AND NOW, BACK TO THE FRONTRUNNER

Today, I'd like to examine Barak Hussein Obama a little more closely than I had in Obama Where Art Thou.

Having already outlined his biography, let's examine the man as a candidate. He is young, energetic, and articulate. I won't go so far as Joe Biden, who said Obama was "clean". I doubt that he was talking about personal hygiene. Although, with Biden's track record for unfortunate comments, maybe he was.

Obama is a stunning speaker. He has, as the Irish like to say, "The Gift of Gab". His speeches seem to move people in a way that neither McCain nor Hillary can. He is a welcome change, in a rhetorical sense, from the linguistic manglings of President Bush or the holier-than-thou intonations of John Kerry. And he is (Thank God!) not at all shrill like Hillary.

His technique of speaking is reminicent of Martin Luther King, Jr. His youth and his energy calls to mind John F. Kennedy, as do his looks. Compare this to Hillary. It's been said that a man could listen to Hillary promise him a million dollars, and all he'd hear is his ex-wife yelling "Have you put out the garbage yet?"

That is only the style, however. What of the substance? Well, that is a question, isn't it?

Obama speaks of "Change We Can Believe In." He believes in "The Future" and "All Americans Uniting." His supporters echo his slogan, "Yes We Can."

"Change"? What kind of "change"? What does he see in our "future", of which he is wont to tell us he looks toward?

What are his policy proposals? There, he's a little bit vague. During the primaries, he, Hillary and Edwards vied for who would raise taxes the most and fastest. They argued about who's Universal Healthcare plan would have the most mandates. And all three want to punish Big Oil, Big Pharmaceutical, and Big Insurance -- everything, in fact, but Big Government. And for a while, it seemed, they were in a race to see who would get out of Iraq first, although only Edwards would suggest a date for that withdrawal. In short, if you heard Edwards or Hillary, you've heard Obama's proposals. They are all interchangeable.

What Barak Obama does is use his soaring rhetoric to hide his extremely Liberal (face it, he's a Stalinist) ideology. He doesn't speak about his policies in detail because then everyone would know he isn't the "Agent of Change" he portrays himself to be. His policies are nothing but warmed over Socialism.

One need only to read his speech today in Janesville, Wi.:

• Universal Healthcare, whether Hillary's or Obama's, would be a Marxist nationalization of one of the largest parts of our economy.


• He describes the current mortgage troubles as if they were President Bush's fault, rather than the result of government forcing lending institutions to write bad loans, lest they be accused of "red lining".


• He is a master of the rhetoric of class warfare, pitting us against the rich and the corporations, never mind that they provide the investments and the infrastructure of our economy.


• He wants to subsidize what he calls "working families" with tax credits and federally funded daycare, all while punishing the achievers who actually made the jobs held by "working families".


• He proposes to "reform bankruptcy laws" to protect "victims of predatory lending".


• Obama wants a "National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank" spending billions, and payed for by surrender in Iraq.

Friends, this is all boilerplate Liberalism, the kind that Democrats have been spewing since George McGovern. The only difference is that Barak Obama looks and sounds better than McGovern.

But, really! All he offers are platitudes. He is like the Miss America constestant that says "All I really want is world peace."

Barak Obama is an empty suit, nothing more. He offers loads of style, mounds of soundbites, and inspires much enthusiasm. But he says nothing new.

Last December, the Boston Globe asked Obama a series of questions regarding the Constitution, the Congress and the powers of the presidency. His answers were stunning, not only in their Liberal naivete, but in their total ignorance of just what the Constitution says and what the Supreme Court has to say on these issues.

Let us not ignore the question of race. Obama has been quite successful running as an American, avoiding the issue of race as much as the Clintonistas will allow. It is noteworthy that, among the Republican candidates, no one has so much as mentioned his race. Although Mike Huchabee was reprehensible when he maligned Mitt Romney's Mormon faith.

But among the Democrats? Pennsylvania's Gov. Eddie "Don't Call Me Fast Eddie" Rendell had the temerity to say "...I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate." This is stunning, aside from the obviously libelous and inflamatory denouncement of white America, when one considers that he is talking about the frontrunner of the Democratic field. I've already cataloged other instances of this sort of Liberal racism in previous columns, so I'll just leave it at that.

My friend, Evan Sayet, wrote today: "Whites WILL vote for a black man so long as he's not running as a black man." He's correct. Previous black Democratic candidates (Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, for instance) ran on the idea that America is racist and they were rightfully rejected. Obama, as Liberal as he is, doesn't, and that gives him traction outside the black electorate.

What Barak Obama proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that America is no longer the racist nation portrayed by Civil Rights, Inc. A truly racist country would never have a black candidate do so well. This is especially true given his success in a Party that has its roots in the Confederacy and the Klan.

Of course, Obama is still wrong in so many ways and with so many issues. He is, before his blackness or lack thereof, still a Liberal. And his administration would be catastrophic for our country, despite all his talk of hope and change. If he is defeated in his quest for the White House it won't be because of racism, at least not from the Right. It will be because the electorate looked at his ideas and found them wanting.

Given the almost certain nomination of John McCain as the Republican presidential candidate, I am still certain that either Obama or Hillary will become our next president. McCain is too distrusted by the Republican base to beat Hillary, and Obama is far too shiny and new compared to McCain.

