Next month, I will mark 4 years blogging about politics, culture, government, and the human comedy/tragedy that one finds on the internet – specifically liberals and their never ending quest to redefine terms and twist language, making it a willing servant to their political agenda.

I am not one of those purists who started to blog in order to “have a conversation with myself” or “seek to know myself better.” I have never made any bones about the fact that I see this blog as a stepping stone to making money as a writer. In this, I have been somewhat successful thanks to those of you who have stuck with me through everything – all my apostasy, my curmudgeonly moods, my lame attempts at satire or humor, and my contrariness on many issues on which we have come to disagree.

Beyond anything I could have imagined, this blog has become an extraordinarily personal undertaking. I suppose that’s because writing is a very personal craft – a curse and blessing for which I had no clue 4 years ago when I started. I am blessed because many a fine folk have been supportive, encouraging, unstinting in their praise, and solicitous when I screw up – a happenstance that occurs far more often than I care to remember.

If my blog attracted only those who usually agreed with me and thought I was the bee’s knees when it came to commentary, blogging would be a marvelous daily exercise. But there is another side to blogging that most of us never talk about; the relentless, daily pounding of negativism, hurtful epithets, and outright spewing hatred that arrives in the form of comments and emails from the other side as well as other blogs linking and posting on something I’ve written.

We all like to think of ourselves as having thick skins and that such criticism rolls off our backs and never affects us. This is the macho element in blogging, one of its more unattractive and dishonest aspects. In this, some of us feel obligated to give back in kind, something I have done on too many occasions to count. Yes, I regret it. And believe me, I have often been the initiator of such ugliness.

Still, there are many bloggers on both the right and left who shame me with their equanimity in the face of the most virulent and nasty personal attacks. Ed Morrissey comes to mind on the right. The folks at Crooked Timber and Obsidian Wings on the left are generally cool in the face of such criticism as well.

But this is not a confessional post where I recognize my sins and ask forgiveness. I am what I am and doubt I will change. Rather, it is my intent to highlight the fact that despite my predilection for using violent language in my defense or to ridicule my political opponents, I have always granted them a certain rough integrity in their beliefs – that they are wrongheaded not evil; that they are arrogant and stupid, not unpatriotic or that they hate America.

If I have ever crossed that line (and I can’t think of an occasion where I have) then I do, in fact, regret it. Because in the give and take of political combat, things are often said that are not meant to respond to argument but rather to inflict pain. In this, I am as human as the next person and am not immune to being wounded by those who attack my integrity, honesty, character, and especially my writings even as I try and parry the thrusts in much the same way.

This is to be expected when dishing out as much sarcastic bile as I have poured on to this website the last 4 years. As a former leftist, I know exactly where the soft spots are, where to hit below the belt and make it hurt. Politics is a full contact sport and this kind of combat is not the “old politics” or the “new politics.” It is simply politics as it has been practiced and will continue to be practiced as long as free people are free to assemble in a free country.

I think a cracking good argument can be made that politics is much more civilized today than it was 50 or 100 years ago. Nevertheless, there is an element to political debate that is present today that was not present back then. And that is the deliberate misinterpretation of intent by the left in many conservative critiques of liberal dogma that has led us to this unhappy point in American history where any criticism levelled at a black Democratic candidate will eventually be deliberately misconceived (or stupidly misconstrued) as an attack on his race.

Allah at Hot Air has been all over the issue of the left deliberately twisting the intent and meaning of criticism of Obama to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion that the attack is racially motivated and, by extension, the attackers are racists.

Goldstein has written a book on his blog over the years in intentionalism and the deliberate rebranding and redefinition of terms and language in order to either cut off debate entirely or redefine the debate by surrendering logic and reason and buying into a false narrative created by the left that gives them the advantage. Goldstein shows how this is especially true in identity politics and how the rank dishonesty of deconstructionism has poisoned political debate.

There is little original thought I can add to either of those excellent critiques so I would like to explore this phenomena on a more personal level. Every anti-Obama post I’ve written on this site or anywhere else has elicited several comments alluding to me as a racist or implying that my criticism is racially motivated. All conservative bloggers have gotten this treatment to one degree or another so I am not alone in experiencing this. It doesn’t matter whether I am serious in my criticism or not. The de facto conclusion reached by these commenters is that the very act of criticizing Obama and that I don’t want him to be president can only mean one thing; it is the candidate’s race that is my primary motivation for opposing him.

As I mention above, I play pretty rough with my political opponents and make no apologies for doing so. And if calling me a racist was done as a regular part of the internet mud wrestling that goes on I wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.

But the intent of branding me with the scarlet “R” of racist is not simply to inflict pain but rather to stifle and cut off debate. There is no answer I can give to the charge, no proof I can offer, no words that would prove otherwise. The charge simply hangs there, tarring me and discrediting what I write in the minds of some who, although fair minded about most things, might buy into the liberal narrative and wonder if subconsciously I am some kind of closet klansman.

Denials only give credence to the charge. Having to disavow you are a racist gives the battle to your opponent because anything you might say to defend yourself can be twisted and deliberately misconstrued as more evidence of racism. On the other hand, silence denotes assent in many people’s minds so not saying anything is as good as being forced to walk around wearing that scarlet “R” on your bodice.

This is not a question of whining about the unfairness of it all. I am pointing out a fact relevant to the debating of issues in this campaign and the relative merits of the two candidates. It is something Allah has pointed out with some heat and scathing criticism as he did in the post I linked above where David Gergen was caught making the same patently ridiculous charge about McCain’s “celebrity” ad being filled with codes and hidden meanings about Obama’s race:

In which the single dumbest, most paranoid racial charge of the campaign is recycled on national television by a former presidential advisor and current Harvard professor. I said it before but it bears repeating: If you take this logic to its conclusion, there’s literally no non-racist way to accuse a member of a minority group of having an outsized ego. Any synonym you can conjure – elitist, arrogant, “megalomaniac narcissist” (to quote Hitchens) – can all happily be dismissed as “code,” regardless of whether the subject might in fact (a) display his very own presidential seal, (b) be known to describe rural voters in terms that call to mind Cletus the slackjawed yokel on “The Simpsons,” and© oh, by the way, lead his very own cult with himself as godhead.

George Will makes a point I made myself last week, that the irony of all these bad-faith charges of racism is that most of the GOP’s knocks on Obama’s ego are straight out of the playbook they used against “haughty, French-looking Democrat” John Kerry. Granted, there was no “Moses” ad for Waffles, but that’s because most people hated him; Obama is adored to an absurdly iconic extent, especially vis-a-vis his actual accomplishments (in Lindsey Graham’s words, “fame without portfolio”), which is why he gets goofed on as leading people to the Promised Land whereas Kerry got the windsurfer treatment. (Although there are plenty of goofs on Obama along the same dorky windsurfer lines to be found if you look around.) The real “tell” here, though, is what Gergen offers as further evidence to support his point – that McCain, when asked about affirmative action, said he opposes quotas. A perfectly mainstream conservative position, and certainly one McCain would also hold if he was facing Hillary, but because he’s facing Obama McCain’s no longer allowed to talk about it.

