Don't Be A Good Democrat!

Obama and the Experience Issue

McCain has plainly left his mark on the Senate--whether it's a good or bad mark depends on how one evaluates McCain-Feingold, the Senate compromise on judicial confirmations, the bipartisan immigration bill that failed to pass the House in 2006, and McCain's frequent attacks on Congressional pork. And that's just a short list of domestic issues from the last few years. Reasonable people can disagree about these topics, but it seems clear that McCain hasn't just been a timeserver. The Senate of the last decade (at least) would have been a very different place without him.

Is the same true of Joe Biden, who has been a Senator for fourteen years longer than McCain? Not obviously so, but perhaps that reflects my ignorance. Still, nothing I've read since Obama picked him and nothing in my memory of the past thirty years makes me think that either the Senate in particular or American government in general would look different without Biden's contributions. Quieter maybe, and a little less entertaining. But not appreciably different.

What about Obama? This, it seems to me, is the question that bothers a lot of voters who, like me, find Obama extremely impressive but worry that he might not be ready for the job he seeks. The problem isn't time: four years in the Senate are more than enough for an exceptional talent like Obama's to shine. Nor is the problem that he was a state senator only four years ago. State legislatures are hugely important institutions; eight years of service in one seems to me an underrated plus for a presidential candidate. The problem is, I'm not sure what Obama did during those eight years. It isn't obvious to me that he left a mark on Illinois government--and he should have, if he aspires to the nation's presidency. The same point applies to his current job: I have yet to hear any current Senator explain how Obama changed some important piece of legislation in fundamental ways, or stood up to the Democratic caucus on some major issue about which he and his party disagreed, or worked to bring about some compromise that would have been impossible without his efforts. With McCain, the question is whether you like the things he's done. With Obama--Biden too, I think--the question is whether he's done much.

This is, in fact, the heart of DBAGD's manifesto. Obama has done nothing. Palin, who I argued against as the Fox Anchor choice, has nonetheless done a great deal in just a few years. It remains to be seen what the public thinks of her and how that translates in the polls. However, I have never argued that Obama has no experience, but simply that he has done nothing.

Geraldine Ferraro tells us What Hillary's Women Want, but with respect, she's not quite right. Certainly, many voters saw Clinton's candidacy in purely feminist terms. But for others, Clinton was simply the only acceptable Democratic choice in a party that has moved to the left over the past few years.

For some percentage of the Democrats who aren't supporting Obama (let's say more than two and less than 20 million), unity is impossible, no matter how “detailed” or “grounded” a pitch Obama delivers. Ideology and specific plans are important voting considerations, of course. But a presidential candidate has to have a baseline history of achievement before ideology can enter the picture. The prospective candidate should demonstrate a willingness to put his or her ideas on the line (in any venue), work for them, show an ability to survive the tough fight (whether it's won or lost), show some level of accomplishment or success before we hand over the keys to the White House. The baseline for this consideration is, and should be, extremely low. Otherwise weak Democratic candidates Dukakis and Kerry both met it. Obama manifestly has not. There's no policy position he can flip, no endorsements he can offer up, no gravitas Biden can add that will offset the fact that Obama’s only significant life achievements have involved lopsided elections and reading speeches he didn't write off of a teleprompter.

How many people agree with these sentiments? Beats me. That's what makes the election so exciting. Stay tuned.

As a usually Democratic voter who will opt for McCain regardless, I have no official preferences for veep and leave it to Republicans to sort out. Here are my thoughts, for what they are worth:

• Joe Lieberman: Michael Tomasky made a good point in this vlog with Rich Lowry--if McCain is running as a man of experience and judgment, then why blow the box completely open by choosing a guy from the other party? Leave Lieberman for a cabinet position.
  
• Tom Ridge: If McCain likes him, why not? Personally, I like him best. He's got gravitas and is utterly credible as second in command or top dog if something happens. He could conceivably help win Pennsylvania. McCain will be more comfortable on the trail if he's working with a guy he likes, and McCain's comfort level is important.
  
