Obama/Europe, Part II

On a related note, nice jab from Dave Letterman last night, via the Corner:

David Letterman: "How about that Barack Obama?" They are "saying for the first time he's starting to slip in the polls," but "don't worry. He's got a plan. He's going to go back to campaigning in Europe."

Apparently I'm a Racist

If Obama Loses
Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him. from Slate

At Slate, Jacob Weisberg comes up with a truly idiotic article, one of those that sets the blood boiling beginning as early as the title and not letting up throughout its thankfully brief length. Perhaps taking a leisurely stroll through the piece, with frequent breaks for sanity, will help break up the rage a bit...

What with the Bush legacy of reckless war and economic mismanagement, 2008 is a year that favors the generic Democratic candidate over the generic Republican one. Yet Barack Obama, with every natural and structural advantage in the presidential race, is running only neck-and-neck against John McCain, a sub-par Republican nominee with a list of liabilities longer than a Joe Biden monologue. Obama has built a crack political operation, raised record sums, and inspired millions with his eloquence and vision. McCain has struggled with a fractious campaign team, lacks clarity and discipline, and remains a stranger to charisma. Yet at the moment, the two of them appear to be tied. What gives?

Immediately, Weisberg makes a ton of assumptions and generalizations that immediately stack the deck in favor of his argument (that Obama can only lose because voters are racists), offering zero evidence to back them up.

Obama has "every natural and structural advantage"? The man has virtually no experience, while his opponent is a decorated war hero with decades of experience and years of making friends, building contacts, and establishing trust. Obama is a flash in the pan, elevated to his present position largely because of a swooning media, a nice convention speech, and a timely sex scandal featuring a Tom Clancy character and a Sex Trek sexpot. Sure, Obama is charismatic, if you enjoy hearing a man talk about himself and how great he is for hours on end, but I'm guessing many people don't actually find that to be a positive trait. A runaway ego, a pronounced lack of experience, a complete and utter lack of a defined platform, and a history of relationships with bigots, bombers, and criminal real estate developers doesn't really strike me as the definition of "every natural and structural advantage." But hey, I'm a racist.

Weisberg continues:

If it makes you feel better, you can rationalize Obama's missing 10-point lead on the basis of Clintonite sulkiness, his slowness in responding to attacks, or the concern that Obama may be too handsome, brilliant, and cool to be elected. But let's be honest: If you break the numbers down, the reason Obama isn't ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin.

So Weisberg admits that are actually very good reasons for Obama's current failure to run away with the election, at least in the polls - his alienation of supporters of Hillary Clinton and the fact that many of the attacks on him still haven't really been adequately responded to (except by tossing various "friends" and associates under the bus), as well as his presumably sarcastically exaggerated third reason (although somehow I doubt he intended it sarcastically).

Too handsome, brilliant, and cool to be elected? Has Weisberg never seen Napoleon Dynamite? Or the 2000 election coverage? America doesn't like handsome, brilliant, and cool in its candidates, especially when it comes packaged with a massive ego, an overwhelming sense of entitlement, and a simultaneous effort to play the victim. America much prefers rational, humble, and dependable. But Weisberg ignores his own arguments and plunges right in, busting out the racism charge, blaming "older, white voters" for Obama's failures.

Much evidence points to racial prejudice as a factor that could be large enough to cost Obama the election. That warning is written all over last month's CBS/New York Times poll, which is worth examining in detail if you want a quick grasp of white America's curious sense of racial grievance. In the poll, 26 percent of whites say they have been victims of discrimination. Twenty-seven percent say too much has been made of the problems facing black people. Twenty-four percent say the country isn't ready to elect a black president. Five percent of white voters acknowledge that they, personally, would not vote for a black candidate.

Weisberg initially cites three stats from the poll in question in an attempt to illustrate "white America's curious sense of racial grievance." The first instance cites 26% of whites claiming a specific instance in which they felt that had been racially discriminated against (vs. 68% of black respondents). Presumably, Weisberg's point is that this is impossible. Never mind that the poll offers zero context beyond that contained in the question, and zero information from the respondents for Weisberg to form his judgement. It's simply impossible for a quarter of white people to have been discriminated against.

