PBH / Off Topic: do your thing / Forums (active)

obama

If Barack Obama loses this election—and it is now looking quite possible that he will—there will be many causes. The primary reason can be stated in three words: "God damn America." Reverend Wright's imprecation against his own country solidified, in the minds of many voters, their suspicion that Obama's true sympathies lie with the anti-American far left, disqualifying him for the office of commander-in-chief.

But Obama has made many subsidiary mistakes, and Dick Morris identified one of them more than a week ago, in the article linked to below: the Democratic convention presented the argument against George W. Bush—instead of arguing against Obama's actual opponent.

Joe Lieberman called the Democrats on their equation of McCain with Bush, and McCain chose a vice-presidential running mate who reminds people of Reagan—Michael Reagan hails her as the reincarnation of his father—rather than Bush. So the Democrats' argument completely missed its target. As Morris put it, they were "shooting at the decoy, not the duck."

Obama's campaign has so far failed to correct this error. Faced with the Palin phenomenon, for example, the best Obama's main campaign advisor could manage was to claim that "She's a stalwart supporter of the policies that we have," and that "That's the issue in this race." If the Obama campaign thinks this race is a referendum on an outgoing president, and that all Obama has to do to win is to not be George W. Bush, then they are going to lose.

I should note, however, that the Republicans aren't doing a whole lot to deserve a victory either. I don't agree completely with the most recent column by Debra Saunders, but she has a point when she writes that the Republicans "made the convention too personal—too much about McCain, too little about his vision on how he would govern."

But Tom Bevan captures something correct about the nature of the campaign when he sums it up this way:

The Obama campaign wants to cast November 4th as a referendum on the last eight years under George W. Bush. Eighty percent of Americans feel the country is on the wrong track and McCain offers "more of the same," they argue.
The McCain campaign, on the other hand, wants November 4th to be a referendum on Barack Obama. He's a political celebrity with little experience, few accomplishments, questionable associations and no record of leadership, they say.

The Republicans are arguing against their actual opponent, while the Democrats are arguing against a candidate who is not on the ballot—and that is one of the reasons their candidate is losing.

"Dems' Big Blunder and McCain's Big Chance," Dick Morris, RealClearPolitics, August 28

Many political campaigns run against the wrong candidate. The opportunity to pick on a vulnerable target is so tempting that they are lured into attacking someone who isn't running.
In 1992, the Republicans unleashed their convention barrage at Hillary Clinton and left Bill unscathed. In 1996, Dole still ran against Clinton the liberal and ignored the changes in his political positioning. Campaigns go after the flaming red cape, so glittering a target, and leave the matador alone.

That's what the Democratic convention has been doing in Denver. They are so anxious to run against Bush, their animosity is so pent up, that they persist in running against a man who is not seeking a third term. In speech after speech, the Democrats knock the Bush record and then add, lamely, that GOP candidate Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) is the same as Bush. Or they call the McCain candidacy Bush's third term. It was no accident—or Freudian slip—when vice presidential nominee Sen. Joseph Biden (Del.) spoke of John Bush instead of George in his litany of attacks.

This pattern of shooting at the decoy, not the duck, gives McCain a bold strategic opportunity. He can nullify the impact of the entire Democratic convention simply by distancing himself from Bush.

By esanch36 on Sep 10, 2008, 06:13 in Off Topic.

aztec says on Sep 10, 2008, 08:27:

I have reminded my friends on the Left many times (even here) that George Bush cannot serve another term. He is not running for President.

In the last six months here much of the venom has been reserved for Bush. A casual reading of the posts will reveal their mistakes in not accurately accessing the political landscape.

The visceral hatred for Bush has blinded many on the Left and left them ill prepared to deal with political reality.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Sep 10, 2008, 11:54:

Wrong aztec.