• Mitt Romney: The consensus choice works fine. It just leaves the ticket open to the same charges they've been making against Biden, and those ads have been very effective.
  
• Pawlenty: No. He's boring, brings nothing, and in his one big campaign job (the debate), Biden will eat him alive.
  
• A Woman: NOT PALIN. If McCain wants to pick a veep who might appeal to Clinton voters, then under no circumstances should he go with a generally inexperienced candidate whose primary appeal is her cuteness. This isn't a Fox News anchor.

  This may sound counterintuitive, but if a woman is to have any appeal at all to Clinton voters, she should be solid, experienced, and older--that is, she should be the female Tom Ridge. I am not well-versed in my long-term Republican female politicians, but in the Senate, two that come to mind are Kay Bailey Hutchison and Olympia Snowe, both of whom are, alas, pro-choice and Snowe may be too liberal to warrant consideration at all. The signal sent with Hutchison, in particular, would be extraordinarily powerful. Women of the boomer era and beyond had a tough time listening to DNC party officials rave about Obama's youth and vigor and charisma, implicitly dismissing Hillary as old and dull. This still rankles, and if McCain wants a woman on the ticket, he should choose with that in mind. (Note: Condi Rice falls into this category too and yes, she should be considered.)
  
  Note to conservatives: can you let up a bit on the pro-choice avoidance for veep? Ask for some sort of pledge and let it go. This isn't about appealing to Democrats, but rather to allow McCain some leeway. Stop demanding that the job be a platform for tomorrow's leaders, can't you? No one will suddenly confuse the Republicans for a pro-choice party just because McCain picks Ridge. Thanks for your consideration in this matter.

I mentioned Debra Bartoshevich earlier this season, when the Clinton delegate announced she was going to vote for McCain. She was booted from the delegation. But the McCain campaign picked her up, and now she's got her own ad.

Just yesterday, I predicted that the onslaught of articles shrinking out Obama would lead to an article entitled "Giving Up FlipFlops--Obama at Columbia".

I didn't go back far enough, alas.

Small college awakened future senator to service

Occidental, the school that gave Obama a full scholarship, has a more aggressive PR department.

Oxy, as it is affectionately known, nurtured his transformation. He started playing basketball less so he could read and study more. After shying away from activism early in his college career, he joined an antiapartheid campaign. He came to terms with his identity, eventually ditching his nickname, Barry, and embracing Barack. And then, yearning for a bigger stage, he engineered a transfer to Columbia.

Columbia, get off the stick! Demand your moment in the pshrinking sun.

(Psst: Notice how many Oxy folks differ with Obama's autobiography. Yeah, he gets that a lot.)

While no liberals save Lieberman has gone so far to declare support for McCain, quite a few have hinted broadly.

Gerry Ferraro:

COLMES: Do you want him to win? Do you want a Democrat in the White House?

FERRARO: I certainly do. But I also have to tell you that I've always said that, to me, my country comes before my party. And no one should take any of us for granted.

Sean Wilentz, A Liberal's Lament

Can Obama, who lost the large industrial states in the primaries, deal with a troubled economy and become the standard bearer for the working and middle classes—the historic core of the Democratic Party that the last two Democratic candidates lost? Can the inexperienced candidate persuasively outline a new foreign policy that addresses the quagmires left by the Bush administration and faces the challenges of terrorism and a resurgent Russia? Can the less-than-one-term senator become the master of the Congress and enact goals such as universal health care that have eluded Democratic presidents since Truman? On these fundamental questions may hang the fate of Obama's candidacy. In the absence of a compelling record, set speeches, even with the most stirring words, will not resolve these matters. And until he resolves them, Obama will remain the most unformed candidate in the modern history of presidential politics.