The second question cited states that a nearly identical percentage (27%) of whites thinks that "too much" has been made of "the problems facing black people" "in recent years." The question is so vague as to be relatively useless, but even so, this doesn't stop Weisberg from taking some undefined issue with the white respondents. I guess we're supposed to assume that thinking Al Sharpton and Charlie Rangel and Jesse Jackson are detrimental to black people makes one a racist.

The third citation is possibly the strangest, in which again, about a quarter of the white respondents stated that they thought that America was not ready to elect a black president. Again, the question is so vague as to mean next to nothing. Perhaps 25% of whites think the rest of the country is racist, even if they themselves have no problem with a black president. To infer, as Weisberg seems to be doing, that the answers to these questions make the respondents in question racists who aren't going to vote for Obama because of the color of his skin is ludicrous.

Finally, Weisberg compounds his work here by taking a roundabout way of addressing the poll question which actually most vividly illustrates the point at hand. Question #78 in the poll asks whether the person in question "would personally vote for a presidential candidate who is black." 91% of white respondents answered "Yes," while 88% of blacks answered "No"!

Granted, with a question of this sort, it's only natural to assume that some people, despite the anonymous nature of the poll, will give what they think is the "right" answer. However, when Weisberg is basing his entire column on the information found in the poll, and presumably putting faith in the accuracy of the answers contained therein, you would think he wouldn't fail to overlook the one question that actually speaks quite specifically to the validity of his argument. One would hope, anyway. And yet, Weisberg instead chooses to pounce on the 5% of white respondents who say they wouldn't vote for a black candidate (again, ignoring the 6% of blacks who answer the same way). So far, Weisberg's evidence is not very compelling.

Five percent surely understates the reality. In the Pennsylvania primary, one in six white voters told exit pollsters race was a factor in his or her decision. Seventy-five percent of those people voted for Clinton. You can do the math: 12 percent of the Pennsylvania primary electorate acknowledged that it didn't vote for Barack Obama in part because he is African-American. And that's what Democrats in a Northeastern(ish) state admit openly. The responses in Ohio and even New Jersey were dispiritingly similar.

Weisberg then goes on to attempt to back up his central tenant with stats taken from exit polls in the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania, in which 1 in 6 voters claimed "race was a factor" in their decision. Weisberg assumes this to mean that 12% of white Democrats in Pennsylvania didn't vote for Obama because he's black. Never mind that the question doesn't seem to indicate what factor race played in the voter's decision. Maybe some of those voters cast their ballot for Obama because he is black. Race would certainly be a factor in that decision. (By his reliance on the combination of the NY Times poll and the Pennsylvania exit data, Weisberg also seems to be claiming that there are far more racists voting in the Democratic party than there are in the nation on average...)

Such prejudice usually comes coded in distortions about Obama and his background. To the willfully ignorant, he is a secret Muslim married to a black-power radical. Or—thank you, Geraldine Ferraro—he only got where he is because of the special treatment accorded those lucky enough to be born with African blood. Some Jews assume Obama is insufficiently supportive of Israel in the way they assume other black politicians to be. To some white voters (14 percent in the CBS/New York Times poll), Obama is someone who, as president, would favor blacks over whites. Or he is an "elitist" who cannot understand ordinary (read: white) people because he isn't one of them. Or he is charged with playing the race card, or of accusing his opponents of racism, when he has strenuously avoided doing anything of the sort. We're just not comfortable with, you know, a Hawaiian.

Weisberg continues with a paragraph, that as before, basically lays out a perfectly appropriate counterargument to his racism one, and yet Weisberg dismisses it out of hand, with no reason given. Maybe "some Jews assume Obama is insufficiently supportive of Israel" because Obama's actions, from calling for talks with the Israel-hating Iranian regime to breaking bread with Edward Said to long attending a church that has given an award to Louis Farrakhan have done nothing to convince them otherwise. Maybe people view Obama as an elitist because Obama acts like one, making statements like the famous arugula gaffe, and the equally elitist "clinging to their guns and religion" remark. Maybe Obama is charged with playing the race card because he repeatedly does so, as whenever he falsely accuses the McCain campaign of doing exactly that.