Getting back to the personal, beyond the political tactic there is a psychic cost born by the target of such attacks. The towering injustice of the situation is extraordinarily frustrating. But that is the commenter’s intent – to checkmate his opponent and either provoke a wild response or have the charge go unanswered and thus win the argument.

Those who accuse all liberals of being unpatriotic or un-American perhaps have no cause to grumble when an equally malicious lie like “racist” is directed at them. But having such an epithet tossed in my direction – especially as it has been done recently – I find to be reflective of a mindset that is terrified of open debate and thus resorts to twisting semantics in order to obscure a flawed critique. They can’t argue the issues so the magic word is applied and debate instantly ceases.

As I have written since the beginning of the campaign, this tactic will be hauled out at regular intervals and used to great effect. Allah might be able to define it. Goldstein might be able to analyze and critique its psychological underpinnings and origins.

But they can’t stop it nor can they mitigate its effects. It is the major reason we can’t have an intelligent discussion about race in this campaign or at any time. And the fault, dear lefties, lies not in the stars but with you.

I know it is not politically correct to say that Obama “creeps me out.” That’s because immediately after uttering such blasphemy, our friends on the left would put me on the couch and matter of factly inform me that I am suffering from “The White American Disease” and recommend a torturous rehabilitation that would include watching 6 hours a day of “Blaxploitation” films and continuous viewings of Roots in order to inculcate the proper amount of white guilt and outrage directed against white males into my racist psyche.

That’s fine. Just don’t include the execrable remake of Shaft in with the bunch. I much prefer the original with Richard Roundtree as the title character. Now that brother was kewl. He oozed class. And when it came to getting back at the man, he had no equal – all others were pale imitations. Samuel L. Jackson may be a better actor. But he’s something of a nerd, isn’t he? Roundtree, despite not being a gifted thespian, was anything but a nerd.

Anyway, this was a hard list to compile, especially since I didn’t want to get into his physical appearance. I understand he’s very healthy and works out all the time but good Lord, can’t we put some meat on the poor guy? He makes Jack Sprat look like Arne. No doubt there is a standing rule in the Obama campaign that absolutely, under no circumstances, is the candidate to be photographed next to a bean pole.

People can’t help how they look so perhaps it’s best we not include any physical attributes in this creep out list. Besides, Obama’s most obvious distinguishing physical characteristic is hard to miss. Lots of people have commented on it and been chastised for their shallowness. Considering how it dominates his appearance, it is strange that he never did anything to lessen its impact.

No, dummy. I’m talking about his ears.

TOP TEN THINGS THAT CREEP ME OUT ABOUT OBAMA

10. It creeps me out that whenever Obama makes an appearance, the rain stops falling and the sun comes out. As a rationalist I am loathe to ascribe a direct cause and effect to this phenomenon except that it happens quite frequently and the rainbow created by the sun breaking through the clouds spells out “Yes We Can!”

Probably just a coincidence…

9. It creeps me out that there are about twice as many women at Obama rallies as there are men. Now I am not of the Melvin Udall School of anti-feminist thought (when asked how he writes women so well, Udall responds “I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability”). But what is one to think when watching the reaction of females as Obama is speaking? I’m sorry, but it is hard to imagine a man covering their mouth, chest heaving, barely able to contain himself and then ooooohing and aaaaaahhing when the messiah says something particularly vapid and innocuous.

Elvis, I can understand. But a politician?

8. It creeps me out that the press seems hypnotized by this guy. Grown men and women blubbering like babes when talking about how exciting he is, how mesmerizing he is when he speaks. It’s as if “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” has come to life and the pods have been placed in every newsroom in America. It isn’t just Crissy Mathews and MSNBC. It’s news anchors at CNN, reporters for Time and Newsweek, editorial writers at WaPo and the New York Times. Big media is in the tank for this guy in a big way. They have thrown off all semblance of fairness (never mind objectivity) and just don’t care that people know they are in Obama’s corner. They can’t be shamed into changing. They evidently won’t be deflected from doing their best to elect Obama.

This kind of thing causes the hairs on the back of my neck to prick up – like walking through a graveyard at midnight. It is just plain creepy – no other word for it.

7. It creeps me out that Obama’s rhetoric about America is so apocalyptic. It is “the worst” this or “the most” that. He is a serial exaggerator – so much so it would be impossible for anyone to debunk all of his outrageous “doom and gloom” claims.

And what’s really, really creepy is that after addressing this litany of horrific evils perpetrated by Bush and the Republicans, he holds himself up as just the man to fix everything. If the United States were as bad as he describes it, no sane person would want to live there. And yet, Obama will ride to the rescue and “restore” America.

Shining knights on white horses riding to save us is one thing – we’ve seen that before many times in American politics. But Obama’s powers extend beyond Coolidge’s Hoover’s promise of a “chicken in every pot” to a promise to heal the souls of America and Americans.

I don’t know what’s creepier. The candidate saying it or his supporters believing it.

6. It creeps me out that with the exception of most conservatives, Obama’s radical associations and radical past – including his being on a first name basis with an unreconstructed terrorist – doesn’t seem to bother many people. What am I missing here? When Obama makes an actual political alliance with a radical Maoist organization like The New Party, going so far as to attending their meetings and recruiting their members to work on his state senate campaign, why is there no call for the candidate to explain himself? Nor has there been any effort – save a couple of scattered stories in the National Review and elsewhere that detail Obama’s association with the radical group ACORN.

It’s as if the entire “Obama movement,” made up mostly of good, mainstream Democrats, is so in thrall to the candidate that they can’t see the warning signs of this fellow’s true radicalism. They dismiss his past by simply pointing to the here and now and saying “See? He really is a moderate kind of guy after all.” We don’t know that because no one has ever – ever – asked him to explain why he sought the endorsement of a radical communist group when running for the state senate and why he associated himself with the radical group ACORN.

Beyond creepy. Truly scary…

5. Has there ever been a creepier presidential hopeful’s spouse than Michelle Obama? She actually said this to a political gathering last February: “Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”

Rarely has there been a creepier utterance by a major candidate for president or his spouse (Ron Paul has said some very, very creepy things). This one set off alarm bells in my head the moment I heard it. It elicited the question that many of us who oppose this guy have been asking more and more frequently lately.

Just who in the hell does this guy think he is? “Require” us to do what? “Demand” what? Besides coming off sounding like Evita Peron, Michelle Obama has a very weird view of the art of politics which works by persuasion and not by compulsion.

That one registers a 8.5 on the Creepy-O-Meter.

4. It creeps me out that Obama continues to speak as if he is president already and that the election is some mere formality that if he had his druthers, we could do without. His use of the royal “we” is very weird as well. Jack Tapper of ABC News noticed the same thing about Obama and his staff. Just one example of many: During an interview with ABC’s Nightline, he said he “wouldn’t be doing my job as Commander in Chief” if he just did whatever the generals said in Iraq. Obviously, it is not his job. And this is not the only example as Tapper points out in that Newsbusters piece.

A couple of times where the candidate falls into the mental state of what he would do as president and referring to himself as already elected would be understandable. Obama does it all the time and is seemingly unaware of how it makes him appear.

3. I find it very creepy that Obama removed the American flag at the back of his plane and replaced it with a great big “O?” Tell me that doesn’t creep you out. The flag and the “O” would be just fine. But why remove the flag?