Ed Rendell--technically, an Obama supporter:

Ladies and gentleman, the coverage of Barack Obama was embarrassing....MSNBC was the official network of the Obama campaign.

Having nothing but discouraging news for Obama worshippers, many reporters are turning to his past to explain their messiah.

How Hawaii Upbringing Shaped Obama

Hawaii is about the forces that shaped him, and Chicago is about how he reshaped himself. Chicago is about the critical choices he made as an adult: how he learned to survive in the rough-and-tumble of law and politics, how he figured out the secrets of power in a world defined by it, and how he resolved his inner conflicts and refined the subtle, coolly ambitious persona now on view in the presidential election. Hawaii comes first. It is what lies beneath, what makes Chicago possible and understandable.

Will Obama learn to survive the rough and tumble world of law and politics? Will he learn the secrets of power? Will he resolve his inner conflicts and refine the subtle, coolly ambitious persona now on view? Tune in tomorrow for....

What Barack Learned From His Father

In Obama's case, yet a third thing is true: he had to find a way to be comfortable in his own skin, reconciling his black and white ancestries while being raised largely by his white grandparents. Without a father, he was forced to arm himself and to make his own way into the worlds he chose to join and to master. This is not to say that he did not love and respect his mother and grandparents, and appreciate their care. It is, rather, that, through no fault of their own, their care was simply not commensurate with his needs. He grew up in a milieu of unspoken truths, unacknowledged complexities and hidden histories.

Next up: Giving Up FlipFlops--Obama at Columbia.

Count me in with those who say that McCain knocked it out of the park. I don't agree with McCain on everything, but his clear, direct answers stood in stark contrast to Obama's equivocations.

This one's from the McCain store:

This one here is for those who aren't so much pro-McCain as anti-Obama:

Here's a stunner--the mainstream media finally takes official notice of Obama's childhood mentor, "Frank", a friend and poet that he mentions occasionally in his autobiography.

Writer offered a young Barack Obama advice on life :

At key moments in his adolescence, Barack Obama could not turn to a father he hardly knew. Instead, he looked to a left-leaning black journalist and poet for advice on living in a world of black and white. Frank Marshall Davis had his opinions. He once argued that the public schools of his youth prepared neither blacks nor whites for "life in a multiracial, democratic nation." He called hypocrisy "a national trait of American whites." Advocating civil rights amid segregation, Davis wrote in 1949: "I refuse to settle for anything less than all the rights which are due me under the Constitution."

The depth of the influence Davis had on the presumptive Democratic nominee is a question. While Davis' leftist politics could allow the candidate's critics to group Davis with Obama friends and acquaintances with allegedly anti-American views, those who knew Davis and his work say his activism was aimed squarely at social injustice.

Now, the article doesn't go so far as to mention that Davis was a member of the Communist Party, but it's a start.

Here's the thing, though: Frank Marshall Davis's role in Obama's life has been common knowledge in the blogosphere for at least a year. Yet there hasn't been a mention of it in the mainstream media until now. Search the NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, and the only mention you'll see of Frank Marshall Davis is this AP article from today.

Obviously, Obama's relationship with Davis has been ignored. It's hard to perpetuate the myth that Obama's a moderate centrist who reaches across the aisle when all his buddies throughout his life come from the radical left.

So the mainstream media has not seen fit to mention Frank Marshall Davis, and suddenly, out of nowhere, this pops up on the AP?

Could it be related to Obama's attempt to distance himself from the reparations issue? Or is something else about to break?

Why now?

Richard Cohen, who spent much of the Democratic primaries writing about what's wrong with Hillary, has suddenly noticed that there's quite a bit wrong with Obama.

What has Obama Accomplished?

Obama argues that he himself stuck to the biggest gun of all: opposition to the war. He took that position back when the war was enormously popular, the president who initiated it was even more popular, and critics of both were slandered as unpatriotic. But at the time, Obama was a mere Illinois state senator, representing the (very) liberal Hyde Park area of Chicago. He either voiced his conscience or his district's leanings or (lucky fella) both. We will never know.