I recognize that McCain is slightly better than Bush, but slightly won't do. He was at somewhat of a maverick at one time, but his voting record says it all. He has supported Bush over 90% of the time. He has yet to speak about his economic plan (not surprising considering he has admitted that he needs to be educated with respect to the economy). He claims to be the agent of change (a term lifted from the Democrats, what lack of originality and a superficial means of creating distance between his candidacy and the current administration). And I call BULLSHIT on that one. Nearly every aspect of his entire campaign is being handled by lobbyists (go figure) not to mention the fact that he has also enlisted the help of former Bush advisers and employees (including Rove). His voting record with respect to the military is horrendous. He has voted against providing our soldiers with adequate equipment and time off and he has voted against proper care and assistance for our veterans (even when almost everyone, democrats and republicans, have supported the bill). This is amazing considering he of all people should be supportive of the military. I am extremely sympathetic to what he endured in Vietnam, but the man's values also don't impress me. He was reckless, selfish and rebellious all of his life and we are supposed to believe that he came home from Vietnam a changed man. But this crippled man left his crippled wife because she was no longer a sexy little beauty queen. Instead of divorcing her, he cheats on her for a number of years with several women until he finds the blond bank account. Sorry, that does not mesh with the "small town values" that the Republicans are pitching. His stance on MLK Day, swearing it will never be observed as long as he had a say in the state only to have a change of heart (how many years later?) when he discovers he'll be running against an African American. Sorry, it's just a bit convenient. And now, he runs a completely false/misleading/disgusting ad claiming Obama supported a bill to teach kindergartners "comprehensive sex education" before they could "even read." Not only is this an outright lie, it is extremely offensive. Obama voted on the bill, he did not sponsor it. In addition, the bill allowed for "age appropriate" sex education and, MORE IMPORTANTLY, it allowed for teaching young children about tactics used by predators in order to protect them from such deviants. For McCain to spin this into something perverse is absolutely disgusting.

The last example reminds of something from a classic movie, All of the President's Men, a classic film starring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman. For those of you who don't know, it's a movie about the two journalists that exposed Nixon's involvement in the Watergate scandal. It's funny...in that case, the press was also criticized by the Republicans even though they Woodward and Bernstein were spot on. Nevertheless, it was the first time I ever heard the term, Ratfucking. Ratfucking is political sabotage and it usually involves dirty tricks (i.e. manipulating the facts of a bill that protects young children to make it appear that it perverts them in order to muddy the name of your opposition...or the swift boat ads). Donald Segretti, a Republican political operative who was trying to re-elect Nixon, is the one in the movie that explains Ratfucking and admits to its importance in their efforts. Ironically, I recently found out that Karl Rove was Segretti's protege during the 1972 Nixon campaign. Hilarious. Both sides engage in Ratfucking; however, the Republicans are Olympic level Ratfuckers and Rove is an All Star at the sport. And here we are in this campaign with yet another example of the depths that the Republicans are willing to sink to in order to try to raise their candidate above his opponent.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Sep 10, 2008, 12:22:

Well, tasco...McCain is not Bush. But he did support him over 90% of the time and that says something about McCain. And, as I pointed out above, he is being advised by Bush advisors...a strange move for someone who supposedly does not agree with the man. Clearly, Republicans do not want people associating the two; therefore, ignore the fact that McCain has supported Bush most of the time (yes, they have had their differences...not too many) and ignore the fact that he employees important figures from the Bush team. At least the article notes that McCain has spent the whole time talking about being locked in a box instead of focusing on things that actually matter in this election. And it is obvious why he would avoid such discussions, opting to play the sympathy card.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Sep 10, 2008, 12:26:

First paragraph is right out of the Democratic Party manual. Second paragraph is Hollywood.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Sep 10, 2008, 13:17:

"Well, tasco..."

What have I got to do with this thread?

Newsweek on Uribe: "he's delivered the trifecta of peace, security, and prosperity"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Sep 10, 2008, 13:20:

Your sentence is out of the Republican Party Manual.

1) Do us all a favor and explain how his voting record shows that he is radically different than Bush.

2) Do you deny that he has hired former Bush advisers? If so, do you mind if I mention some of their names? Oops!!! I already named one, but I could name more if you like.

3) Please demonstrate how McCain has demonstrated that he supports our military by way of his voting record.

4) Do you deny McCain's own admission that he cheated on his ex-wife and her admission that he left her because she was crippled and because he wanted to sleep around?

5) Do you deny that he was reckless and rebellious?

6) Do you deny that he was against MLK Day?

Part two: Hollywood

Sorry, aztec...you're terribly wrong on this one also.