Judging by the way he has flip flopped all over the place on the flag pin mess (which I believe is a non-issue whether or not he wears it but the flip flopping is of legitimate concern) it should call into question just what this guy believes. Again, warning bells should be going off in everyone’s head and either the press is too cowed to ask him questions about it or they just don’t care.

2. I can’t believe every American wasn’t creeped out by Obama’s fake presidential seal that he featured for exactly one day at a conference of governors. This story actually gave me a slight feeling of panic wondering if this guy is a megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur or…what? I couldn’t think of another reason any candidate would have the audacity of overweening pride and destructive ambition to create, approve, and then display such an artifact. Did someone bother to ask the candidate what he was thinking when he approved the use of that seal?

I thought not. The press may not have liked the answer.

1. The number one thing about Obama that creeps me out is the ease and comfort with which he lies. All politicians lie. Presidential candidates lie more than other politicians. But Obama’s lies are brazen and breathtaking. His explanation for why he allowed his kids to be interviewed by “Entertainment Tonight” was so ridiculous as to be a parody of the truth. But he was allowed to get away with it because the venues he chose to “explain” his demonstration of parental stupidity were friendly or, as in the case of Good Morning America, hardly a news outlet at all.

Presidents lie all the time. They do so for a variety of reasons – mostly to save their political hides. But Obama lies as a matter of course and has a familiarity with the practice the begs for an explanation. Krauthammer thinks it’s ego. He sums up everything that creeps me out about Obama here:

Obama may think he’s King Canute, but the good king ordered the tides to halt precisely to refute sycophantic aides who suggested that he had such power. Obama has no such modesty.

After all, in the words of his own slogan, “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” which, translating the royal “we,” means: “I am the one we’ve been waiting for.” Amazingly, he had a quasi-presidential seal with its own Latin inscription affixed to his podium, until general ridicule—it was pointed out that he was not yet president—induced him to take it down

He lectures us that instead of worrying about immigrants learning English, “you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish”—a language Obama does not speak. He further admonishes us on how “embarrassing” it is that Europeans are multilingual but “we go over to Europe, and all we can say is, ‘merci beaucoup.’” Obama speaks no French.

His fluent English does, however, feature many such admonitions, instructions and improvements. His wife assures us that President Obama will be a stern taskmaster: “Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism … that you come out of your isolation. ... Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”

For the first few months of the campaign, the question about Obama was: Who is he? The question now is: Who does he think he is?

We are getting to know. Redeemer of our uninvolved, uninformed lives. Lord of the seas. And more. As he said on victory night, his rise marks the moment when “our planet began to heal.” As I recall—I’m no expert on this—Jesus practiced his healing just on the sick. Obama operates on a larger canvas.

I try to laugh and make fun of the candidate’s hubris, the wild eyed, gyrating women who nearly swoon when he speaks, the supporters who walk and talk as if they were programmed – but my heart is rapidly losing the desire to make sport of this situation. Unless he shoots himself in his own foot, this man is going to be the next president of the United States.

And that, dear subscribers, is the creepiest thing of all.

This post also appears at The American Thinker

It should be obvious by now that our liberal friends in Hollywood responsible for writing jokes for late night hosts, talk shows, and especially the Comedy Central icons John Stewart and Stephen Colbert are having a tremendous amount of difficulty coming up with nasty, belittling, supercilious bon mots to direct at Barack Obama – the same kind of material they routinely create to lampoon conservatives and Republicans.

Quite simply, they are stuck. They have writers block. They are caught between the rock of political correctness and the hard place of partisan hackery and don’t have a clue how to escape.

Joe Harwood of the New York Times defined their dilemma on Joe Scarborough’s show the other day after the host skewered the comedy writers for being wusses when it came to criticizing Democrats and Obama:

SCARBOROUGH: I just—I never want to hear anybody from ‘The Daily Show’ or any of these other shows ever saying again, ‘We speak truth to power.’ ‘Cause you know what they do? They speak truth to Republicans. Republicans are funny. They have been idiots and jackasses over the past seven years. But, please, don’t be subversive, because you’re not. Because you’re a hack. You’re a hack for the Democratic Party and you only tell jokes about one side. BRZEZINSKI: Joe—No, this is not about being in the tank.

SCARBOROUGH: They’re hacks!

BRZEZINSKI: You’re unbelievable!

HARWOOD: No. Well, but hold on a second. I don’t think they are hacks for the Democratic Party. People write about what’s funny to them. And the stuff that’s funny to them is, is the stuff that comes out of what they see that they want to make fun of from Republicans. That’s what—It’s in the same way that if you are a columnist or if you are a commentator, it’s much easier to whack the other side than to be sharp about your own side.

Harwood is an idiot. I have absolutely no trouble lampooning conservatives or Republicans for that matter. What it takes is something that most liberals in Hollywood simply don’t have.

One single independent brain cell in working order.

Beyond Harwood’s idiocy, how about Scarborough’s liberal co-host saying that the reason we don’t hear Obama jokes is because, well, there’s nothing funny about him:

BRZEZINSKI: But I really think you are missing a bigger problem here or challenge, however you want to put it, for comedy writers or for satirists, I hope I’m using the right word there. But my point is that there are layers of what’s politically correct and layers of what potentially could incite the wrong things. When have you a candidate who is black and who has a name people have made fun of and have bad information on the internet on, I think there are layers here that present really great challenges.

“Great challenges?” Are you fricking kidding me? Obama is a walking talking joke book waiting to happen. You could compile an encyclopedia of humor just about the size of his ears. His stick like frame should be made fun of early and often.

And oh my God what some classic comedians would have done with “Obama-worship.” Saturday Night Live’s skits only scratched the surface. There’s comedy gold in them thar worshipful minions that we have yet to see realized in any comedy format.

Plus, it should be obvious to anyone by now simply noting Obama’s reaction to The New Yorker cover that the man possesses the sense of humor of a Tapir. And the creepy way he talks about himself and his movement along with incidents like the “Obama Almost Presidential Seal” all should be supplying plenty of fodder for comedy writers without coming anywhere near any kind of line that would even hint at his race, or his name, or anything else.

Q.What’s the difference between Obama and Dumbo?A. Dumbo hasn’t flip flopped on FISA reform.

Or

Q. What’s the difference between Obama and a string bean?

A. A string bean isn’t a dangerous far left liberal who hangs around with radicals, crooks, and terrorists.

I know readers of this site can do better than that. And I’m prepared to put my money where my mouth is to prove it.

ANNOUNCING THE RIGHT WING NUTHOUSE OBAMA JOKEFEST!

That’s right. You can assist our liberal friends in Hollywood while breaking new ground in comedy history by coming up with jokes, humorous anecdotes, limericks, or one liners all directed towards the Democratic nominee for president Barack Obama.

SUBMISSIONS

Submissions can be in the form of written comments to this post as well as the official contest post I will be putting up later today. Or, I would actually prefer recorded jokes submitted as an attachment to an email. That’s because the best of the lot will be read or played on a special edition of The Rick Moran Show on Blog Talk Radio this coming Sunday at 6:00 PM Central Time.

PRIZES

First Prize – $25.00 Gift Card

Second Prize – $10.00 Gift Card

Third Place – $5 gift Card

DEADLINE

Deadline for entry is noon central time on Sunday.

