mate underscores the point.

Neither plays well with others.

The Post listed several good reasons to vote for McCain (Note: I don’t necessarily agree with all of them!).

There are many reasons to support the McCain-Palin ticket. Here are but a few:

* National security: The differences between McCain and Obama are especially stark.

McCain says 9/11 represented a two-decade “failure . . . to respond to . . . a [growing] global terror network.” He understood that Iraq is a critical front in the war on terror – and he urged perseverance even in the dark days that preceded the success of “the surge.”

Obama backed policies that would have abandoned Iraq to its fate, he bitterly opposed the surge, and once insisted that US forces invade Pakistan in search of Osama bin Laden – seemingly without regard for the potential consequences of attacking a nuclear-armed nation, ally or not.

Regarding a nuclear Iran, McCain has pushed for the strongest possible international sanctions and diplomatic pressure. Obama opposes sanctions.

And, when Russia invaded the former Soviet republic of Georgia, threatening a return to the Cold War, McCain reacted with stern disapprobation: “We must remind Russia’s leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability and peace of that world.”

Obama called for UN action – unaware, apparently, that Russia’s Security Council veto would have prevented any.

* Taxes: McCain knows that when government absorbs ever-larger shares of national income, the economy suffers.

High tax rates diminish investment, killing jobs and stunting growth.

And while Obama promises tax cuts for “95 percent” of Americans, what he actually is proposing is some $650 billion in tax-credit-driven hikes in entitlement and other spending, to be paid for with heavier imposts across the board, but especially on investment – like a sharply higher capital-gains tax.

This is bad news for the millions of ordinary Americans who own stocks, either personally or through pension funds or who plan someday to sell their homes or other real property.

McCain, wisely, vows to keep capital-gains taxes at 15 percent and to keep the Bush-era tax cuts in place – understanding that new growth will boost revenue, and promising to make up the rest with spending restraint.

And he’s called for a one-year freeze on most discretionary spending and an end to pork-barrel giveaways.

* Trade: “I object when Senator Obama and others preach the false virtues of economic isolationism,” says McCain – noting that “globalization is an opportunity” for US workers. He adds that while emerging economies like those of China and India are worrisome, the answer is competition informed by education and innovation – not protectionism.

* Energy: On the economic issue most vexing Americans today – energy prices – McCain is aggressive

He is a strong convert to offshore drilling: “We have trillions of dollars’ worth of oil and gas reserves in the US at a time we are exporting hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas to buy energy.”

He also strongly backs nuclear power – a carbon-free form of energy that America can produce relatively cheaply.

Obama, meanwhile, hews to the Democratic Party line on energy: no nukes, no drilling and no comprehension of the consequences of such policies.

And finally The Post finished up with this quote:

In the end, though, sound security, economic and energy policies – plus allegiance to principle – are critical to keeping America safe and strong.

On all counts, John McCain and Sarah Palin understand this – and that’s why we’re in their corner to the finish.

As for my vote I am still not certain what I will do in November, but I am carefully looking at McCain/Palin, listening to their speeches and talking points. And I am anxiously awaiting Palin’s ABC interview. Palin is a regular person like me, a working mom like I was during my Navy days, and understands special needs children, I grew up with a brother who has special needs, they are part and parcel of your moral fiber! And it turns out McCain remembers the last time he changed a diaper because he said, “There’s some experiences you never forget.”

My oldest brother sent me the piece Gloria Steinem wrote on Gov. Palin, an elitist, patronizing piece in which she diminishes people who hunt (not understanding, I guess, that many people hunt to put FOOD on the table, especially in these difficult economic times), among other smears. So, I felt compelled to write him back. A lot of this is information those who have been paying attention already know:

I am not an apologist for Sarah Palin, but I find the argument that SHE is inexperienced as Steinem said to be laughable. The DNC selected the least experienced candidate ever, one who refuses to make available ANY paper trail at all – no college or law school transcripts, no medical records, no passports, no birth certificates, and claims he had NOT ONE PAPER or DATE BOOK available from his time in the IL Senate (which is part-time service, btw). One who has no legislative accomplishments of note to his name. Never mind the LONG list of his sordid associates which throw his whole “good judgment” stance out the window.

Or his lack of chairing ONE meeting of the European Affairs Subcommittee, which oversees Afghanistan, and now claims that we need to do more abt Afghanistan,and who wants to return to the foreign policy of DONALD RUMSFELD…If this was BUSH, the Progressives would be going batshit crazy screaming our fool heads off.


But for some reason, this is all fine and dandy. Never mind all of the university professors who are now shrugging off his constant plagiarizing (and his picking a running mate who is also a plagiarizer), an act that can get students thrown OUT of universities. Why? I really don’t get this infatuation with this man! Without a teleprompter, he can barely even talk!! But he is “eloquent,” and has “good judgm ent.” Um, no. And he is sexist as all hell, to boot.

And for some reason, Obama is constantly comparing himself to the VP pick, not the presidential nominee. Much easier for him to pick on a woman than a man, as he demonstrated time and again during this campaign. Flipping Hillary off, brushing her off his shoulder and his shoe, having “99 Problems BUt a Bitch Ain’t One” playing when he won Iowa. Class act this guy. Oh, and for what it’s worth – he lives 1 1/2 blocks away from Bill Ayers, who lives right down the street from the Farrakhan Compound. What a coincidence.

Oh – is now when I tell you that my brother has a PhD., and developed some major software, whose clients include NASA? Yeah. He’s supposed to be smart (my younger brother and his wife – both PhDs – also are big Obama supporters, at least my brother is. My sis-in-law is a “Vote Democrat” no matter what more than anything.). Just goes to show that there is a difference between being educated and having common sense. I can say that because I have BOTH!!! Ahem.