And we will never know, either, how Obama might have conducted himself had he served in Congress as long as McCain has. Possibly he would have earned a reputation for furious, maybe even sanctimonious, integrity of the sort that often drove McCain's colleagues to dark thoughts of senatorcide, but the record -- scant as it is -- suggests otherwise. Obama is not noted for sticking to a position or a person once it (or he) becomes a political liability. (Names available upon request.)

Or, as Bobby Rush first asked eight years ago, "What has he done? Just tell me, what has he done?"

Cohen also says a number of good things about McCain, many of which have already been mentioned by DBAGD:

"Just tell me one thing Barack Obama has done that you admire," I asked a prominent Democrat. He paused and then said that he admired Obama's speech to the Democratic convention in 2004. I agreed. It was a hell of a speech, but it was just a speech.

On the other hand, I continued, I could cite four or five actions -- not speeches -- that John McCain has taken that elicit my admiration, even my awe. First, of course, is his decision as a Vietnam War POW to refuse freedom out of concern that he would be exploited for propaganda purposes. To paraphrase what Kipling said about Gunga Din, John McCain is a better man than most.

But I would not stop there. I would include campaign finance reform, which infuriated so many in his own party; opposition to earmarks, which won him no friends; his politically imprudent opposition to the Medicare prescription drug bill (Medicare has about $35 trillion in unfunded obligations); and, last but not least, his very early call for additional troops in Iraq. His was a lonely position, virtually suicidal for an all-but-certain presidential candidate, and no help when his campaign nearly expired last summer. In all these cases, McCain stuck to his guns.

Keep your fingers crossed that the USA Today/Gallup poll isn't too much of an outlier: McCain up by 4 among likely voters is nothing to sneer at after a week of non-stop Obama worship.

Jim Hoagland points out that Obamamania isn't a worldwide phenomenon:

In Asia, trade is the biggest dividing line of the campaign and works in McCain's favor. Both China and Japan have settled into a comfortable relationship with Bush and give his administration high marks for its Asia policy and for promoting free trade. They would expect McCain to continue this pattern and fear that victorious Democrats would disrupt it, I was told in Tokyo. India's political leaders seem to share those concerns.

Obama did little during his meticulously choreographed Middle East stops to dispel worries in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and elsewhere that he will be at least as pro-Israeli as McCain -- and more likely to quit Iraq, and to engage Iran, without regard to the effect those actions would have on the region.

"For us, he is high risk for sure, high gain only maybe," an Arab diplomat told me. "Anyway, the United States could elect Osama bin Laden as president and American Middle East policy would not change. It is that locked in for Israel."

So when it comes right down to it, Europeans and (presumably) Africans worship Obamessiah. Everyone else, not so much.

Robert Novak provides a neat little example of cognitive dissonance:

But Obama is no Huckabee, Giuliani or Romney. He is the most spectacular campaigner of his generation, with appeal well beyond Democratic ranks. That he lingers below the 50 percent mark is a mystery among politicians of both parties.

Let's review the contrapositive, shall we?

If X, Then Y leads to the contrapositive. If NOT Y, then NOT X.

If "Candidate appeals well beyond Democratic ranks" then "candidate support above 50%".

THEREFORE,

If "Candidate support NOT above 50%......" ???? Finish, please?

At what point will the media realize that Obama is not the spectacular campaigner they think he is?

He didn't win the primary by overwhelming acclaim, but by gaming the caucus system and relying on the extraordinary racial preference of black voters. He didn't even win a majority of the Democratic voters in the primary.

This surely can't be that complicated. Maybe Novak's a bit fussed from learning that he occasionally runs people down in his Prince of Darkness Corvette.

Update: Gleep. Novak has been diagnosed with a brain tumor, which may explain a lot.