Then there's the overt stuff. In May, Pat Buchanan, who writes books about the European-Americans losing control of their country, ranted on MSNBC in defense of white West Virginians voting on the basis of racial solidarity. The No. 1 best-seller in America, Obama Nation by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D., leeringly notes that Obama's white mother always preferred that her "mate" be "a man of color." John McCain has yet to get around to denouncing this vile book.

Wow, and now he's resorting to referencing Pat Buchanan to bolster his claims of bigotry. You know you're reaching when the most shocking example of a public figure supporting racial solidarity is Pat Buchanan. I'm not sure what point Weisberg is trying to make with the Obama Nation reference, except that perhaps he thinks that it's supposed to be John McCain's job to go around researching and denouncing attacks on his opponent by someone unaffiliated with McCain's campaign?

Many have discoursed on what an Obama victory could mean for America. We would finally be able to see our legacy of slavery, segregation, and racism in the rearview mirror. Our kids would grow up thinking of prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives. The rest of the world would embrace a less fearful and more open post-post-9/11 America. But does it not follow that an Obama defeat would signify the opposite? If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth. His defeat would say that when handed a perfect opportunity to put the worst part of our history behind us, we chose not to. In this event, the world's judgment will be severe and inescapable: The United States had its day but, in the end, couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race.

Building upon his already flawed, non-sensical, and inconsistent arguments and "evidence," Weisberg begins to wrap it up by stating that Obama's (or, presumably, any black person's election - Condaleeza Rice in 2012, anyone?) would election would somehow heal all the racial divisiveness that has done so much damage to this country over its history. Prejudice would immediately disappear, and most importantly, in my opinion, "the rest of the world would embrace a less fearful and more open post-post-9/11 America." Oh joy! The absolute last thing I would want would be for Iran, or North Korea, or China, or Russia, or Venezuela, or Syria, or any number of other countries to be fearful of America. God forbid those who have expressly threatened or acted against our safety and freedom actually fear us.

And, if in our infinite racism, we pass up this magical opportunity to instantly end all forms of prejudice, it will signal to our children that equal opportunity is a myth? Huh? Because a white man with extensive experience and relatively popular policies is elected president over a black man with relatively radical, divisive, socialist policies, equal opportunity is a myth? I fear for Mr. Weisberg's children, if that's all it takes to dash their hopes and dreams.

And this just cracks me up: "In this event, the world's judgment will be severe and inescapable: The United States had its day but, in the end, couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race." Ha! Good stuff. "The world's judgment"? Hee! God forbid people vote out of self-interest.

Choosing John McCain, in particular, would herald the construction of a bridge to the 20th century—and not necessarily the last part of it, either. McCain represents a Cold War style of nationalism that doesn't get the shift from geopolitics to geoeconomics, the centrality of soft power in a multipolar world, or the transformative nature of digital technology. This is a matter of attitude as much as age. A lot of 71-year-olds are still learning and evolving. But in 2008, being flummoxed by that newfangled doodad, the personal computer, seems like a deal-breaker. At this hinge moment in human history, McCain's approach to our gravest problems is hawkish denial. I like and respect the man, but the maverick has become an ostrich: He wants to deal with the global energy crisis by drilling and our debt crisis by cutting taxes, and he responds to security challenges from Georgia to Iran with Bush-like belligerence and pique.

All I can say in response to this paragraph is: Good!

Mastery of a personal computer, whether McCain can or not, is not a prerequisite for a president, in my book. Does Weisberg expect McCain to start a blog or something? And I much prefer a Bush (or Kennedy, or Roosevelt)-like belligerence to security challenges from Iran. But Weisberg gets a bit off-message here. Not sure how this supports his whole racism thing...