Woodward and Bernstein (real journalists) are not Hollywood creations. Their praiseworthy work was responsible for the Washington Post (a real paper) winning the Pulitzer Prize (a real prize). The two compiled piles and piles of notes over their long investigation into the Watergate scandal and they also wrote hundreds of articles during the scandal, linking Nixon to the scandal (a real event). Again, articles that won a real award for the paper. They wrote a NON-FICTION book titled All of the Presidents Men about their investigation which was quickly turned into a movie. The movie has been praised up an down for its accuracy. Donald Segretti (a real political operative) did actually engage in Ratfucking (a real term used by Segretti) and perfected its use while participating with others in campus politics at USC (a real University). And it is widely known that Karl Rove (a real Ratfucker) was Segretti's protege during the Nixon campaign. This of course is not covered in the movie.

But please, if you think it was all just some fictitious Hollywood story, enlighten us all by explaining how you have come to such a conclusion.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Sep 10, 2008, 13:25:

Sorry tasco...I know you did not write the articles, you are just posting them. However, I assumed that you posted them because you agreed with them. And the article claims that it is somehow not appropriate to link McCain to Bush. I disagree given his voting record, though I recognize that their are some differences.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

esanch36 says on Sep 10, 2008, 13:28:

As for Senator Obama, his various pronouncements on foreign policy have been as immature as they have been presumptuous.

He talked publicly about taking military action against Pakistan, one of our few Islamic allies and a nation with nuclear weapons.

Barack Obama's first response to the Russian invasion of Georgia was to urge "all sides" to negotiate a cease-fire and take their issues to the United Nations. That is standard liberal talk, which even Obama had second thoughts about, after Senator John McCain gave a more grown-up response.

We should all have second thoughts about what is, and is not, foreign policy "experience."

0 funny, 1 helpful.

tasco66 says on Sep 10, 2008, 13:32:

Which article? I did not post anything on this thread?

Newsweek on Uribe: "he's delivered the trifecta of peace, security, and prosperity"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

pobrecito says on Sep 10, 2008, 13:42:

"We should all have second thoughts about what is, and is not, foreign policy "experience.""

Yes the experience of Iraq, the experience of sending 4000 young americans to the death ...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kalder says on Sep 10, 2008, 13:44:

Ratfucking?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Sep 10, 2008, 13:55:

esanch36: Great job of cutting and pasting without documenting your source. There is nothing wrong with agreeing with the words of another, but the least you could do is acknowledge that you are lifting the thoughts and ideas of someone else.

Calling Pakistan an ally is questionable, regardless of its nuclear arsenal or whether or not it is Islamic.

I seem to remember McCain claiming that Iran was training Al Qaeda several times before Lieberman whispered into his ear in order to correct him on his huge mistake. Then, he went and made the same mistake several more times...and this is all nicely documented on tape. Not to mention, he did not even realize that the leader of Iran was Ali Khamenei, and that the President of Iran was actually second in terms of power within the country. Strange mistakes for someone that has so much experience.

p.s. Cheney has a lot of experience. Rumsfeld has a lot of experience...and so on and so on.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

esanch36 says on Sep 10, 2008, 14:08:

thanks

0 funny, 0 helpful.

paulr says on Sep 10, 2008, 14:09:

Let the Daily show with Jon Stewart highlight a few things that half the country can´t see, why can´t they see what´s in front of their face?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=184108

"paulr threatens me with death !" pobrecito

0 funny, 0 helpful.

esanch36 says on Sep 10, 2008, 14:09:

Sr. Tertius?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Sep 10, 2008, 14:13:

You are welcome, esanch36.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Sep 10, 2008, 14:23:

kalder: yes, ratfucking.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Sep 10, 2008, 22:38:

esanch36: I guess others are concerned about Pakistan as well.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - "President George W. Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first time allow U.S. special forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the approval of the Pakistani government, The New York Times reported on Thursday.

The new orders reflect concern about safe havens for Al Qaeda and the Taliban inside Pakistan, as well as an American view that Pakistan lacks the will and ability to combat militants, the paper said.

'The situation in the tribal areas is not tolerable,' said a senior U.S. official who spoke to the Times on condition of anonymity. 'We have to be more assertive. Orders have been issued.'