Here’s what he wrote back:

These are interesting accusations. Do you know these things for a fact? What is your source of information? Is there some doubt about the fact that Obama was elected president of the Harvard Law Review? You don’t get to that place by being a flaky biscuit. Is there any doubt about the fact that McCain was at the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy?

I don’t follow you with the Donald Rumsfield foreign policy thing. What do you mean?

One thing I can say for sure. I have seen Obama in many interviews and town hall type conversations, besides the podium speeches. He has always impressed me with his speaking ability in off the cuff situations. This is a sharp dude.

I also like Joe Biden very much. He is a solid, decent, knowledgeable person.

At the end of the day, this is about policies, not personalities. Who do you think is going to best implement the objectives of Hillary Clinton? If you say McCain-Palin, then I don’t see how you get there.

Oh, boy. Evidently, he does not have the same desire for sources when others are “accused,” but whatever. And yes, he DID go there about the personalities. Here’s my response:

Yes, I know these things for a fact. This is what I do every day, all day long.

I don’t know if I will even vote this year, so don’t assume I am voting for McCain/Palin. I can say that McCain is an honorable man, and has given his entire life i n service to this country. That means something. He is also moderate, and a reformer, something Obama will NEVER be (oh – today’s BIG report is about Obama raging on Palin, particularly about the Bridge to Nowhere, which she did get rid of afterall – and which HE VOTED FOR TWICE!!! He claimed, “Palin Can’t Just Make Stuff Up!” No, that purview belongs to Obama alone.). But Obama will never get my vote. He should never have assumed he would.

So that’s how my morning started – not at ALL about what I was going to write today. But you never know what is going to come up, I reckon. And I know there is evern more about Obama, but I figured I was pushing my luck with him actually reading it this far.

Ah, families…

What a difference a month makes. Right on the heels of Obama’s dead fish flop on drilling off the coast of FL (even Jeb didn’t want to do this) comes an Obama proposal to sell 70 million barrels of oil from the stockpile.

The WaPo reported Tuesday that during a speech in MI:

Sen. Barack Obama called Monday for using oil from the nation’s strategic reserves to lower gasoline prices, the second time in less than a week that he has modified a position on energy issues, as he and Sen. John McCain seek to find solutions to a topic that is increasingly dominating the presidential race.

——————————

The Obama campaign did not predict how much releasing reserves would lower gas prices. But it said prices at the pump went down more than 19 percent within two weeks when President Bill Clinton made such a move in 2000.

His proposal comes a month after Obama said he would consider using oil from the reserves only in a “genuine emergency,” such as “terrorist acts.” Aides said the plan is not a reversal because he would replace light crude oil in the reserves with less-expensive heavy crude. They also noted that the senator from Illinois last week described the country’s economic conditions as an “emergency.”

On July 24th, USAToday reported that democrats wanted to open the reserves for just this reason.

WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Thursday scuttled a bill that Democrats hoped would help lower gasoline prices by forcing the Energy Department to release 70 million barrels of oil — about a three-day supply — from the national stockpile.
———————–

Democrats said the release from the oil reserve could provide relief at the pump within two weeks, though they would not say how much it would help $4-per-gallon gas. Earlier releases, such as a 34 million barrel drawdown in 1991 during the Persian Gulf War, caused prices to fall.

Interestingly enough, Republicans opposed the sale because Democrats opposed offshore drilling.

Also curious is another story from USAToday on July 23rd about the airline industry supporting selling reserves.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) — The U.S. government should tap the national petroleum reserve to relieve ailing airlines that have been stung by soaring oil prices, the industry’s leading trade group told lawmakers on Wednesday.

“History shows us that even a temporary increase in supply will immediately lower oil prices,” James May, president and chief executive of the Air Transport Association, told the House of Representatives Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

Three major U.S. airlines reported second-quarter losses on Tuesday of more than $3.3 billion, blaming skyrocketing fuel costs.

May testified as the House is expected to vote Thursday on legislation to release millions of barrels of light sweet crude from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) and swap it with heavy sour crude in an effort to calm the market.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserves has a website with information on current inventory here.

About the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (Wikipedia)

Access to the reserve is determined by the conditions written into the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), primarily to counter a severe supply interruption. The maximum removal rate, by physical constraints, is 4.4 million barrels per day (700,000 m³/d). Oil could begin entering the marketplace 13 days after a Presidential order. The Dept. of Energy says that it has about 59 days of import protection in the SPR. This, combined with private sector inventory protection, is estimated to equal 115 days of imports.

The SPR was created following the 1973 energy crisis. The EPCA of December 22, 1975, made it policy for the U.S. to establish a reserve up to one billion barrels (159 million m³) of petroleum. A number of existing storage sites were acquired in 1977. Construction of the first surface facilities began in June 1977. On July 21, 1977, the first oil—approximately 412,000 barrels (66,000 m³) of Saudi Arabian light crude—was delivered to the SPR. Fill was suspended in FY 1995 to devote budget resources to refurbishing the SPR equipment and extending the life of the complex. The current SPR sites are expected to be usable until around 2025. Fill was resumed in 1999.
—————–

On August 17, 2005, the SPR reached its goal of 700 million barrels (111,000,000 m³), or about 96% of its now-increased 727-million-barrel (1.156E+8 m³) capacity. Approximately 60% of the crude oil in the reserve is the less desirable sour (high sulfur content) variety. The oil delivered to the reserve is “royalty-in-kind” oil—royalties owed to the U.S. government by operators who acquire leases on the federally owned Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico. These royalties were previously collected as cash, but in 1998 the government began testing the effectiveness of collecting royalties “in kind” – or in other words, acquiring the crude oil itself. This mechanism was adopted when refilling the SPR began, and once filling is completed, revenues from the sale of future royalties will be paid into the Federal treasury.