You may or may not agree with Obama's policy prescriptions, but they are, by and large, serious attempts to deal with the biggest issues we face: a failing health care system, oil dependency, income stagnation, and climate change. To the rest of the world, a rejection of the promise he represents wouldn't just be an odd choice by the United States. It would be taken for what it would be: sign and symptom of a nation's historical decline.

First off, I'm not really sure I (or anyone else) knows what Obama's policy "prescriptions" are these days, beyond withdrawing our troops immediately from Iraq, raising taxes, and magical perfect universal healthcare, but in my book none of these constitute a "serious attempt" to deal with anything.

Weisberg really gets off point at the end here, sort of ditching the "Anyone who doesn't vote for Obama is a racist" theme that served as the basis for his column in favor of a vague attempt to argue policy superiority, although doing so sort of tends to ruin his argument, if it wasn't already strained. If the only possible reason for Obama not being elected president is racism, what's the point of debating policy at all?

For my money, it's absurd, fawning, blatantly insulting articles like this from that are driving voters away from Obama, not the color of his skin. I can't believe I took the time to even write this...

The Biden Choice

This is certainly one of the less frightening options, as a McCain supporter. I would have been much much more worried if Obama had opted for Hillary, or Kaine, of Bayh, or if somehow Gore had come out of the wings. All of them have their flaws, but Biden seems to bring nothing to the table besides his longevity and experience, which is obviously one of Obama's biggest problem areas, but by bringing someone like Biden onto the ticket, it would seem that Obama has sorta contradicted the whole "Change" thing on which he's built his entire campaign.

Nothing says "Change!" like an old white guy with over 25 years as a Washington insider!

Obama: Tax the Heck Out of People and Just Redistribute It

From the recent NY Times Obama piece, cited by Jim Geraghty at NRO, and noted by Mark Hemingway in the Corner

“If you talk to Warren (Buffet), he’ll tell you his preference is not to meddle in the economy at all — let the market work, however way it’s going to work, and then just tax the heck out of people at the end and just redistribute it,” Obama said. “That way you’re not impeding efficiency, and you’re achieving equity on the back end.” He continued by saying that he thought there was some merit in Buffett’s argument.

Good lord. I'm not sure what's more disturbing about this, the thought that we are within a couple months of quite possibly electing a President who will do his best to implement an economic policy that involves taxing the heck out of people and then redistributing wealth, or that Obama's grasp of economics is equivalent, or less than that of someone who took a single Intro to Econ class during his five years of college (aka me).

Does Obama really believe that the tax-the-heck-out-of-people-at-the-end policy doesn't meddle in the economy at all? Is he serious? "You're not impeding efficiency"?! So he believes that industry and the economy will continue to function at peak efficiency because it's only being taxed "at the end"? What does that even mean, "at the end"? When else are people ever taxed? Before they get paid? There are so many problems with this that it's scary.

Right now, where I am in my life, and where this country and the world is right now, social issues are on the far back burner for me. Gay marraige, abortion, the Ten Commandments in courthouses, these things don't concern me at this point in my life. Perhaps, at some point down the road, I'll care enough to fight for or against them (although for my money, the government shouldn't even be touching them anyway...), but as things are, the issues I'm going to vote on are, in no particular order: Taxes (lower the better), spending (lower the better) and smaller government (and related, I think, fixing or getting rid of Social Security, and preventing socialized healthcare), the War on Terror, illegal immigration, and energy policy (drill, more nuke plants, etc).

If McCain wants to bring someone along for his Veep who is pro-abortion, I really don't care, as long as he wins as a result, and keeps Obama and his economic socialism out of the White House.

McCain Up by 5 in Zogby Poll

Reuters/Zogby Poll: McCain Makes a Move, Takes 5-Point Lead Over Obama

Granted, this should be taken with a large grain of salt, since it's a Zogby poll (or just because it's a poll in general), but regardless, it's nice to see. To this point, Obama has been much closer than he "should" have been, but McCain has always seemed unable to actually surge ahead, or open up any kind of lead of his own, possibly indicating that Obama's smaller than expected lead was due largely to his base's dissatisfaction, instead of any kind of support for McCain, and that when it came down to brass tacks in November, the left wing would hold their noses (like so many Republicans will be doing with McCain) and vote Obama. McCain needs to start converting some undecideds, and that's one reason I have no problem with him possibly choosing a centrist as a VP. But that's a separate issue.