Breakfast with Barack--or is it Barak?. Just one guess who the media thinks is the main event.

But the graceless wonder strikes again. Meeting with Bibi Netanyahu, the candidate complains, "I could fall asleep standing up."

You have to wonder--does Obama like anything but campaigning? He's never shown any interest in his actual jobs over the years. He just wants the promotions.

Classic. And the beauty of it is, the McCain campaign didn't have to do a thing except cull--and come up with Frankie Vallie to sing along.

Lou Aguilar provides 10 Reasons.

And here's an 11th...

Obama gave his sister "Our Bodies, Our Selves" for her 12th birthday

I mean. Bleargh.

Obama Disinvites "Lobbyist" Max Cleland

Cleland is registered to lobby for a company whose products are aimed at helping soldiers recover more quickly from battlefield industries, Tissue Regeneration Technologies.

“Sen. Cleland is definitely not doing lobbying work. He gives speeches and campaigns for a few friends, but mostly he’s spending his time taking care of his father," said Cleland advisor John Marshall, who said that Tissue Regeneration Technologies was the only company on whose behalf he lobbies.

You know, when you figure all the principles Obama has caved on, you'd think he might make an exception for a man who lost a third of his body while serving in Vietnam (non-combat injury or no). Cleland was practically Kerry's mascot in 2004; the way the Democrats wheel him out or push him around for their own convenience is shameful. Certainly, Obama's not the sort to stand on principle, but couldn't he have just taken one more flipflop and made an exception for Cleland?

Buried in the middle of an article on Obama's 300 foreign policy advisers is this little gem:

The group no longer includes Samantha Power, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Harvard human rights expert who resigned in March after she was quoted calling Mrs. Clinton a “monster.” But Mr. Lake still talks to Ms. Power, and Mr. Obama sent a long personal tribute that was read at her wedding in Ireland this month.

Leaving aside the fact that Power's "firing" was obviously phony, the NY Times forgets to mention the groom. Guess who the groom is?

Cass Sunstein and Samanth Power Marry on July Fourth

That's Cass Sunstein, a noted law professor whose yen for an SC nomination can be ascertained by the deep Koolaid drench in all his recent columns (e.g., The Visionary Minimalist and The Obama I Know).

If Obama actually had dumped Powers completely, wouldn't it have pissed off Sunstein? The U of C law professor's constant whor selling of Obama as the non-partisan prince was a significant "get" in the early days of his candidacy.

While Powers' mention wasn't a major point of the article, it does seem bizarre that the Times didn't add "to key Obama supporter Cass Sunstein" after the word "wedding".

Only the left could get away with a cover like this:

The New Yorker can swear til it's really, really blue that it was meant as "satire", but count on it: Obama's got them mad.

Ryan Lizza's accompanying article is nothing that hasn't been done before.

But his life in Chicago from 1991 until his victorious Senate campaign is a lacuna in his autobiography.

Yeah, and how many adoring articles has Lizza written on Obama in the past year? But not until now did it occur to him or his bosses to wonder about that "lacuna".

Clinton Supporters Not Moving to Obama

A growing number of Clinton supporters polled say they may stay home in November instead of casting their ballot for Obama, an indication the party has yet to coalesce around the Illinois senator four weeks after the most prolonged and at times divisive primary race in modern American history came to a close.

According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Friday, the number of Clinton supporters who plan to defect to Republican Sen. John McCain's camp is down from one month ago, but -- in what could be an ominous sign for Obama as he seeks to unify the party -- the number of them who say they plan to vote for Obama is also down, and a growing number say they may not vote at all.

If you're a Democrat who plans to abstain, remember that there's a reason you're not voting for Obama. Vote McCain. Remember, the Democrats will control Congress.

Thomas Sowell on the folly of voting for Obama:

If all that was involved was Democrats versus Republicans, the Republicans would deserve the condemnation they are getting, after their years of wild spending and their multiple betrayals of the principles and the people who got them elected. Amnesty for illegal aliens was perhaps the worst betrayal.