So, what are the threads here? Democrats and Republicans have been at loggerheads for some time over how to deal with climbing gas prices, with Republicans wanting to drill more and Democrats wanting to use the “oil piggy bank.” Now, it looks as if someone has achieved a “meeting of the minds” with Obama suddenly supporting drilling. Will Republicans suddenly support selling reserves?

We’ll have to see. Right now John McCain does not.

In addition, whether or not 70 million barrels will make a huge difference to the average consumer is a matter of debate. Although any savings is appreciated, such a sale isn’t likely to lower price all that much. Selling oil to make gas prices go down is a little like selling apple trees to lower the price of pie.

So, who benefits the most? Well, consumers who use LOTS of gas. Airlines come to mind. It might help that industry – but that’s not why the idea is being sold. It’s for the driving consumer, stupid.

Lastly, the sale would be of stockpiled “sweet crude.” Reports say this “sweet crude” would then be replaced by the “sour type” (are there crude tasters??). So, that’s not a one-for-one swap. Also, haven’t we been hearing for some time that refinery capacity is a problem and that adds to the price? Just because we could sell it, would we be able to quickly refine it?

We’d be selling the apple trees, putting twigs back in the ground, waiting on a backlogged pastry chef and hoping the pie gets cheaper.

And Obama was against it before he was for it.

So, what’s the calculation, Barack? What changed your mind? And while you talked about this in MI on the 4th, it doesn’t show up in the transcript of your speech in Ohio on the 5th.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

NoQuarterUSA Action Of The Day: We ask that you take part in the I Own My Vote Virtual Platform Committee Meeting now! It takes five minutes. Click here to start. If you have not yet signed the pledge, click here to do so.

Viewers largely thought it was NOT racist.

Read the rest ->

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of the nation’s voters say they’ve seen news coverage of the McCain campaign commercial that includes images of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton and suggests that Barack Obama is a celebrity just like them. Of those, just 22% say the ad was racist while 63% say it was not.

But, you say, what did those viewers think of Obama’s response to McCain’s ad?

However, Obama’s comment that his Republican opponent will try to scare people because Obama does not look like all the other presidents on dollar bills was seen as racist by 53%. Thirty-eight percent (38%) disagree.

Here’s the breakdown among whites and AAs (remember, no other ethnic/racial groups count. . . ):

Not surprisingly, the McCain ad generates significantly different perceptions along racial and ethnic lines. Most African-American voters—58%–saw the McCain ad as racist. Just 18% of white voters and 14% of all other voters shared that view.

As for Obama’s comment, 53% of white voters saw it as racist, as did 44% of African-Americans and 61% of all other voters.

It’s looking like the McCain camp called this one right. So, instead of calling this racism, I’m thinking we’ll simply hear of more “disappointment” and/or “cynicism.”

2) A poll finds Oklahoma not exactly Obama territory.

3) The WaPo tells some truth. Deborah Howell, the WaPo ombudsman, has an article saying the paper published far more pictures of Obama than of McCain. In addition, those pictures are more likely to be of Obama smiling and McCain with a serious face.

What we found: 122 photos of Obama have been published in the paper during that time to 78 for McCain, counting tiny to big. Most of those photos ran inside the paper; most on the politics page. The Page 1 photos are closer: Obama had nine to McCain’s seven. Five of Obama’s were above the fold; McCain had four. Obama also got more color photos, 72 to 49, and more large photos — mostly those that spanned three or more columns, 30 to 10.
——————————-
Ed Thiede, assistant managing editor for the news desk, said that the numbers are “eye-opening. We should be more cognizant.” Du Cille and Thiede were both surprised at the numbers. Du Cille said, “The disparity in the numbers is indeed hard to reconcile. As photojournalists, we always strive to be fair. We have tried to be balanced, but it seems that in a large operation such as ours, we need to monitor the use of political images even more closely.
———————–

Readers look at photos when they don’t read stories. But Obama leads in stories since June 4, too — 139 to 94. They were both featured in 23 stories. . .

But these kinds of discrepancies feed distrust on the part of readers, especially conservative ones, who already complain that The Post is all for Obama. Next week, I will examine the stories.

Let’s keep an eye out for this article next week. If nothing else, it should be VERY interesting.

4) Jennifer Rubin at Commentary has a very interesting take on why Obama isn’t doing better in polls. She qotes Charles Krauthammer quoting Dana Milbank, so this “presumptuous” meme is definitely making waves.

But the meat of her argument goes like this:

It is really three factors at play: Obama has gotten worse, John McCain’s campaign has gotten more aggressive in pointing out that Obama has gotten worse and Obama is no longer talking about the issues which were underpinning that huge advantage Democrats were thought to enjoy.

She adds:

It’s the last point which has liberal supporters stumped. What happened to the laser-like focus on the economy? What happened to the non-stop message that John McCain is George W. Bush’s clone? These were lost in the audacity festival in Berlin and the aftermath of the trip ( e.g. the soldier snub gaffe). But even before that, between the securing the nomination and the overseas trip, the major campaign storylines have been: Obama’s flip-flops, Wesley Clark slurring McCain, Hillary Clinton voters still upset, Obama’s repositioning (kind of ) on Iraq, the success of the surge, and the faux seal and the arrogance meme.