But this item also brings to mind another item that's been on my mind for a while now.

Republicans, and I certainly include myself in this group, often seem very akin to the "uncool" kid in high school, outwardly dismissive of the affection of his better-looking, more popular, more athletic peers, seemingly content to exist as an outsider, waiting for the day when the real world will take over and success and popularity will instead be determined by wealth and intelligence and hard work.

Republicans generally are content to be dismissive of the mainstream media, of European opinion, of polls, and particularly of Hollywood, content to believe that our policies are best, that we'll be ultimately be proven right when the real world sets in, and this is often the case. However, there also seems to exist an inclination on the right to fall all over ourselves when finally someone from the popular crowd shows us any sort of affection.

As much as we tend to look down upon the Hollywood crowd and (rightfully) ridicule them when they spout off on things about which they apparently know nothing, whenever one of them comes out and says something that could remotely label them as a fellow right-thinker, we seem to go out of our way to embrace them, to hold them up as some sort of proof of acceptance, like the AV kid that somehow ends up at the same prom table as the star athlete. If it doesn't matter (and it really shouldn't) what David Mamet or Robert Downey Jr. thinks about politics or foreign policy when they're towing the liberal party line, then it should hold equally little water when they "convert."

But hey, it's nice to feel liked :)

Putting McCain's "Cross in the Dirt Story" in Perspective

Great, impassioned rant at Riehl World View on the contrast between John McCain and Barack Obama, and the depths to which the left is willing to sink in order to trash an American hero, one of the few we've got left.

I Honestly Can't Believe I'm Reading This

What is quite well known beyond ANY shadow of a doubt is that Senator John McCain spent five years in captivity for serving his country during which time he was brutalized to such a severe extent that he still carries the scars and handicap from that captivity.

What is also well known beyond any shadow of a doubt is that Senator Barack Obama had some form of long-standing tie to an unrepentant domestic terrorist - but we can't know the extent of those ties because the Richard J. Daley Library of the University of Illinois at Chicago is blocking access to the records of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

And all Andrew Sullivan and a significant number of new media members on the Left care about is whether or not a North Vietnamese prison guard drew a cross in the sand with a stick some 40 years ago?

Sorry, but are you people f~&/ing insane? Do you not have any sense of what country you actually live in today? Do you really not understand why America has rejected your presidential candidates at the ballot box in so many elections over these last forty or so years?

Read the whole thing (there's not much beyond what I've quoted) except for the opening, which quotes Andrew Sullivan and provides the spark for what follows. On a side note, I remember back when I first became interested in politics, back when W was running against Gore, I was in college, interning in the House of Representatives, and I began reading and following a number of blogs, trying to learn everything I could about politics and our country and the men who were leading it.

One of the bloggers that I read religiously was Andrew Sullivan. His writing was incisive, well-reasoned, and largely free from hyperbole and generalization, all the traits that seem to seperate writers (particularly bloggers) on the right from those on the left. His change of heart and mind since that time has been depressing to witness, to say the least. I completely understand that people's world views change, particularly when a major aspect of one's life (his sexuality) is seen as abnormal or wrong by a fair number of those you're working with.

It must have been extremely difficult to maintain his relatively conservative stance in the face of those in the gay community and on the left who called him traitor, and much worse, and his courage at the time was one of the things that drew me to his writing, but the drastic shift in the quality of his thinking and writing since his "conversion" to the left has been remarkable, and tough to watch.

Obama-Ayers Cover Up?

Very interesting piece by Stanley Kurtz at NRO, detailing his ongoing attempts to get access to records pertaining to domestic terrorist William Ayers, and his connections to Obama.