Send sound files in MP3 or Windows Media audio format only. Attach to email sent to this address.

elvenstar522-at-AOL-dot-com.

It wasn’t exactly a highlight of Barack Obama’s rather uninspiring speech on national security the candidate gave in Washington on Tuesday. But buried under the interminable rhetoric on how the candidate, once president, will be able to wave his magic wand (or perhaps wiggle his nose like Jeannie) and conjure up coalitions of allies to deal with this problem or that (even getting Iran and Syria to cooperate on Iraqi security which would be a magic trick worthy of Merlin), there was a shocking admission by Mr. Obama that he and his Democratic colleagues had been wrong about Iraq for years.

For the first time since the Iraq war began, a Democratic leader uttered the “V” word and “Iraq” in the same sentence. That’s right; Obama called for “victory” in Iraq:

At some point, a judgment must be made. Iraq is not going to be a perfect place, and we don’t have unlimited resources to try to make it one. We are not going to kill every al Qaeda sympathizer, eliminate every trace of Iranian influence, or stand up a flawless democracy before we leave – General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker acknowledged this to me when they testified last April. That is why the accusation of surrender is false rhetoric used to justify a failed policy. In fact, true success in Iraq – victory in Iraq – will not take place in a surrender ceremony where an enemy lays down their arms. True success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future – a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge. That is an achievable goal if we pursue a comprehensive plan to press the Iraqis stand up.

The candidate actually defines the terms of “success” and “victory.” Why is this significant.

Because last year, Barack Obama declared the war a failure and unwinnable:

Senator Barack Obama said Tuesday that even if the military escalation in Iraq was showing limited signs of progress, efforts to stabilize the country had been a “complete failure” and American troops should not be entangled in the sectarian strife.

“No military surge, no matter how brilliantly performed, can succeed without political reconciliation and a surge of diplomacy in Iraq and the region,” Mr. Obama said. “Iraq’s leaders are not reconciling. They are not achieving political benchmarks.”

This is at the time Obama was calling for “an immediate withdrawal” of all American troops without consulting the Iraqis, the generals on the ground, or anyone else he says today that he “has always said” he would consult:

“Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was,” Obama said in excerpts of the speech provided to the Associated Press.

“The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year — now,” the Illinois senator says.

A strange part of his definition of “victory” that he stated in his Tuesday speech sounds a lot like retreat before complete victory is achieved:”

To achieve that success, I will give our military a new mission on my first day in office: ending this war. Let me be clear: we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — one year after Iraqi Security Forces will be prepared to stand up; two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, we’ll keep a residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq: targeting any remnants of Al-Qaeda; protecting our service members and diplomats; and training and supporting Iraq’s Security Forces, so long as the Iraqis make political progress.

We will make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy — that is what any responsible commander-in-chief must do. As I have consistently said, I will consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government. We will redeploy from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We will commit $2 billion to a meaningful international effort to support the more than 4 million displaced Iraqis. We will forge a new coalition to support Iraq’s future — one that includes all of Iraq’s neighbors, and also the United Nations, the World Bank, and the European Union — because we all have a stake in stability. And we will make it clear that the United States seeks no permanent bases in Iraq.

“Achieve success” by “ending this war?” This kind of disconnect from reality reminds me of the new Soviet government in 1917 simply declaring the war was over and marching off the battlefield. They did this because their negotiations with the Germans were becoming all to real with the Kaiser demanding huge chunks of Soviet territory and crippling war reparations.

The Germans watched in amazement as more than 3 million Russian troops abandoned their positions and started the long trek home. Not quite believing their good fortune, the Germans were, at first, rather cautious. But once they realized the Soviets were retreating, they quickly advanced and turned the retreat into a rout. After pushing hundreds of miles into Russia bagging huge numbers of Russian soldiers as prisoners in the process, the Soviets realized their mistake and meekly returned to the bargaining table, giving the Kaiser virtually everything he wanted.

Drawing an historical parallel with Iraq using the Soviet-German history during World War I is probably not fair since al-Qaeda and the Shia militias can no way be compared to the German army on the Eastern front in 1917.

But where I think the analogy is apt is in positing that both the terrorists and the militias will be strengthened considerably by a withdrawal more beholden to some timeline than events on the ground. Since the candidate can’t seem to make up his mind whether he wants to pander to his base by eschewing consultation or whether he wants to pander to rational voters by including such caveats with his timeline, we just don’t know. On Tuesday at least, he was for consultation and for making “tactical adjustments” if necessary.

What if Obama had talked of “victory” and “tactical adjustments” and “consulting generals” during the primary campaign? Sure is a far cry from “immediate withdrawal,” although perhaps he meant he would withdraw the troops immediately after we felt we had achieved victory? I daresay if he had breathed the word “victory” during his contest with Hillary Clinton, he would have been hooted off the stage.

That’s because both legislative leaders of the Democratic party declared the war “lost” more than a year ago. First, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on 4/20/07:

“I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and – you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows – (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday,” said Reid, D-Nev.

And here’s Nancy Pelosi on 2/10/08:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said twice Sunday that Iraq “is a failure,” adding that President Bush’s troop surge has “not produced the desired effect.”

“The purpose of the surge was to create a secure time for the government of Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq,” Pelosi said on CNN’s “Late Edition.” “They have not done that.”

So has Obama in effect, repudiated the two most powerful leaders in the legislative branch of his own party?

You bet he has. Since neither Reid nor Pelosi have seen fit to come forward and admit that they were spectacularly wrong in their assessment of Iraq, Obama has hung them – and most of the rest of his own party – out to dry. He has redefined the goals in Iraq – albeit incoherently – by stipulating that “success” and “victory” were now the aims of American policy and not withdrawal and defeat which is still the de facto position of the netroots and the far left Moveon crowd.

Why no one has noticed this in the media is probably due to the fact that now we are enjoying a modicum of success in Iraq on all fronts, the political fruits of victory will be spread around to somehow include Democrats. It is impossible to give George Bush and his mostly conservative war supporters all the credit despite the defeatist and obstructionist policies carried on for most of the war by their political opponents. It would be inconsistent with their past reporting of Bush as a boob and incompetent. Room must be found for the Democrats to share in whatever success we achieve in Iraq.

So congratulations to Barack Obama who has now hopped on to the victory train – now that it’s almost at the station and preparing to unload.

UPDATE: CORRECTION URGENTLY NEEDED

How could I be so stupid? Yes I was dropped on my head as an infant but that doesn’t explain how I could have possibly mixed up Samantha from Bewitched with Jeannie from I Dream of Jeannie.

Both my good friend Jim from the site bRright and Early and reader Mike S. were kind enough to point out my error in ascribing Samantha’s magic gesture of the nose wiggle to Jeanie. Of course, Jeanie would cross her arms and bob her head to initiate her magic spells. I apologize for the confusion.

As to which one is sexier, from the vantage point of age, no doubt Samantha is cuter but Jeanie’s costume…ooh la la. Did you know that the network censor refused to allow Barbara Eden’s navel to show?