The newspaper said the orders also illustrated lingering distrust of the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies and a belief some U.S. operations had been compromised once Pakistanis were advised of the details.

U.S. officials told the Times they would notify Pakistan when they conduct limited ground attacks like the Special Operations raid last week in a Pakistani village near the Afghanistan border, but they would not ask for its permission.

Pakistan army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani said on Wednesday Pakistan would not allow foreign troops to conduct operations on its soil.

'The sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country will be defended at all cost and no external force is allowed to conduct operations ... inside Pakistan,' a military statement quoted Kayani as saying.

A senior U.S. official told the Times the Pakistani government had assented privately to the general concept of limited ground assaults by U.S. forces against significant militant targets, but that it did not approve each mission.

The top U.S. military officer told Congress on Wednesday the military was not winning the fight against the insurgency in Afghanistan and said it would revise its strategy to combat militant safe havens in Pakistan.

'I'm not convinced we are winning it in Afghanistan. I am convinced we can,' Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a congressional committee nearly seven years after U.S.-led forces toppled the Taliban.

Mullen said he was 'looking at a new, more comprehensive strategy for the region' that would cover both sides of the border, including Pakistan's tribal areas.

Violence in Afghanistan has soared over the past two years as al Qaeda and Taliban fighters have regrouped in the remote region between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The United States has stepped up attacks against militant targets inside Pakistan this year with a series of missile strikes from unmanned drones and a raid by helicopter-borne U.S. commandos in recent days. The attacks have been denounced by Pakistani leaders."

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

pobrecito says on Sep 11, 2008, 01:16:

The numerous posts of esanch about Obama (a black) and his avatar against costenos (many black people) ("Soho de la Costa" with "10 razones para no trabajar") have a foul odor ...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

esanch36 says on Sep 11, 2008, 05:51:

Pobrecito shut up, go back to your hole....costenos arent only black they can be white, tan, whatever.....I have cousins that live on the cost and they make fun my other cousins that live in the city too.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

pobrecito says on Sep 11, 2008, 06:20:

Are your cousins black?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

esanch36 says on Sep 11, 2008, 06:27:

No they arent,,,but they are costenos. I have never said anything against blacks. Leave troll

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Sep 11, 2008, 06:28:

The French troll will never leave, maybe change ids, butter never will leave..

Newsweek on Uribe: "he's delivered the trifecta of peace, security, and prosperity"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

esanch36 says on Sep 11, 2008, 06:33:

i dont think this is cassini....this probrecito is really stupid..from what a remeber cassini was that dumb

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Sep 11, 2008, 09:06:

How Obama lost the election

DENVER - Senator Barack Obama's acceptance speech last week seemed vastly different from the stands of this city's Invesco Stadium than it did to the 40 million who saw it on television. Melancholy hung like thick smog over the reserved seats where I sat with Democratic Party staffers. The crowd, of course, cheered mechanically at the tag lines, flourished placards, and even rose for the obligat More..ory wave around the stadium. But its mood was sour. The air carried the acrid smell of defeat, and the crowd took shallow breaths. Even the appearance of R&B great Stevie Wonder failed to get the blood pumping.

The speech itself dragged on for three-quarters of an hour. As David S Broder wrote in the Washington Post: "[Obama's] recital of a long list of domestic promises could have been delivered bany Democratic nominee from Walter Mondale to John Kerry. There was no theme music to the speech and really no phrase or sentence that is likely to linger in the memory of any listener. The thing I never expected did in fact occur: Al Gore, the famously wooden former vice president, gave a more lively and convincing speech than Obama did."

On television, Obama's spectacle might have looked like The Ten Commandments, but inside the stadium it felt like Night of the Living Dead. The longer the candidate spoke, and the more money he promised to spend on alternative energy, preschool education, universal health care, and other components of the Democratic pinata, the lower the party professionals slouched into their seats. The professionals I sat with were Hillary Clinton people, to be sure, and had reason to sulk, for an Obama victory might do them little good in any event.

The Democrats were watching the brightest and most articulate presidential candidate they have fielded since John F Kennedy snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And this was before John McCain, in a maneuver worthy of Admiral Chester Nimitz at the Battle of Midway, turned tables on the Democrats' strategy with the choice of Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate.