Obama Funnels Earmarks to Big Campaign Donors

Change you can earmark TheNextRight by way of Instapundit

As stated elsewhere, this isn't really a big revelation, it goes on all the time in Washington and elsewhere, candidates and politicians ensuring that millions and millions of taxpayer dollars get funneled to people who have supported their campaigns. The big deal in this instance is that it's being blatantly done by Barack Obama, who has based his presidential campaign on the idea that he represents a break from the business-as-usual Washington insiders. This is not the way to make your case.

Both parties are guilty many times over, and for my money, any candidate who demonstrates that they're willing and able to put and end to this practice would have my support. The operative word being "demonstrates." Actions speak a lot louder than words, and in this case, Obama has failed to demonstrate anything except that his presidency would just be more of the same.

Obama's Potentially Disasterous Economic Plan

Obama Tax Plan Would Balloon Deficit, Analysis Finds from the WaPo

When Obama promises to cut taxes for the middle class without increasing the deficit, he is measuring his proposals against the large deficits that would result from Bush's plan to extend his signature tax cuts beyond their 2010 expiration date. Because Obama wants to eliminate some of the Bush tax cuts, he would bring more money into the Treasury, permitting him to pay for new programs without increasing the deficit even more.

But under current law, all the tax cuts expire and the deficit disappears completely. Democrats in Congress have vowed to preserve the Bush tax cuts only if they can cover the cost and keep the budget in balance. Measured against current law and against the promises of his fellow Democrats, Obama would rack up huge deficits. According to a recent analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Obama's tax plan would add $3.4 trillion to the national debt, including interest, by 2018.

"Obama has criticized Bush for his fiscal irresponsibility, and now he's using Bush's baseline as a yardstick by which to measure fiscal responsibility," said Leonard E. Burman, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. "Congress hasn't agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts because they don't have the money to pay for it."

Oh Good Grief

From US News & World Reports, via the Corner

This one pretty much speaks for itself - however, I would point out the headline at US News, "One Nation, Under A New Obama Salute" - guessing it's satirical, either way, the Obama as Messiah/God meme seems to be firmly entrenched:

George Bush had his three-fingered W salute that supporters flashed when greeting him at presidential campaign events in 2000. And now, if a Los Angeles creative agency gets its way, Sen. Barack Obama will see fans meet him with his own salute like the one above. "Our goal is to see a crowd of 75,000 people at Obama's nomination speech holding their hands above their heads, fingers laced together in support of a new direction for this country, a renewed hope, and acceptance of responsibility for our future," says Rick Husong, owner of The Loyalty Inc. Husong tells me that he got the idea after seeing the famous Obama-Progress poster by artist Shepherd Fairey. "We wanted to get involved some way," he says.

So, the agency came up with their own a symbol of hope and progress that also plays off Obama's name. "We thought, 'Let's try and start a movement where even while walking down the street, people would hold up the O and you would know that they were for Obama,' " says Husong. Much thought went into the relatively simple idea. "You interlace your hands in a circle, the interlacing being a symbol of different types of people coming together and the circle a symbol of unity," he says.

Their design, unlike Fairey's, is free, and Husong is urging people to download it and print it on posters and T-shirts. "We want to see it everywhere, but more importantly we want this sign to take the world by storm."

Is This What Obama Means by "Change"?

Group Plans Campaign Against G.O.P. Donors - NYTimes, via Instapundit

Nearly 10,000 of the biggest donors to Republican candidates and causes across the country will probably receive a foreboding “warning” letter in the mail next week.

The letter is an opening shot across the bow from an unusual new outside political group on the left that is poised to engage in hardball tactics to prevent similar groups on the right from getting off the ground this fall. (emphasis mine)

So, if I'm understanding this opening, the whole point of this potentially multi-million dollar endeavor by liberal operatives is to prevent a hypothetical and heretofore non-existent right-wing opposite number from ever existing? Seems like donors' money could be better spent...

“We want to stop the Swift Boating before it gets off the ground,” said Mr. Matzzie, who described his effort as “going for the jugular.”

The warning letter is intended as a first step, alerting donors who might be considering giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives.