We’ve come a long way, baby…

Way up on top of the mountain where our messiah-in-waiting is hurling his thunderbolts at John McCain and dispensing manna in the form of soothing bromides and empty platitudes, a distant, ominous rumbling can be heard far below the summit that portends some possible trouble for our hero when his coronation takes place in Denver late in August.

It is an unconfirmed story and indeed, sounds like one of those rumors that are circulated during the dog days of summer in the interregnum between the time a candidate clinches the nomination and the convention. There may be more wishful thinking than truth here but it nevertheless presents an interesting scenario.

Are some Superdelegates having second thoughts about Obama as the nominee?

Big news folks – it looks like our efforts in contacting those Superdelegates are starting to pay off, so keep on writing to them (ok, maybe Donna B’s a waste of time). There are unconfirmed reports, based on phone banking efforts to reach out to Super Ds, that eight previously Obama SDs expressed that, given the opportunity, they would vote for Hillary at the convention.

I heard about an interview Will Bower of PUMA did recently, where he said delegates are starting to say they’ll vote for Hillary in Denver if the DNC did the right thing and ran an open and fair convention. That means a roll call vote with Hillary’s name put into nomination, and on the ballot.

So I shot an email to Bower to ask him where he got that info from, and here’s what he sent me regarding the efforts of a friend of his

“A large phone banking effort to the super d’s combined with Obama’s flips and poor presumptive nominee performance, etc have yielded doubts within the super delegates, enough that 3 elected and 5 DNC members have confided that should they have the opportunity to do so, they will vote for Hillary.”

Maybe this is why BHO and the Toxic Trio are pushing so hard to keep Hillary off the roll call ballot eh? I’ve been wondering what they’re so afraid of now it looks like we have part of the answer.

First of all, even in the unlikely event that this is true, Hillary is going to need at least 100 of those switches to claim the nomination so 8 flippers is hardly anything to get excited about.

Secondly, I can’t believe this is true because there has been no sudden shift in the polls, no big controversy involving Obama, and no calls at all from anywhere in the party that I have heard for a change at the top.

And the number one reason Hillary will not be on the ballot is to prevent an extended demonstration of support for her thus deflecting attention that should be paid to Obama. The messiah will not want to share the limelight with anyone given the extremely limited exposure over the air TV is going to be giving the convention. The “Big Three” can still gather 18-20 million eyeballs in front of the TV compared with cable’s 8-10 million. This means that every prime time minute will be scripted for maximum impact.

I doubt whether the Obama crew is worried that Hillary will stampede the convention and wrest the nomination from Mr. Lightwalker. Instead, the whole roll call of the states thing is extremely time consuming and while a quaint relic of an era when conventions were important, it doesn’t fit in to the modern “production” of what the handlers want the convention to be. Better to have speeches from well known Democrats with Obama surrogates making the rounds of the anchor booths upstairs, hammering home whatever themes and issues are on tap for that day.

This is a pity because the highlight of any political convention for me was to hear each state’s name called and some poor schmuck who had been years toiling in obscurity for the party would get their 15 seconds of national TV exposure.

“Mr. Chairman….Mr. Chairman…The great state of Illinois – Land of Lincoln – Hog Butcher to the World -#1 in production of soybeans – Birthplace of Adlai Stevenson, Paul Simon, and the great Mayor of the great city of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley – Home of Senator Richard Durbin – location of the largest ball of twine in the world – proudly casts all 184 of its votes for its favorite son, the next president of the United States, Barrack Hussein Obama!

And with each state, the bragging would get bigger and more outrageous. Some state leads in the production of potato chips. Another in horseradish. Still another in port-o-potties.

And the hats. Oh, those convention hats. Humongous donkeys or elephants sitting on top of straw hats. Hats with a message. Hats that light up with the candidate’s name. The TV back then loved the hats, couldn’t get enough of them.

Not now. Conventions are rather soulless affairs today with the delegates probably a lot more sober than they were 40 years ago when I first began to watch them. And both sides feature more of their gimlet eyed radicals who somehow manage to make it on screen – no doubt because the networks always love controversy at a convention and the radicals usually disagree with the mainstream.

The convention in Denver will be no different. The networks will seek out Hillary delegates, asking them if they are pleased with the efforts at unity by the Obama campaign. The Obama camp will try their best to put forward satisfied Clintonites but I guarantee you the networks will find several disgruntled Hillary delegates and try and gin up controversy.

Another sure fire way to create a bogus meme will be for the networks to find Democrats who are dissatisfied with the way the campaign is being run. Apparently, that might be easier than one would think:

After a brief bout of Obamamania, some Capitol Hill Democrats have begun to complain privately that Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is insular, uncooperative and inattentive to their hopes for a broad Democratic victory in November.

“They think they know what’s right and everyone else is wrong on everything,” groused one senior Senate Democratic aide. “They are kind of insufferable at this point.”

Among the grievances described by Democratic leadership insiders:

• Until a mailing that went out in the past few days, Obama had done little fundraising for Democratic candidates since signing off on e-mailed fundraising appeals for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee immediately after securing the Democratic nomination.

• Obama has sometimes appeared in members’ districts with no advance notice to lawmakers, resulting in lost opportunities for those Democrats to score points by appearing alongside their party’s presumptive presidential nominee.

• The Obama campaign has not, until very recently, coordinated a daily message with congressional Democrats, leaving Democratic members in the lurch when they’re asked to comment on the constant back and forth between Obama and John McCain — as they were when Obama said earlier this month that he would “continue to refine” his Iraq policies after meeting with commanders on the ground there.

Apparently, the Obama camp wants to arrive in Washington next January not beholden to anyone in the party for their victory. This is all well and good except they might remember the example of Jimmy Carter.

Carter also arrived in Washington as an outsider. And while it is true he owed nothing to nobody, the opposite was true as well; nobody owed Carter a damn thing. Soon, it became apparent that simply being the head of the party meant little if there was nothing tangible to cement the loyalty of those under you. The normal log rolling that any president is forced to employ on legislation in order to get it passed is interrupted and in the end, it was everyone for themselves with nothing much getting done.

If Obama believes he will ride into Washington on a white horse and clean up the cesspool there without the help of his own party – help bought and paid for during the election by assisting the party in electing House and Senate members – then he is tragically mistaken. He could very well turn into a one term wonder like Carter.

Let’s hope he makes a better ex-president than the peanut farmer from Georgia.

There is no doubt that the number one reason Barack Obama was able to defeat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president was his opposition to the Iraq War “from the beginning.” Even as events in Iraq faded into the background – thanks to the success of the new counterinsurgency strategy and the addition of 30,000 soldiers starting in January, 2007 – Obama kept up his criticism of Hillary Clinton’s vote to authorize the war while proclaiming to one and all that the “surge” had failed and that a withdrawal of the American military from Iraq regardless of the situation on the ground was our only option.

At the time, it seemed a winning strategy. Polls were overwhelmingly in favor of a withdrawal of American forces while the base of the Democratic party rallied to his anti-war, pro-American humiliation message. In fact, it could be said that Obama’s anti-war position was the cornerstone of his campaign for president.

The only possible risk for the candidate would be if things actually turned around in Iraq and the American people had a change of heart on the willy nilly withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Both eventualities seemed remote as late as the beginning of this year.