So Rubin says Obama isn’t driving the message. That’s assuming there is one to steer. Here at NQ we’ve said before that Obama’s policy statements have been awfully thin or clearly cribbed from other candidates. Now that’s really starting to show. When you’ve got nothing to say, it’s all about you. That can work until people begin to think the “you” ain’t so great. . .

5) Slate doesn’t like the off-shore drilling flip-flop any more than most of FL. The article calls both McCain and Obama on it, but falls a little harder on Obama for “change you can believe in.”

6) Time has a piece on “in the tank” media.

That McCain’s complaint [about Obama luv] is sometimes overstated and imprudent, however, does not mean that it is wrong. The political press corps has a problem when Jon Stewart lampoons reporters for being even more in the tank for Obama than he is.
———————–

The silver lining for McCain is that the media’s bias has sometimes backfired on liberals. . . Obama’s Reverend Wright fiasco was a case in point. Even though the two men had close ties, the press gave little scrutiny to the radical preacher for a year after Obama’s campaign began. When attention finally came, Obama gave a speech that tried to shift the focus from their relationship to the rest of the country’s racial wounds. He was rewarded with rapturous coverage. The next day, the New York Times ran a “news analysis” calling the speech “hopeful, patriotic [and] quintessentially American” and comparing him to John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln. It took a few more weeks for Obama to realize that he had to take the final step and repudiate Wright.

Media bias poses only one serious danger to McCain. One of Obama’s standard tactics has been to predict that McCain would “play on our fears,” “exploit our differences” and stir up “fake controversy” to win this fall. It’s a clever move; it simultaneously paints McCain as a brute while making him think twice about hitting back–the harder McCain hits, after all, the more it will look as though he is stirring up fake controversy. Too many reporters have bought that spin, and that’s a problem. McCain doesn’t need reporters to fall out of love with Obama. But he does need to be allowed to make the case against the Democrat.

And one should be able to make a case without being called racist at every turn. Wonder if Time has read the Rasmussen poll?

7) And to the DNC rulz czars? Time to check out the undercarriage of the Obama express. No doubt you’ve heard about Obama wanting to fully seat those wayward states – Michigan and Florida – after quite the dustup earlier this year when those states’ voters were effectively disenfranchised.

Well, the caucus blog at NYT has this to say:

At the same time, Mr. Obama’s “request” to restore full voting strength to Florida and Michigan is likely to cause heartburn for party officials, who have struggled to maintain some authority over the primary calendar.

By granting Mr. Obama’s request, the party will essentially be giving a green light to other states to ignore the calendar next time because there will be no consequences.

However, I think the blog missed the mark here:

The whole subject remains a sore point with some Clinton supporters. But Mr. Obama’s letter today seems timed to try to minimize any damage, coming almost two months after Mrs. Clinton threw her support to him and after it appears unlikely that she will be his choice for vice president.

“Timed to try to minimize any damage, coming almost two months. . .” Minimize what damage? Clueless. Just another Senator Britney opportunistic flip-flop designed to show calculation before class or integrity.

8 )George Will’s piece today has a couple of interesting bits about why Obama may be slipping.

But polls taken since his trip abroad do not indicate that Obama succeeded in altering the oddest aspect of this presidential campaign: Measured against his party’s surging strength in every region and at every level, he is dramatically underperforming.
Will attributes at least some of the slippage to eloquence ennui. Voters are simply tired of the vaulting rhetoric.

Even an eloquent politician can become, as Benjamin Disraeli described William Gladstone, “a sophistical rhetorician inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity.”

But Will also points out how that rhetoric helps Obama create the very image of him as self-absorbed and not really interested in America.

Does Obama have the sort of adviser a candidate most needs — someone sufficiently unenthralled to tell him when he has worked one pedal on the organ too much? If so, Obama should be told: Enough, already, with the we-are-who-we-have-been-waiting-for rhetorical cotton candy that elevates narcissism to a political philosophy.

And no more locutions such as “citizen of the world” and “global citizenship.” If they meant anything in Berlin, they meant that Obama wanted Berliners to know that he is proudly cosmopolitan. Cosmopolitanism is not, however, a political asset for American presidential candidates. Least of all is it an asset for Obama, one of whose urgent needs is to seem comfortable with America’s vibrant and very un-European patriotism, which is grounded in a sense of virtuous exceptionalism.

Will is conservative, so this column won’t get too much play. But he does make a logical argument for why Obama hasn’t “closed the deal.”

9) Fivethirtyeight, a website about polling has some notes for down-ballot Democrats.

In “Organizing Update”, fivethirtyeight covers how the political campaigns and parties are organizing offices and personnel across the states. As we’ve talked about at NQ, Obama has been taking the reins of the Democratic party by moving it to Chicago and using nearly all donations for his office run.

In Wisconsin, Obama has 15 offices open now, with 24 expected to be open by mid-August. The staffers are directly paid by Obama’s “Campaign for Change” organization. By contrast, Republicans have five party offices open that handle both McCain field work as well as the state leg. races, which somewhat dilutes the effort.

This may seem like a trivial distinction, but it’s actually a story we’re keeping an eye on. Though our idea about the timetable of campaign ramp-ups has been distorted by this nearly two-year presidential ordeal, most local races and even most congressional races are only barely beginning to coordinate their own field efforts. In this respect, it is unclear on the Obama side how the traditional coordination between presidential race field staff and downballot candidates will be carried off. The traditional vehicle is the coordinated campaign which can be funded by the national committees not subject to the same strict caps on individual contributions. This story will probably ripen post-convention when most of the other local campaigns begin to kick into gear.