I like how the left continues to try to re-define "Swift Boating" as something deceptive or somehow underhanded, as if John Kerry was denied his rightful place because of some kind of grand conspiracy of lies. The group simply told their side of the story, and let the facts speak for themselves. If Kerry hadn't tried to base his campaign around his Vietnam experience, none of this would have been an issue.

It's nice of this group, Accountable America, to be "alerting donors," of potential "legal troubles" and "watchdog groups digging through their lives." I'm sure the prospective Republican donors are going to be much more likely to desert the GOP once they come to understand that this is the kind of generally fascist behavior that can be expected under an Obama administration.

However, as the article goes on to describe, the head of the proposed leftist intimidation squad, Tom Mattzie, was formally the head of another, apparently identical group, Progressive Media U.S.A., which never got off the ground for lack of funds. But hey, don't give up the dream, Tom.

The last line of the piece provides a one sentence rebuttal from Chris LaCivita, identified as a "Republican strategist who helped organize the Swift Boat effort." Mr. LaCivita sums up my thoughts very nicely, with the level of attitude and derision that should be more frequently employed by those on the right. "(Republican donors) are not going to be intimidated by some pipsqueak on the kooky left.”

Couldn't have put it better myself, Chris, well done.

The Obama Backlash?

Good column from Jennifer Rubin at Pajamas Media about President-in-Waiting Obama is starting to experience something of a reversal of fortune, in terms of his relations with the media. Seems to go hand-in-hand with the previous post over the public feeling that the Chosen One has been a bit overexposed recently.

Obama's Fundraising Sources

Big Donors Are a Major Force in Obama Campaign via NYTimes

Barack Obama is constantly being painted as the grassroots alternative to the Beltway-bound, in-the-pocket-of-Wall Street, Big Oil, Big Pharmaceutical, etc. John McCain. Obama claims to be the agent of change, the instrument through which we will be freed from the grip of special interests, lobbyists, and business as usual in Washington, D.C. Much has been made of the number and amount of his small donors, the little people, hungry for something new who are giving whatever they can, in the desperate hope of Change.

However, as is usually the case, the truth is much different than the picture the media and the Obama campaign has tried to paint. (Having said that, this story is from the Times, so I suppose the media can go both ways...) Apparently, according to the campaign's record, more than a third of Obama's money has come from donors giving $1000 or more, more than either McCain or Hillary has recieved. Take it away, Times:

Behind those larger donations is a phalanx of more than 500 Obama “bundlers,” fund-raisers who have each collected contributions totaling $50,000 or more. Many of the bundlers come from industries with critical interests in Washington. Nearly three dozen of the bundlers have raised more than $500,000 each, including more than a half-dozen who have passed the $1 million mark and one or two who have exceeded $2 million, according to interviews with fund-raisers.br>

An analysis of campaign finance records shows that about two-thirds of his bundlers are concentrated in four major industries: law, securities and investments, real estate and entertainment. Lawyers make up the largest group, numbering roughly 130, with many of them working for firms that also have lobbying arms. At least 100 Obama bundlers are top executives or brokers from investment businesses: nearly two dozen work for financial titans like Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs or Citigroup. About 40 others come from the real estate industry.

Try as he might to portray himself as the new hotness, Obama repeatedly demonstrates that he's just as deep in the pockets of the same old special interests, and if elected, the results will be exactly the same as under any other president in the past 25 years. And when your campaign is based on the idea of Change, when you don't really have anything beyond that on which to run, then your campaign is in for a rough time.

The Paris Hilton Response "Ad"

It's everywhere by now, but I like Ann Althouse, so I'll credit her - not that anyone's following my links, but hey, a guy can dream...

See the video at Althouse's site, or at FunnyorDie.com

I though Paris did a great job. Obviously I have no idea how much of this, if any, was her doing, but at least she demonstrated that she can at least read, and has a decent sense of comic timing, unlike, for instance, her co-star in the original McCain ad, Britney Spears.