Of course, as noted yesterday in Through Race Colored Glasses 2/12/08, Hillary just might tear the Democratic Party apart along the fault lines of race and gender.

As I said yesterday: "Ah! Life is good!"

Copyright Feb.13th, 2008

FIRST, THE ALSO-RANS

My look at the candidates for the 2008 presidential race will start with those who are least likely to win their nominations. Let's just get the also-rans out of the way and get to main players. In particular let's examine Ron Paul and John Edwards.

First, let's look at Ron Paul. OK! Who's next? Just kidding!

Ron Paul is a long time Libertarian who was elected to Congress in the party that is most closely aligned with Libertarian ideology, the GOP. On economics, I have to like the guy. He's in favor of lower taxes, fewer regulations etc. But on foreign policy, he will ruin us. Paul is an isolationist. He, like many on the Left, thinks that if we just get out of the Middle East, the Islamo-fascists will suddenly like us again. He confuses military bases in countries such as Saudi Arabia with military occupation. This, in my mind, is not just silly, but is in complete denial of simple facts. Furthermore, it will only embolden our enemies. After all, Ossama bin Ladin himself said that our retreat from Somalia (Thanks, Bill!) was a sign that we can be beaten.

Other than his harebrained foreign policy ideas, he just comes across as a grouchy old man. Worse, he looks like he might be insane. This, of course, is purely superficial, but we are looking for the next president of the United States. Is this what we want? Then again, do we want a president who was endorsed by transvestites and strippers?

Ah! John Edwards! He of the silky locks and $1500 haircuts. What a piece of work this guy is!

John Edwards is campaigning on behalf of that other America. Not those in the neighborhood he lives in, although he did succeed in ridding himself of a poor Republican, gun-toting neighbor who couldn't afford to fix up his property. No, he's out to help the poor, not with his own money but with yours. He gets credit from many on the Left for not being beholden to any special interests. As if trial lawyers weren't one of the most expensive special interests burdening America.

Yes, folks! Trial Lawyers, Those same happy people who brought us the $4 million cup of coffee and the idea that a dry cleaner can be sued out of business for ruining a pair of pants. What has John Edwards done to further the cause? Well, he "worked" his way out of the America he wants to represent into the ranks of the rich America by suing obstetricians for failing to perform C-sections. This was despite the fact that there was no proof that C-sections would prevent cerebral palsy. If that weren't loopy enough, he did it by "channeling" the spirits of these poor kids, in utero no less, giving them "voice" in the court rooms. Not only was he responsible for reducing the number of obstetricians available to pregnant women around the country, he also put those women's lives at risk because those obstetricians still in business performed more C-sections than necessary, all to avoid a lawsuit from the likes of John Edwards.

John Edwards wants, along with the other two Democratic candidates, to nationalize healthcare. Imagine: all the efficiency of the DMV with all the compassion of the IRS. I feel healthier already! If that weren't enough, he has also proposed that folks be mandated for certain tests and procedures. I wonder if that means C-sections for all, whether they need them or not?

Don't forget higher taxes! Not to be out taxed by Obama and Hillary, Edwards is right out there with taxes on anything he can imagine. Naturally, he couches it in the class warfare rhetoric of his "Two Americas". But never doubt that both Americas are going to get C-sections on their wallets. It's the way it's always done by the Left.

Let's recall why, in yesterday's column, I considered him to be one half a candidate: in the 2004 election, he couldn't even carry his own state. Obviously, if the people who know him best don't want him, then he is needed in the White House!

Also from 2004, remember when, in his finest preacher's voice, he declared that Christopher Reeves will walk again if he and Kerry were elected? Who writes his stuff? He could get a job writing for Saturday Night Live -- at least whenever the writers' strike ends.

Not to leave Edwards out of the gratuitous criticism leveled at Ron Paul, let's also mention that, besides his silky hair and his womanly virtues ( Remember when his wife tried to make the case that he was more of a woman than Hillary?) he also blinks continuously. It's annoying. Most people who blink like that are pegged as liars.

Again, purely superficial, I know. But many vote on appearances alone, so I just thought I'd throw that out there.

Essentially, I believe, Edwards is vying for the position of king maker. He's going to drop out sooner or later and see what kind of a deal he can get from either Obama or Hillary. Who ever gives him the most, in policy perks and the vice presidency candidacy, will get John Edwards' pitiful number of supporters.

Honorable mentions also go out to Bill Richardson, for best supporting role to the Hillary campaign; Dennis Kucinich, for representing the terrorists and the UFO community; Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, for pushing the immigration issue; and a very special mention of Alan Keyes.

Alan Keyes deserves a few words more than the other honorable mentions. He is a man of undeniable faith, both in God and in Constitutional governance. What he brings to the table is profound respect for life, finding in the Constitution one of the most perfect arguments against abortion and euthanasia. I like his stances and his take-no-prisoners style. Had he more time to run a better campaign for the Illinois Senate seat, Barak Obama would have been in this column as an also ran. Unfortunately, he does not resonate with the majority of voters and does not get anywhere near the media attention he deserves. So it is with deep regret that I grant Alan Keyes this place, however special the mention, in this list of the runners up.

We'll talk more about the leading candidates tomorrow.

Copyright January 19th, 2008