As it turns out, Obama was whistling past the graveyard with his Iraq policy. With the dramatic military success of the surge and the equally surprising strength shown by the Iraqi government and army in fighting both al-Qaeda and the rogue Shia militias who were responsible for most of the sectarian violence in the country as well as some timid but definitive steps toward political reconciliation, Obama suddenly finds that he has no place to hide and his Iraq policy as relevant as a week old newspaper.

What do you do when the cornerstone of your campaign collapses and you are exposed as being dead wrong about the number one foreign policy issue of the campaign? If you’re Barack Obama, you write an op-ed in the New York Times and lie through your teeth.

Powerline nails Obama to the wall, calling attention to his blatant fibbing about his position on Iraq by quoting the candidate’s own words in the past and comparing them to the lies he wrote in yesterday’s op-ed:

Obama admits that he opposed the surge, and the attendant change in strategy and tactics, that have brought us close to victory. But he somehow manages to twist his being wrong about the surge—the major foreign policy issue that has arisen during his time in Congress—into vindication:

The op-ed lists Obama’s reasons for opposing the surge – and not surprisingly, they are not the reasons he has been touting for more than a year:

But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

Oh really? If Obama keeps this up, pretty soon his nose is going to be as big as his ears. John Hinderaker explains:

Actually, however, Obama opposed the surge not because of those “factors” but because he thought it would fail. He said, on January 10, 2007, on MSNBC:

I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.

On January 14, 2007, on Face the Nation, he said:

We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality—we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.

On March 19, 2007, on the Larry King show, he said:

[E]ven those who are supporting—but here’s the thing, Larry—even those who support the escalation have acknowledged that 20,000, 30,000, even 40,000 more troops placed temporarily in places like Baghdad are not going to make a long-term difference.

On May 25, 2007, in a speech to the Coalition Of Black Trade Unionists Convention, Obama said:

And what I know is that what our troops deserve is not just rhetoric, they deserve a new plan. Governor Romney and Senator McCain clearly believe that the course that we’re on in Iraq is working, I do not.

The fact is, Obama simply has no place to hide when it comes to explaining his position on Iraq. His analysis of the situation is no longer valid – if it ever really was. His policies based on that analysis are no longer operative. He has been exposed as a rank opportunist – an anti-war candidate who claimed to be the only candidate who could bring an end to the war.

Except now the war is ending and there is precious little he can say that would obscure the fact that he was as “spectacularly wrong as John McCain was spectacularly right” as Hinderacker points out.

He had two choices; he could go for door #1 and come clean, say he was wrong, and develop a new policy that would refelct the realities on the ground. Or, he could opt for door #2 and lie, obfuscate, and muddy the waters, trying to hide his original positions.

Monty Hall never gave a contestant such an easy choice.

But Obama’s shameless cover-up didn’t stop there. According to The New York Daily News, Obama has actually scrubbed his website of any criticism of the surge!

Barack Obama’s campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop “surge” in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.

The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a “problem” that had barely reduced violence.

“The surge is not working,” Obama’s old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks – not U.S. military muscle – for quelling violence in Anbar Province.

The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.

Obama’s campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an “improved security situation” paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.

It praises G.I.s’ “hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice.”

Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is “not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events.”

Oh for God’s sake Wendy, do you think we’re as stupid as liberals? Do you “regularly update the Web site” to cover up your candidate’s most spectacular errors in judgement?

Part of Obama’s furious backtracking on Iraq might be the result of something even I didn’t think was possible. A significant shift in the American people’s perception of the situation in Iraq and what our strategy should be:

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds the country split down the middle between those backing Sen. Barack Obama’s 16-month timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and those agreeing with Sen. John McCain’s position that events, not timetables, should dictate when forces come home.

Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, will deliver what his campaign is billing as a “major address” on Iraq today in Washington, part of an effort to convince voters that he could serve effectively as commander in chief. The public is also evenly divided on that question, with 48 percent saying he would be an effective leader of the military and 48 percent saying he would not.

On Iraq policy in general, Americans continue to side with Obama and McCain, his Republican rival, in roughly equal numbers, with 47 percent of those polled saying they trust McCain more to handle the war, and 45 percent having more faith in Obama.

The poll results suggest that months of Democratic attacks on McCain’s Iraq position have not dented voters’ basic trust in his ability to lead the country’s armed forces: Seventy-two percent said McCain would make a good commander in chief.

“The most important number by Election Day is whether a majority of the electorate has achieved a comfort level with Obama as commander in chief,” said Geoffrey Garin, a Democratic pollster who was a strategist for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign, and who considers Obama’s 48 percent a strong starting position. “I think this is the one dimension on which he will be tested and where Republicans will try hard to raise big doubts about Obama.”

Obama will be forced to alter his position, moving closer to McCain on Iraq while moving farther and farther away from the netroots who can do nothing but throw tantrums at how they have been betrayed.

Where will all this dizzying manuevering get Obama? Because the press will not call him out for this monumental flip flop – this Mother of All Campaign Backfills – it is not likely he will be hurt very much at all. More likely, the disillusioned left will grumble a bit and still turn out for him in November. Those on the far left always have Ralph Nader or Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney. For the center, there is only the here and now in politics which is what Obama is counting on with this incredibly cynical move.

Exposing Obama for the lightweight he is will be the challenge for McCain. Hopefully, Obama will continue to lead with his chin on issues like Iraq and make the Republican’s job easier.

“After you, my dear Alfonse.”
No, no – After you, my dear Gaston.”
(“Alfonse and Gaston” – newspaper comic strip created by Edward Burr Opper)

When looking at the choice Barack Obama must make for the Vice Presidential nominee of the Democratic party, one is struck by the number of high profile candidates who have politely refused to run with the messiah.Reliapundit has compiled the list of “after you” candidates:

EDWARDS HAS SAID HE’S NOT INTERESTED.
JOE BIDEN SAYS HE’S NOT INTERESTED, BUT MIGHT SAY YES IF ASKED.
DITTO KERRY.
GOVERNOR TOM STRICKLAND OF OHIO HAS SAID HE’S NOT INTERESTED.
SENATOR BAYH SAID HE’S NOT INTERESTED - BUT MIGHT SAY YES.
GOVERNOR BREDESEN SAYS HE’S NOT INTERESTED.
WEBB HAS NOW SAID HE’S NOT INTERESTED.

RP draws an interesting parallel with the McGovern candidacy where George was so obviously going to lose hugely to Nixon that no one wanted to join him for the death watch. Finally, in desperation, McGovern turned to Missouri senator Tom Eagleton. Eagleton was a fine man, a good senator, but had undergone electro-shock therapy for depression about 10 years previously. In 1972, this was considered a disqualification for high office by most – even though McGovern stupidly backed Eagleton after the news broke and was forced within 48 hours to withdraw his candidacy – and I’m not so sure it would be widely accepted today.

The point being, no respectable potential Veep nominee would touch McGovern’s campaign with a ten foot pole.

The Obama campaign is beginning to smell a lot like the McGovern effort. Perhaps not so much because people don’t think he can win as much as the disaster-in-waiting his presidency could be. Seasoned pols like Governor Strickland and Senator Evan Bayh have politely declined the honor. Now, part of that may be the realization that they would not be Obama’s first choice, although Strickland would probably bring the candidate Ohio and Bayh, Indiana. Ditto Bredesen with Tennssee. And in a close race, any one of those states could help make the difference.

