He’s got an age problem, alright.
An utterly unscientific poll with an interesting outcome.
This may be the first flip-flop-flip: “The platform calls for Sen. Obama to fulfill his promise, made in the primaries, to engage in ‘direct high-level diplomacy, without preconditions’ in the case of Iran.” But they all said it wasn’t so!
Mickey Kaus asks: “Would it really hurt Obama if John Edwards went to Denver?” Yes! Barack Obama is trying to combat the image of a lightweight celebrity — the last thing he needs is for the three-ring gossip circus to come to Denver.
And this would be bad, really bad, if true.
Another “no kidding” headline.
Indeed: “What tapes?”
We’re told yet again that we are all racists. In any event: “The consensus is nearly universal, and correct, that Obama’s gambit was a tactical mistake: It put him at the center of an argument over race and racism that he simply cannot win—because the argument itself is prone to alienating the very voters he is trying to court.” And it couldn’t possibly be that he’s lagging behind generic polling because he is “a guy with a thin résumé, no foreign-policy credentials in an era scarred by terrorism, a background alien to much of Wonder Bread America. . . ” Nah. The voters are hateful, that’s the reason. (Either way, did the Democrats make the best choice?)
You sure do get the sense that there’s not much real work done in one of the two offices.
This has it exactly right: “In any event, McCain’s campaign hails his prescience, Obama tries to appear tough, Putin ponders his next move, and the Ukrainians wonder if they’re next.” But somehow the Hawaiian vacation location, the refusal to take questions from the media and the delay in getting up to speed haven’t helped Barack Obama establish his foreign policy credentials this week. (As Stephen Hayes pointed out, his presser looked a bit like a hostage tape with a forced reading from a script so obviously prepared by others.)
Whoops. This has every indication of a campaign which doesn’t learn from its errors or even think they were errors at all.
I think there is consensus that Bill Richardson (“Clinging to the Obama campaign’s talking points like a drunk to a lamppost,” as George Will memorably describes) has been an appallingly bad surrogate of late. If there were ever a public official whose reputation fell more precipitously after a presidential run, I’d be hard pressed to name him. (John Edwards doesn’t count.)
If Obama is calling for Georgia to be included in NATO and for the world community to stand up to the Russians and “condemn this aggression” isn’t he part of the knee-jerk, Cold war “overreation”? Really, Kagan and then Brzezinski, Holbrooke, Peretz and now Obama. Where is the Left to go if the Chosen One is inching ever closer to the neo-con conspiracy? Obviously, he’s not the Barack Obama they knew.
This is a cogent analysis and a good answer to “What can we do?”
Even if this issue is not a compelling one for every voter, it reminds us that Obama has effectively produced not a scrap of paper from his state senate career. It would seem that the presidential candidate with the skimpiest record in modern presidential history is also the least vetted. The MSM remains remarkably incurious.