I’m going to guess that down-ticket Dems may get some cash after the convention. But until then, it’s all about Obama. Well, since the generic Democrat runs quite well and Obama seems to be underperforming as a candidate, only keeping steady with McCain in a year any Republican should be relegated to sweeping confetti after the election, maybe he does need all the money.

Or maybe it costs an awful awful lot to rent that stadium in Denver.

Yesterday, the St. Petersburg Times reported that Sen. Obama has "softened" his stance on offshore drilling:

"Long an opponent of offshore drilling, Sen. Barack Obama offered
encouraging words for a bipartisan energy plan that would permit oil
drilling within 50 miles of Florida’s west coast.

"In an interview with the St. Petersburg Times and Bay News 9’s Political Connections this morning, Obama commended the self-styled "Gang of 10" senators who earlier in the day introduced a broad energy bill that also would funnel billions into developing renewable sources.

"’My attitude is that we can find some sort of compromise,’ Obama told the Times shortly after talking with voters at Gibbs High School. ‘If it is part of an overarching package, then I am not going to be rigid in preventing an energy package that goes forward that is really thoughtful and is going to really solve the problem.’" (St. Pete Times)

There’s that word again: compromise.  It’s a reasonable-sounding word, but compromise can have pretty deleterious effects. Is offshore drilling an issue about which we should compromise?

Many of us Americans eat food from the sea: fish and shrimp and lobster (well, I don’t eat lobster, because I really dislike the taste, but I adore scallops).  And hundreds of miles of our coastlines serve as tourist destinations — which pump money into many state and local economies precisely because of the quality of their beaches.

All it would take are a few accidents (like oil spills) to taint the food and scenery, which certainly could cause a drag on multiple industries.  Given that we wouldn’t see any results from drilling for 10 years (according to Sen. Obama’s statement in June), are the risks to our nation’s coastlines worth the meager and long-delayed results of offshore drilling?

I don’t know the answer, but I think it’s a fair question.

Interestingly enough, the St. Pete Times implied that Sen. Obama has not formally embraced the offshore-drilling plan. It seems safe to say that he does support it — given that he said "I am not going to be rigid" about it.

You can’t get a little bit pregnant: either Sen. Obama is willing to allow offshore drilling or he isn’t. Subtle phrasing can cause voters to misunderstand where he really stands on issues.

I can’t help remembering Obama’s stated opposition back in January and March to retroactive immunity for telecom companies (Telecom Amnesty) that helped the Bush Administration illegally spy on Americans.  In June, Obama’s stance morphed into qualified support for a House bill that included Telecom Amnesty, which Obama ended up voting for when it came to the Senate.

Similarly, I can’t help remembering Obama’s clear statements opposing NAFTA in March, stating that he would use the treaty’s opt-out clause as a "hammer" to force re-negotiation of the treaty so as to benefit American workers who’d lost their jobs.  In May, after Obama won the primaries, he made a clear statement that he really doesn’t want to force re-negotiation of NAFTA.

Incidentally, if the drilling plan is passed, Florida would not have a choice: the drilling would happen, according to the St. Pete Times, because the Gulf of Mexico is thought to be oil rich. 

Other coastal states would have a choice about whether or not drilling occurred off their shores (Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia). 

Democratic candidate Barack Obama on Saturday backed away from rival John McCain’s challenge for a series of joint appearances, agreeing only to the standard three debates in the fall.

Odd after Senator Obama’s earlier statement to McCain that he would meet anytime, anywhere to debate “the real issues.”

In summer, stumping on the campaign trail, McCain has often noted that Obama had not followed through and joined him in any events.

This harkens back to an interview Lou Dobbs did with respected political consultant, Hank Sheinkopf, recently, who said “Obama just needs to keep his head down and not make any mistakes until the Convention.”

I think that ship has sailed. Even the adoring media treatment Senator Obama was enjoying until very recently has started to sour. According to Dana Milbank of WaPo, some reporters are now referring to Obama as a “prom queen.”

McCain’s campaign spokesperson, Brian Rogers, was quick to pounce on this:

“We understand it might be beneath a worldwide celebrity of Barack Obama’s magnitude to appear at town hall meetings alongside John McCain and directly answer questions from the American people, but we hope he’ll reconsider.”

Those McCain ads poking fun at the celebrity candidacy of Obama and comparing him to Moses parting the Red Sea are gaining traction, not only with the media, but with the American public. Polls are a statistical dead heat, a disaster for a Democrat at this point in the campaign.

Considering that the Republican brand is so damaged this year, why wouldn’t Senator Obama relish the opportunity to meet Senator McCain face to face at the first possible opportunity? If he is offering so much hope and change to us – why not stand before the American people and share concrete ideas so we can compare and contrast the two candidates. Surely that would give him a bump. No?

John McCain is no great speaker or debater. It’s not like Barack has to face off against Hillary Clinton – then I could understand him being scared. She would dance circles around him – and has.

In May, the McCain campaign came up with the idea to challenge Obama to 10 town hall meetings. Obama’s first response was more positive:

“Obviously, we would have to think through the logistics on that, but … if I have the opportunity to debate substantive issues before the voters with John McCain, that’s something that I am going to welcome.”

Guess he’s not going to welcome those town halls after all. And what logistics, exactly? Talk about keeping your head down.