But the “after you” syndrome seems to have infected the campaign as other potentials who would be popular with the party have in effect said, “Don’t call me unless there’s no one else who will do it.”

But why? There are precious few professionals who think John McCain can pull it off. The GOP is in absolute disarray. From top to bottom, defeatism and depression have set in which almost guarantees big Democratic pick ups in the House and Senate.

And yet…

If Obama were such a shoo-in, why are so many candidates for the Vice Presidency taking their name off the chalk board? This is especially true of younger guys like Bayh, Bredesen, and Webb who have all been mentioned as possible presidential contenders some day. Serving 8 years in an Obama administration as Vice President would almost guarantee their ascension to the top spot on the Democratic ticket in 2016.

Are we missing something that these guys have already caught on to?

Obama’s poll numbers are good but taking into consideration all the factors involved, those numbers just don’t add up. With a screamingly bad economy in some parts of the country (and getting worse everywhere else) along with people desperately wanting “change” (whatever that means) coupled with the Republican brand being about as salable as dog food at a convention of gourmet cooks, by all rights Obama should be so far ahead at this point that McCain wouldn’t even be showing up in his rear view mirror.

But that is not the case. Despite a campaign in disarray with many Republican strategists criticizing the organization, the message, the themes, and the scheduling of McCain, Obama can’t shake the Arizona senator. Daily tracking polls by Gallup and Rasmussen have the race closer than the GOP could have dreamed at this point. Gallup has it 47-43 Obama while Rasmussen shows a 5 point Obama lead 49-44.

The big news from those tracking polls is that Obama can’t crack 50%. And the all important electoral college numbers at this point also show Obama lagging although he is doing slightly better than his national numbers would indicate. According to RealClear Politics running count, Obama has 153 solid electoral votes with 85 leaning his way for a total of 238 (270 needed to win). McCain has 93 solid and 73 leaning for a total of 163. The map currently shows 137 toss up EV’s – a number that is expected to grow to McCain’s detriment.

The problem for Obama is that McCain is running better in states like Washington, Oregon, Michigan, and Pennsylvania than Obama is running in some GOP leaners and toss ups. In other words, this is still a tight race in every way despite the perceived advantages of the Democrat.

And then there’s the matter of race that no one is taking for granted. No one can guess what the American people will do when they are faced with making a choice in the voting booth. In privacy and secrecy, with the curtains closed and no one looking over their shoulder, just how tolerant will the American people be? Perhaps a few of those candidates who are saying they don’t want the Veep job believe that in the end, race might make a difference.

Finally, there’s the Hillary factor. Since Mrs. Clinton wants the job, appearing to stand in her way would not be healthy politically. The Clintons have long memories and know how to treat their friends – and anyone they perceive as an enemy.

So I don’t necessarily see “The McGovern Factor” at work in the reluctance of so many A-list Democrats who are declining to serve as Veep on a ticket headed up by Obama. But I find it strange that McCain does not seem to be having a similar problem despite the fact that he finds himself very much in McGovern territory as far as the perception of his chances in the fall.

No doubt Obama will find a candidate – a good candidate – to run with him. But the process by which he chooses his running mate has revealed a hesitation among some Democrats to tie themselves too closely to their presidential candidate. Is it significant? I think it is and I believe one reason may very well be that some Democrats are not as confident of victory in November as they let on.

The 2008 Presidential race finally got underway yesterday as Barack Obama used his race to try and innoculate himself against criticism:

Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said on Friday he expects Republicans to highlight the fact that he is black as part of an effort to make voters afraid of him.

“It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy,” Obama told a fundraiser in Jacksonville, Florida. “We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid.

“They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”

He said he was also set for Republicans to say “he’s got a feisty wife,” in trying to attack his wife Michelle.

We expected it, of course. It is his greatest political weapon and he will use it again and again, shamelessly accusing the GOP of bringing up his race (even, as this proves, when they don’t) in order to deflect criticism away from he and his wife for anything they say or any associations in their past.

The press will let him get away with it because they are terrified of being accused of racism themselves.

What makes Obama’s race card such an effective weapon is that it is virtually impossible to accuse him of using it. He is the oppressed minority. You don’t question oppressed minorities in this country. Anything they define as racism is accepted almost without question. To do so is to prove your racism. Ergo, the perfect “Catch 22:” If the GOP denies Obama’s charges of “racism” and accuses him of using the race card, the blowback on the GOP will be “Who are you to question a black man when he says he’s been slimed by a racist smear?” – the subtext being that you are racist for questioning him.

The flip side of that is if the GOP says nothing, the charge goes unanswered and they are convicted in the court of public opinion as racist pigs.

Bee-utiful.

Let me just say to those doubters who may believe otherwise, take a walk through the comments section of this blog and others. See how many Obama advocates simply dismiss any opposition to their candidate as “racism.” It is this simple minded sophistry that the candidate will use in order to quiet opposition to his programs once he is elected as well.

It has been asked “Is America ready for a black president?” Maybe a more relevant question would be “Can America see through a racial charlatan who will shamlessly use the color of his skin to avoid debating the tough issues and call his opponents “racists” for disagreeing with him?”

This piece appeared in slightly different form at The American Thinker

UPDATE:

Karl at Protein Wisdom and I are on the same page today:

Make no mistake: the man who admits he looks like Urkel is sounding about as post-racial as the Rev. Al Sharpton. Or about as post-racial as someone who spent the last 20 years under the spiritual tutelage of the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Fr. Michael Pfleger. Someone with that background ought to have some humility when it comes to dealing the race card, but he has chosen it as his opening gambit. If John McCain and the GOP allows someone who increasingly sounds like someone struggling to suppress his own prejudice to frame the general election in this manner, they will deserve to lose the election even more than they already do.

UPDATE II:

Getting more comments than normal on this one (Thanks, Glenn!) so I have removed comment moderation for the time being.

Everyone behave themselves. No jumping on the furntiture and please don’t put your little hands in the garbage disposal unless you’re sure it’s off. Daddy will be back in the morning.

UPDATE: 6/23

Comment moderation back on.

Is all this talk about Obama being the savior of America – the man who can bridge the gap between the races, heal the sick, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and return America to the good old days of grovelling at the feet of the UN and other tyrants going to the candidate’s head?

I swear to God this is one the creepier things I’ve ever seen in politics.

Obama was at a meeting with Democratic governors yesterday here in Chicago. John Broder of the Caucus Blog gives us the details:

At a discussion with a dozen Democratic governors in Chicago on Friday morning, each of the governors was identified with a small name plate but Senator Barack Obama sat behind a low rostrum to which was attached an official-looking seal no one had seen before.

It is emblazoned with a fierce-looking eagle clutching an olive branch in one claw and arrows in the other and is deliberately reminiscent of the official seal of the president of the United States. Around the top border are the words “Obama for America;” across the bottom is the campaign’s Web address. It also contains the logo of the Obama campaign, variously interpreted as a sunrise or a view down an open road.

Just above the eagle’s head are the words “Vero Possumus,” roughly translated “Yes we can.” Not exactly E Pluribus Unum (Out of Many, One), the motto on the presidential seal and the dollar bill. Then again, Mr. Obama is not the president.