Speaking to Obama supporters on the periphery of the big event, I was startled by the rapturous devotion elicited by the junior senator from Illinois. He is no symbol for identity politics, no sacrifice on the altar of white guilt, but the most gifted persuader of individuals that I have encountered in any country's politics, as well as a powerful orator on the grand stage. This is not a crowd phenomenon nor a fad, but the response of hundreds of people to an individual.

I sat in on a session with three leaders of Veterans for Obama, a group of retired young officers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan, courtesy of the New Republic's writer on the scene, David Samuels. With passion and enthusiasm, these young people spoke of their hopes for nation-building in Iraq. The George W Bush administration should have put twice the resources into the beleaguered country, they harangued me - not just soldiers, but agronomists, traffic cops, lawyers, judges, and physicians. The Department of Agriculture should have mobilized, along with the Department of Justice.

Nation-building? Doubling down on the US commitment to Iraq? Isn't that trying to out-Bush the Bush administration, while Obama campaigned on getting out of Iraq and spending the money on programs at home? Unblinking, one of the soldiers said, "That's what we think Barack will do." They believed in a more expensive version of the administration's program, and faulted Bush for half measures - and somehow they believed that Obama really agreed with them, all the public evidence to the contrary. And they believed in Barack with perfect faith.

Gandalf's warnings about the irresistible voice of the wizard Saruman in J R R Tolkien's Lord of the Rings come to mind. If these battle-hardened veterans of America's wars fell so easily under the spell of Obama's voice, who can withstand it? Obama's persuasive powers, though, are strongest when channeled through the empathy of his interlocutor. Everyone believes that Obama feels his pain, shares his dream, and will fight his fight and heal his ills. But that is everyone as an individual. Add all the individuals up into a campaign platform, and it turns into three-quarters of an hour worth of promises that echo all the ghosts of conventions past.

Obama will spend the rest of his life wondering why he rejected the obvious road to victory, that is, choosing Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential nominee. However reluctantly, Clinton would have had to accept. McCain's choice of vice presidential candidate made obvious after the fact what the party professionals felt in their fingertips at the stadium extravaganza yesterday: rejecting Clinton in favor of the colorless, unpopular, tangle-tongued Washington perennial Joe Biden was a statement of weakness. McCain's selection was a statement of strength. America's voters will forgive many things in a politician, including sexual misconduct, but they will not forgive weakness.

That is why McCain will win in November, and by a landslide, barring some unforeseen event. Obama is the most talented and persuasive politician of his generation, the intellectual superior of all his competitors, but a fatally insecure personality. American voters are not intellectual, but they are shrewd, like animals. They can smell insecurity, and the convention stank of it. Obama's prospective defeat is entirely of its own making. No one is more surprised than Republican strategists, who were convinced just weeks ago that a weakening economy ensured a Democratic victory.

Biden, who won 3% of the popular vote in the Democratic presidential primary in his home state of Delaware, and 1% or less in every other contest he entered, is ballot-box poison. Obama evidently chose him to assuage critics who point to his lack of foreign policy credentials. That was a deadly error, for by appearing to concede the critics' claim that he knows little about foreign policy, Obama raised questions about whether he is qualified to be president in the first place. He had a winning alternative, which was to pick Clinton. That would have sent a double message: first, that Obama is tough enough to make the slippery Clintons into his subordinates, and second, that he is generous enough to extend a hand to his toughest adversary in the cause of unity.

Why didn't Obama choose Hillary? The most credible explanation came from veteran columnist Robert Novak May 10, who reports that Michelle Obama vetoed Hillary's candidacy. "The Democratic front-runner's wife did not comment on other rival candidates for the party's nomination, but she has been sniping at Clinton since last summer. According to Obama sources, those public utterances do not reveal the extent of her hostility," Novak wrote. If that is true, then Obama succumbed to the character weakness I described in a February 26 profile of (Obama's women reveal his secret). His peculiar dependency on an assertive and often rancorous spouse, I argued, made him vulnerable, and predicted that Obama "will destroy himself before he destroys the country".