An excellent article by Frank Salvato, Managing Editor of New Media Journal brings another point into sharp relief:

In light of the shameful snubbing Barack Obama inflicted upon the wounded US military personnel at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, it is painfully clear that he is not the candidate of “change.” If anything he is this election cycle’s version of the status quo; a hybrid of inflated rhetoric and Madison Avenue glitz. He offers hollow bumper-sticker catchphrase solutions (“yes we can,” “hope,” and “change”) to political, social and ideological problems he is ill-equipped to address professionally. This is the typical trade-craft of a political operative possessing an extremely limited political resume.

Those not blinded by the “bright, shiny thing” – the distractions of the hollow rhetoric and media marketing – understand that Obama is a political creation of the Chicago Democrat Machine; the Chicago Daley Machine. He is a slickly choreographed media tool meant to reinvent the image of the Democrat[ic] Party for the 21st Century.

The problem is that a symbol, as Obama now calls himself, does not and is not able to govern. Something the DNC would do well to keep in mind.

The first clue to this reality is the fact that his main campaign handler (some would say “puppet master”) is David Axelrod, a longtime strategist for Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, who fancies himself a “strategist in urban politics.” More recently, proof of the Chicago connection can be seen in the fact that the DNC moved a major portion of its operations to Chicago.

As Obama’s ego grows, so does the budding discontent within his base and his political party.

He has flip-flopped on so many issues and now, offshore oil drilling, leaving none other than his biggest fan, Nancy Pelosi, under the bus. I wonder if she’ll still want to walk with her arm wrapped around his waist.

Certainly MoveOn.Org and many others have felt the sting of his about-face on major issues very recently. FISA comes to mind. The habit of flip flopping is a dangerous one. You never know when the next one is coming.

There is an old adage about unfaithful husbands. If you got him because he was cheating on his wife with you, be prepared for him to cheat on you with someone else – once you are the wife.

I am not clear how voters can still support a man who has shown himself to be little more than a media creation, afraid to show his face at a town hall, who surrenders the majority of the positions he campaigned on without so much as a whimper. What changes are we talking about exactly? What hope is there left? His defenders are quick to say that he has to move to the center for the general election. But he is doing more than that. He is running to the right at lightning speed. Even still, why is he not willing to defend those moves before John McCain and the voters?

I realize I did not mention the name of Mr. Salvato’s article above: Hey Barack, Hillary Only Suspended Her Campaign. This might be something for super delegates to keep in mind, as well as Democratic Party voting stalwarts:

Should Barack Obama continue his slide into ego’s abyss, his campaign of arrogance, naively buying his own marketing scheme, should he continue to alienate the loose association of factions that make up the total of his base, he risks fiddling as his Rome burns; he risks facilitating the migration of super delegates from his candidacy to Hillary Clinton’s. Remember, she suspended her campaign, she didn’t end it.

Senator Clinton’s policies, progressive and straightforward from the beginning, would require no waffling now. She would not need to keep her head down. She would not need to back into the job.

The pressure cooker that is the White House, particularly with our current slate of serious problems, requires someone of great moral courage, experience and intestinal fortitude. Surely someone with the courage of their convictions is never afraid to show up, any time, any place to make their case to the American people. By any standards this would and should be an effective way to move the debate forward.

It might require Senator Obama to roll up his sleeves a bit more than he has to this point. His impatience was much in evidence the other day when dealing with hecklers in Florida:

‘If you don’t like my answer, you can vote for another candidate or run for office yourself.’

We are talking about the toughest job in the world and snarking at voters, rather than addressing their concerns isn’t going to get it done. Contrast this behavior with John McCain in a similar situation recently. He answered a rather hostile man’s question and offered him a chance to follow up. They must have gone back and forth five times and wound up having a respectful exchange – until the man was satisfied and Senator McCain could continue.

Does anyone doubt Hillary Clinton would likewise handle herself in this way?

If Senator Obama lacks the willingness, and yes, humility, to make himself available to the American people in a town hall setting where he faces real competition, and one-on-one confrontations with voters, one might argue he is not possessed of the strength or knowledge to lead. He cannot ‘keep his head down’ forever.

Sooner or later, he will have to face the music.

The American people are waiting.

“This wasn’t really a new position. What I’m saying is that we can’t drill our way out of the problem,” Obama told reporters. “And if we can come up with a genuine bi-partisan compromise in which I have to accept some things I don’t like, or the Democrats have to accept some things that they don’t like, in exchange for actually moving us in the direction of energy independence, then that is something I am open to.”

Let’s see how the press sees it:

Washington Post: Obama’s Shift on Drilling
Los Angeles Times: Major Obama shift on offshore drilling; some might be O.K.
ABC News: Obama Now Open to Off-Shore Drilling
Minneapolis Star-Tribune & McClatchy Newspapers: In major change, Obama says he’ll support offshore drilling
Kansas City Star: Obama shifts his position on offshore oil drilling

So either the press and the rest of us are all wrong and Obama is right OR the entire nation is right and Obama is wrong. Just admit you saw your poll numbers tanking and that you changed your mind. Clearly, McCain has found a winning issue on which to hammer Obama as surprise, “out of touch.” And now Obama just simply has landed himself in a quagmire. He may not look ridiculous but he sure does sound ridiculous. This might just be Obama’s Dukakis in a helmet and riding in a tank moment.

From my blog, By The Fault.

Types of Off-Shore Drilling Platforms

On Wednesday Steve Hilton, a retired federal government worker in Lebanon, Missouri, implored Obama during a tour of a diner to consider off-shore oil production. To which, Obama replied:

“I’m in favor of solving problems. What I don’t want to do is say something because it sounds good politically.”