You’re right, John. Mr. Obama is not the president. And while the US Senate has their own seal, I don’t recall individual senators adopting personal seals for their own use.

Now there are several different ways we can interpret this. Is Obama pulling our leg a little about this messiah crap? Is this kind of an inside joke in the campaign? Did some overzealous, true believing staffer stick this on the podium and Obama never saw it?

Or does Obama believe that he has achieved a special status in America and is deserving of his very own seal to proclaim such?

Broder mentioned the seal’s similarity to the Presidential Seal. Courtesy of CNN, here they are side by side:

Would someone (and I’m sure one of my polite, erudite trolls will oblige me) tell me I’m full of crap and me getting creeped out over this – seeing it as a sign of megalomania – is just a product of my intense dislike of the candidate and nothing to get my panties in a twist over?

Some of my righty friends are taking this very seriously. My buddy Mac:

As I noted before the seal shows what appears to be an eagle in retreat with it’s back turned on the Flag. Couple this with Obama’s desire to “Remake” and “Disarm” America and we have all the reason in the world to be alarmed and ask questions.

Frankly, I don’t see that. It appears the eagle is facing the same way on both the Presidential Seal and Obama’s seal. You might note that the Obama seal’s eagle is missing the ribbon in its beak found on the Presidential Sea. The writing on the ribbon is “E Pluribus Unum” or “Out of Many, One” which is a fine motto for a republic. On the other hand, “Yes we can” – found in Latin above the Obama eagle – is the kind of motto geeky kids in Latin class would have put on a parody seal – the kind of inside joke that only the geeky kids who knew Latin would get.

Definitely creepy – and pretentious. The motto is so banal and saccharine sweet that translating it into Latin and sticking it on a faux presidential seal can only be seen as an attempt to attach more gravitas to a candidate than he deserves. And perhaps that’s the ultimate reason for the entire exercise.

Interestingly, Mac has a screen shot of the seal as the background template for Obama’s website so this thing didn’t just drop out of the blue.

Now, admittedly, on the Moran  Distraction to Nuclear Detonation Scale© of 1-10 where the lower the number, the closer to a true campaign distraction (rather than a distraction the candidate claims any incident to be) this one registers about a 3. I just find it interesting that Obama would feel the need or think it would boost his campaign, or otherwise advance his candidacy to have his very own “Obamaland Seal.”

It still creeps me out.

You know, it’s just not fair that our enemies have had such a rough time lately.

In Iran, even milquetoast IAEA Chief ElBaradei is getting sick and tired of the regime’s evasions about their nuclear program. I mean, if there’s nothing to hide why not open up and allow the nuke inspectors in so that they can do their job unimpeded? Why not open the history of your program so that we can see how truthful and honest you’ve been with the world about never, ever (cross your heart and hope to be beheaded) wanting nuclear weapons?

But take heart President Ahmadinejad. Stay strong Supreme Leader Khamenei. Hope is on the way. America is about ready to elect a president who can’t decide whether you are just a “tiny country” with a tiny defense budget that offers no threat to the United States or whether you are – as he has “always” said – a grave threat to US security. Since Obama has been all over the map on what he truly thinks about Iran (and under it, over it, and squatting on top of it), you can rest assured that when push comes to shove, the Obamamessiah will give the matter a great deal of thought and probably sell out our friends in the region by recognizing Iran’s “historic mission” to complete the industrialization of the nuclear fuel cycle – and in the end, do absolutely nothing.

As for Syria, Bashar Assad is beside himself with joy these days, having seen his campaign of thuggish intimidation in Lebanon using his surrogates in Hizbullah to beat anyone over the head who looks sideways at Damascus (not to mention the most successful campaign of assassination in world history since Al Capone eliminated his rivals in the bootleg whiskey trade) work to near perfection. Assad’s worries over the Tribunal investigating these deaths are disappearing – the result of the prosecution dying on the vine as the UN moves at a pace that snails would envy to seat the judges and start the trials.

But Baby Assad still has his problems. Nuke inspectors are coming to call on him and there is still a chance for a reversal in Lebanon. But be of stout heart and good cheer, my gangster friend. The Holy Deal Maker is on the way to give you everything you want – and probably then some. No doubt the “realists” in any Obamamessiah administration would see that Lebanon is expendable and it really would be a very small concession to recognize your “sphere of influence” in the tiny country. Hell, you’re halfway there already so what would be the big deal if the US gave you and your mob a free hand in Lebanon?

No skin off our nose – besides, the visuals of you and Obama embracing to seal the deal would be spectacular.

And that goes double for you poor, downtrodden, abused, oppressed, Palestinian terrorists. Why, it’s getting so that you can’t make a decent suicide vest without being interrupted by the Israelis. And firing rockets at civilians can be fun (while giving the kids a good fireworks display) but it kind of spoils the party when the IAF comes calling and drops a couple of smart bombs on the Katyusha launch sites. After all, it causes property values in the neighborhood to plummet and the noise is horrible.

But I say to you my Israeli-hating friends, change is on the way! A “change” you can believe in – if you’re about 5 years old and have the moral compass of an alley cat. With a wave of his hand and a few blasts of rhetoric from his holy throat, the Obamamessiah will turn Israeli-Palestinian negotiations upside down and make sure that the onus for peace falls on the heads of those evil Jews and not on those who have yet to give up the dream of seeing every Jew in Israel pushed bodily into the Mediterranean. After all, who could blame you? Not the Obamamessiah and his cadre of advisors who have made it plain for anyone with half a brain to see that their sympathy for your “cause” outweighs any loyalty the US might have for an ally who has stood beside us for 60 years.

Finally, we come to that rather amorphous mass of bad guys who can loosely be termed “terrorists.” Your days of being hunted down and killed are, I am happy to say, numbered. Once our God-King is in office, we are promised that the United States will fight terrorism “the right way.”

We will arrest you. We will make sure that we don’t blame all Muslims for your wayward thinking about the west. We will give you dirty looks. We will give your lawyers dirty looks when you beat the rap and are freed to carry out whatever plans we so rudely interrupted with our “anti-terror” policies. We will go back to a time when occasional acts of terror are acceptable because, after all, what’s a couple of dozen civilian deaths now and again when weighed against the alternative?

And if you happen to succeed in killing a few hundred…thousand…or hundreds of thousands of us, oh well. We’ll just blame it on Bush and move on to the business of doing pretty much what you wish us to do; get out of the Middle East, stop meddling in Iraq and Afghanistan, and generally absolve ourselves of the responsibility of defending our interests. That’s because we will once again enter an era when we will only use the US military when there can be absolutely no doubt that no US interests are at stake whatsoever. Only selfless military interventions will be tolerated and only when the UN says it’s OK.

Yessiree. A new age is almost upon us – an age when our enemies can breathe a sigh of relief and get back to the business of unfettered, unrestricted actions that run contrary to American interests. They will suffer no penalty if they do – save perhaps the prospect of an American president telling the world “This is not the Iran (or Syria, or Hamas, or jihadis) that I’ve known. They gave no indication when talking to me that they would act in such a beastly manner.”

Expect a lot of that over the next 8 years.