Alternately, Obama might have chosen a rising Democratic star like Virginia's 50-year-old governor Tim Kaine. A weaker choice than Hillary, Kaine (or someone like him) would have made a bold statement of self-confidence. Obama could have said with credibility that he would bring to Washington a new generation of outsiders who would change the old system. Instead, Obama saddled an old and unpopular Washington warhorse.

Curiously, Obama ignored the rising stars of his own party, offering the prime time speaking slots to familiar faces, including Senator Edward Kennedy and Bill and Hillary Clinton, as well as his own wife, the first prospective First Lady to take the keynote spot in the history of American party conventions.

McCain doesn't have a tenth of Obama's synaptic fire-power, but he is a nasty old sailor who knows when to come about for a broadside. Given Obama's defensive, even wimpy selection of a running-mate, McCain's choice was obvious. He picked the available candidate most like himself: a maverick with impeccable reform credentials, a risk-seeking commercial fisherwoman and huntress married to a marathon snowmobile racer who carries a steelworkers union card. The Democratic order of battle was to tie McCain to the Bush administration and attack McCain by attacking Bush. With Palin on the ticket, McCain has re-emerged as the maverick he really is.

The young Alaskan governor, to be sure, hasn't any business running for vice president of the United States with her thin resume. McCain and his people know this perfectly well, and that is precisely why they put her on the ticket. If Palin is unqualified to be vice president, all the less so is Obama qualified to be president.

McCain has certified his authenticity for the voters. He's now the outsider, the reformer, the maverick, the war hero running next to the Alaskan amazon with a union steelworker spouse. Obama, who styled himself an agent of change, took his image for granted, and attempted to ensure himself victory by doing the cautious thing. He is trapped in a losing position, and there is nothing he can do to get out of it.

Obama, in short, is long on brains and short on guts. A Shibboleth of American politics holds that different tactics are required to win the party primaries as opposed to the general election, that is, by pandering to fringe groups with disproportionate influence in the primaries. But Obama did not compromise himself with extreme positions. He did not have to, for younger voters who greeted him with near-religious fervor did not require that he take any position other than his promise to change everything. Obama could have allied with the old guard, through an Obama-Clinton ticket, or he could have rejected the old guard by choosing the closest thing the Democrats had to a Sarah Palin. But fear paralyzed him, and he did neither.

In my February 26 profile, I called Obama "the political equivalent of a sociopath", without any derogatory intent. A sociopath seeks the empathy of all around him while empathizing with no one. Obama has an almost magical ability to gain the confidence of those around him. Perhaps it was the adaptation of a bright and sensitive young boy who was abandoned by three parents - his Kenyan father Barack Obama Sr, who left his pregnant young bride; his Indonesian stepfather Lolo Soetero; and by his mother, Ann Dunham, who sent 10-year-old Obama to live with her parents while she pursued her career as an anthropologist.

Combine a child's response to serial abandonment with the perspective of an outsider, and Obama became an alien species against which American politics had no natural defenses. He is a Third World anthropologist profiling Americans, in but not of the American system. No country's politics depends more openly on friendships than America's, yet Obama has not a single real friend, for he rose so fast that all his acquaintances become rungs on the ladder of his ascent. One human relationship crowds the others out of his life, his marriage to Michelle, a strong, assertive and very angry woman.

If Novak's report is accurate, then Michelle's anger will have lost the election for Obama, as Achilles' anger nearly killed the Greek cause in the Trojan War. But the responsibility rests not with Michelle, but with Obama. Obama's failure of nerve at the cusp of his success is consistent with my profile of the candidate, in which I predicted that he would self-destruct. It's happening faster than I expected. As I wrote last February:

It is conceivable that Barack Obama, if elected, will destroy himself before he destroys the country. Hatred is a toxic diet even for someone with as strong a stomach as Obama ... Both Obama and the American public should be very careful of what they wish for. As the horrible example of Obama's father shows, there is nothing worse for an embittered outsider manipulating the system from within than to achieve his goals.

By all rights, the Democrats should win this election. They will lose, I predict, because of the flawed character of their candidate.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JI03Aa02.html

Newsweek on Uribe: "he's delivered the trifecta of peace, security, and prosperity"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

pobrecito says on Sep 11, 2008, 09:17:

What a verbal diarrhea as usually.

0 funny, 0 helpful.