But with John McCain scoring points on energy and on the issue of limited domestic off-shore oil drilling and production coupled with Obama’s own sagging numbers in national polls that show the race in a statistical dead heat, Obama reversed course.

”My interest is in making sure we’ve got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,” Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

”If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage — I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done.”

Can it be any clearer that Obama shifts with the wind-blown sands and that the only thing that matters is his own political expediency?

The before and after below the fold.

From the Palm Beach Post:

The Before: Obama risks voter ire by opposing new oil drilling

Barack Obama is once again betting that his eloquence can persuade price-weary consumers – read that as voters – to take the long view and not jump at a short-term fix when it comes to soaring energy prices.

It worked in his presidential primary contest against New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton when she proposed a “gas tax holiday” for the summer, a pitch he opposed despite its popularity with many voters. But that was in April before gasoline shot past $4 a gallon.

Virtually all polls now show dealing with energy prices high atop the agenda of voters.

At issue for Obama’s Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, is opening up offshore drilling to boost production, a move McCain and others GOP lawmakers say would increase supply and help control soaring gasoline prices. Opponents, including Obama and many other Democrats, say new offshore oil would be years away from reaching consumers and even then would make little difference in prices and the ongoing U.S. need for foreign oil.

Republicans clearly have targeted energy prices, looking to boost their standing with consumers. President Bush has pushed Congress to permit the offshore drilling and warned that “the American people are rightly frustrated” because Democrats won’t allow a vote on opening up offshore drilling.

For his part, McCain has his sights squarely on Obama’s opposition to offshore drilling, labeling him “Dr. No when it comes to energy production.” The tactic is not surprising, because polls have shown that consumers – even in environmentally sensitive states like Florida – are desperate for politicians to do something about energy and favor offshore drilling by big margins.

Obama is pressed on the issue repeatedly on the campaign trail, but he refuses to budge, preferring to take pains to spell out his reasons.

“Please be in favor of offshore production,” Steve Hilton, a retired federal government worker in Lebanon, Mo., implored Obama during a tour of a diner there Wednesday.

“I’m in favor of solving problems,” Obama responded. “What I don’t want to do is say something because it sounds good politically.”

Obama seeks to turn the issue on its head, arguing that McCain and Bush are practicing the old politics of simply promising people something that’s symbolic without addressing the real problem. Discounting drilling, he proposes energy rebates, a crackdown on oil speculators who manipulate the market and a renewed focus on energy alternatives.

On Friday, during a campaign stop in Florida, Obama proposed a windfall profits tax to fund $1,000 emergency rebate checks for consumers besieged by high energy costs.

“Instead of offering any real plan to lower gas prices, Sen. McCain touts his support for George Bush’s plan for offshore oil drilling,” Obama said Thursday in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. “But even the Bush administration acknowledges that offshore oil drilling will have little impact on prices. It won’t lower prices today. It won’t lower prices during the next administration. In fact, we won’t see a drop of oil from this drilling for almost 10 years.”

Adding their own take on the debate are the Sierra Club and MoveOn.org, which announced Thursday that they will air ads criticizing McCain’s call for expanded oil drilling and tax proposals that would benefit oil companies. The MoveOn.org ad depicts a man speaking to the camera complaining that McCain’s proposal to lift a moratorium on energy exploration on coastal waters won’t produce oil for years. “That’s not a solution Mr. McCain, that’s a gimmick,” he says.

In fact, McCain opposes drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and during his 2000 presidential run opposed lifting the offshore drilling moratorium as well.

Although Obama makes the argument against offshore drilling much as he did against Clinton’s gas tax holiday, he faces a tougher challenge now. The disagreement with Clinton was played out in front of Democratic primary voters, many of them closely following the race and its issues.

The argument with McCain comes before a general election electorate as frustrations over gasoline prices grow at the height of the summer driving season and as the nation prepares for winter and heating costs. Polls suggest a lot of voters are pressing for politicians to do anything, even if it’s symbolic.

Voters in New Hampshire and other states hit hard by winter feel especially pinched by high fuel prices. Many homeowners enter into winter heating oil contracts during the summer.

“It’s on people’s minds,” said Fergus Cullen, state GOP chairman in New Hampshire, where the cost of heating a typical suburban home has doubled since last winter, to about $5,000. “The issues that people care about have changed dramatically since 2006 here and, not incidentally, in a way that is beneficial to Republican candidates.”

Adding to that pressure, Obama will face the full force of the GOP and the McCain campaign. To counter it, Obama cited Exxon Mobil’s record profits – the company on Thursday reported second-quarter earnings of $11.68 billion, the biggest ever by a U.S. corporation – while contending that the GOP candidate’s plan for offshore drilling won’t help consumers and “reads like an oil-company wish list.”

Obama concedes that crossing the public mood on energy prices could be risky – and he’s right. Though the public has largely turned against a war in Iraq that McCain fervently backs and Bush’s popularity is at record lows, polls show the election remains tight, with Obama clinging to a small lead.

From the New York Times:

The After: Obama shifts on offshore oil drilling

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that’s what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.

Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy.

Republican rival John McCain, who earlier dropped his opposition to offshore drilling, has been criticizing Obama on the stump and in broadcast ads for clinging to his opposition as gasoline prices topped $4 a gallon. Polls indicate these attacks have helped McCain gain ground on Obama.

”My interest is in making sure we’ve got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,” Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

”If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage — I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done.”