Not to go off on a tangent here, but as a big fan of How I Met Your Mother, Britney's much ballyhooed recurring guest spot was one of the single most unfunny bits of an otherwise consistently hilarious show. I understand the girl has gone through some tough times and whatnot, but she was really bad. Really bad. And then afterwards, Yahoo! or some other fake news source had an article or two that I didn't read talking about how Britney was upset that she didn't get nominated for Best Guest Performance at the Teen Choice Awards or some other fake awards show. Or maybe it was the Emmys. Which is also pretty meaningless, particularly in the Best Guest Performance category.

Not to go off on a tangent from my original tangent, but from what Paris is showing here, she would have done a helluva better job than Britney. How hard is it to be funny, with the writers they've got on that show, acting opposite the brilliance that is NPH for the majority of your scenes? Her timing was horrible, her delivery was stilted and forced...I'm still upset. The best part was when the brilliance that is grown up Doogie came out immediately afterwards and basically said that the show didn't need guest stars, particularly Britney Spears. Good stuff.

Anyway...Paris was good, the ad was funny, I don't know whether or not it was pro-McCain, as Ann Althouse claims, but it certainly wasn't anti-McCain, and I can definitely see how it could be interpreted as anti-Obama. Up front, Hilton dismisses Obama as "that other guy," and then basically parrots much of his energy plan. If McCain fails to refer to Obama's plan as "the Hilton Plan" by mistake in an upcoming debate, he'll be missing a great opportunity.

And, no matter what you think of her as a person (some suggestions: trashy, disgusting, vacuous, everything that's wrong with Western Civ., etc.) she's easier on the eyes than say, any politician out there. Except maybe the governor of Alaska.

This was quite tangent-filled, sorry.

McCain Running On All Cylinders

McCain visiting motorcycle rally, nuke power plant
via headline on Drudge

As his opponent continues to struggle, reversing himself on issue after issue, John McCain seems to be hitting his stride, riding the momentum of a strong week and a tie in the polls. He's visiting nuclear power plants, attending motorcycle rallies, calling out Congress for taking vacations, and hanging with Def Leppard and Lynyrd Skynyrd. He also had a couple great lines reported in the above article, including:

"As you may know, not long ago a couple hundred thousand Berliners made a lot of noise for my opponent. I'll take the roar of 50,000 Harleys any day."

and

"My opponent wants to set a date to come home. I want us to come home with victory and honor so we will never go back again."

Good, solid stuff. Obama seems to be reeling a bit, his press cover is faltering, and McCain now has a number of issues on which he can continue to hammer the golden boy. Keep it up.

New poll shows Obama losing support among young, women

Good news for McCain, for what it's worth - polls are always suspect, but if this is true, it means that McCain is cutting into what has been one of Obama's strongholds, younger voters. I have nothing to base this on beyond my personal feelings as a young voter (and at 28, do I even count as one of those still?), but I'd like to think that this is at least partially a reaction to the events of the past couple weeks, the scene in the House with the GOP staying behind, McCain's recent Moses ad, the increased general feistiness of the McCain campaign.

Speaking for myself, again, hopefully as a "younger" voter, I'm tired of seeing things run in Washington the way they have been my whole life. I'm tired of corruption and the status quo, and right now, despite all of Obama's talk of change, McCain is the candidate who is actually shaking things up. Right now, Obama is following McCain's lead on energy and on Iraq, trying desperately to somehow get to his right, angering his base in the process. Meanwhile, McCain and the GOP members in the House are able to sit back and gently mock Obama and Nancy Pelosi, inject some fun, some excitement into politics. Most importantly, McCain and the GOP are conveying the sense that things are actually getting done. This isn't politics as usual, this is members of the House of Representatives setting up webcams, using Twitter in the absence of CSPAN. Who knew energy policy could be exciting? Certainly not young voters, but they're starting to find out.

Barack Shows How to Be a Gracious Winner

Wow, this is noble of him...

Maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but isn't Obama basically saying that now that he's clinched the nomination and the Florida and Michigan delegates can't change that, he'll now be gracious enough to allow their votes to count so the Democrat voters in those states won't hold their disenfranchisement against him in the November election?