In Congress, both parties have fought bitterly over energy policy for weeks, with Republicans pressing for more domestic oil drilling and Democrats railing about oil company profits. Despite hundreds of hours of House and Senate floor debate, lawmakers will leave Washington for their five-week summer hiatus this week with an empty tank.

”The Republicans and the oil companies have been really beating the drums on drilling,” Obama said in the Post interview. ”And so we don’t want gridlock. We want to get something done.”

It’s the polls that have been really beating the drums on Obama and thus the shift. It is one more example of why Obama can’t be trusted.

From my blog, By The Fault.

I reckon “Backtrack Barack” is just going to flip or flop on every single position that got him to where he is now – the PRESUMPTIVE candidate. If he keeps this up, he’s going to get confused and end up at the REPUBLICAN National Convention!!

So, thanks tons, all of you Obamabots, for all of your abusive, thuggish behavior, for locking out Clinton supporters from caucuses, getting signatures outside of the caucuses, harassing Clinton supporters online, setting up inside polling booths, and the RBC ones who STOLE VOTES ot push Obama over the top.

Thanks so very, very much. This Bush III transformation is just about COMPLETE!! Way to go.

Just as a reminder, this is the one you SHOVED aside, treated like no other Democratic candidate in our history, on lo, this very subject (and yes, I had this in recently, but frankly, it bears repeating):

And just for fun, in my paper today was an article about John Edwards. Specifically, it was about the birth certificate of his alleged “Love Child,” and how the name of the father was left off. But what was INTERESTING, and by that I mean, a great set-up, was the accompanying photo of John Edwards. The original belongs to the AP, and we know how pissy they can be, but it was similar to the one below, except they were shaking hands:

Interesting, right? The way the paper laid it out, implicating Edwards as the Baby Daddy, and connecting Obama all at the same time! Kinda makes you think, right? And that was the point. Just like many of us think this was the EXACT reason Edwards endorsed Obama – he was being strong-armed. That seems to be the modus operandi of the Obama Bloc. Oh, yeah.

So, in one day, in one paper, we have Obama flipflopping on Offshore Drilling. And, Obama and Edwards together as Edwards “Love Child” is discussed. What a guy. What a candidate. Another George W. Bush. Great job, SuperDelegates. Regroup – even if you are embarrassed that you ever even endorsed this sham of a candidate, do NOT let pride get in your way. Or money. Give us the BEST candidate for the Democratic Party. Give us HILLARY!!!!

And one more fun video along those lines (thank you, Sophie!):

New Florida poll: McCain 45, Obama 40

In a new poll released by the Florida Chamber of Commerce, 45 percent of Florida voters said they would vote for Sen. John McCain if the presidential election were held today. Forty percent said they would vote for Sen. Barack Obama. Fifteen percent were undecided. …

The Palm Beach Post has another story, “Obama would consider off-shore drilling as part of comprehensive energy plan” — and notes that both McCain and Obama were campaigning in Florida yesterday:

ST. PETERSBURG — U.S. Sen. Barack Obama said today he would be willing to open Florida’s coast for more oil drilling if it meant winning approval for broad energy changes.

“My interest is in making sure we’ve got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,” Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

“If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage – I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done,” Obama said.

Off-shore drilling has become a push-button issue in the presidential campaign since Republican candidate John McCain announced his support to open more of the country’s coastline for drilling in order to reduce gas prices. Both candidates are campaigning in Florida today.

Obama has opposed exposing more coastline to drilling, saying that oil companies have not fully explored the areas open to drilling now and insisting that it would have little immediate impact on prices at the pump.

After speaking to a capacity crowd at Gibbs High School auditorium in St. Petersburg, he told the Post he would be open to expanding the current drilling boundaries if it meant winning approval for more fuel-efficient cars, developing alternative energy sources and making the country more “energy independent.”

“I think it’s important for the American people to understand we’re not going to drill our way out of this problem,” he said. … Read all.

Memeorandum.com links to several blog reports on this article.

Notable: None of the liberal blogs is referencing this article.

Here are two reports, from the A.P. and from Jennifer Rubin of Commentary Magazine:

Obama shifts, says he may back offshore drilling
By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer2 hours, 50 minutes ago

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that’s what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.

Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy. …. Read all.

From Jennifer Rubin, the sharp columnist for Commentary, in her story, “A Week Late“:

[...]

In a Florida newspaper interview he explained that he really had no objection to offshore drilling:

If it is part of an overarching package, then I am not going to be rigid in preventing an energy package that goes forward that is really thoughtful and is going to really solve the problem.

The report continues:

And what I’ve also said is, if people are expecting short-term relief because of offshore drilling, then they’re not going to find it because we won’t see a drop of oil for at least a decade.” Still, Obama’s willingness to go along with any new drilling off the U.S. coast is a marked shift from his previous statements. Earlier this summer, Obama sought to distinguish himself from GOP rival Sen. John McCain, who wants to lift a moratorium on offshore drilling.

There you go. The most important thing to remember about Obama? There is never a bottom line. On anything. He has a very low threshold for conflict with his base (or a very low tolerance for weathering politcal turbulence). So with enough time and enough political pressure he is likely to shift gears on just about anything. (The shifts always go in the direction of popular opinion, of course.) That’s why it was not hard to see this coming.

For people who are basing their votes on candidates’ positions on issues, they should be forewarned. Obama doesn’t really have any. Rather than positions, he has “pauses” along the political road where he briefly rests, makes speeches, and gains applause before one particular crowd and then moves on to the next position, effortlessly denying that anything different preceded it. And on he travels. The notion that he believes in any set agenda or fixed principles is, the words of Bill Clinton, a “fairytale.”