But, while the media may treat the elections as being about Democrats and Republicans-- the "horse race" approach-- elections were not set up by the Constitution of the United States in order to enable party politicians to get jobs.

Nor were elections set up in order to enable voters to vent their emotions or indulge their fantasies.

Voting is a right but it is also a duty-- a duty not just to show up on election day, but a duty to give serious thought to the alternatives on the table and what those alternatives mean for the future of the nation.

What is becoming ever more painfully apparent is that too many people this year-- whether conservative, liberals or whatever-- are all too willing to judge Barack Obama on the basis of his election-year rhetoric, rather than on the record of what he has advocated and done during the past two decades.

While the media pushes the idea that Wesley Clark's scurrilous attack on McCain's POW experience was an overzealous spokesman going off the reservation, the virtual explosion of these attacks (by Jay Rockefeller, Jim Webb, and Tom Harkin, among others) suggests that the Obama campaign is coordinating this strategy--yet another sign of the candidate's extraordinary arrogance.

Minimizing McCain's Experience emphasizes their folly. Obama, whose bus victim count is in the double digits, can't understand that McCain's POW experience reveals his character because Obama has no character. That's one reason he mocks voters who "cling" to guns and religion, because he can't understand having core values to hold dear.

Lately, the media has been making much of Obama's "move to the center". He hasn't moved a thing. If he were genuinely interested in reassuring centrists, he wouldn't have blown off the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, which was meeting in Chicago. Not only didn't he stop by, he didn't even pretend he had something to do--he shot hoops and got a haircut.

Look. To say that Obama is flipflopping or changing his views is to give him more merit than he deserves. Obama has no views. He's empty. To the extent he holds any beliefs, they are of the far academic left--he's been reflecting those people's views so long that some of them soaked in. But only a few.

The man does nothing more than read lines off a teleprompter. His handlers have decided he's got a better chance if he mouths centrists platitudes. So they scroll those words on by, he reads them real nice, and the media obediently reports that he's abandoning the left, completely ignoring the lack of any genuine outreach to centrists.

It's not about reassuring centrists. Obama has no intention of genuinely placating centrists--he's made it clear that anyone who preferred Clinton has to get over it. Obama's campaign is banking on the cult coming out in big numbers and the rest of Democrats taking him because they have nowhere else to go.

So if Obama isn't trying to convince Democrats, why move to the center? Easy: he must try to avoid succeeding where McCain has failed. Obama must not energize the right. While conservatives who follow the election won't be fooled, a large fraction of the right haven't really focused in on the election yet. By the time they start to pay attention, Obama wants his "shift to the center" well documented, in the hopes that they will view him unenthusiastically, but as no more objectionable than, say, John Kerry or John Edwards. Bad, of course, but not unthinkably far left.

The enthusiasm gap between McCain and Obama supporters might shift considerably if Republicans who haven't been paying much attention to the campaign thus far understand just exactly who Obama's cultists are, and what views they hold dear. They might get very excited about voting for McCain not so much for his own ideas, but in order to stop Obama.

So the "move to the center" isn't designed to bring the center over to Obama. It's about keeping the right at home.

Earnest Eboo at the Washington Post pens another bromide on "how bad" the country is becoming, in Will McCain Stand Up to Prejudice?

What if Mr. McCain put on his homepage tomorrow that he doesn’t want the votes of people like Mr. Fasano who proudly proclaim that they are not voting for Mr. Obama because they don’t like his name or the religion of his grandfather?

After all, it is America’s openness and tolerance that is allowing McCain and his wife to raise an adopted daughter from Bangladesh in this great country. It is an open and tolerant America that McCain has fought for as both a warrior and a statesman.

Hillary Clinton was similarly exhorted (notably by David Gergen) to come forward and reject any voters who might be against Obama because of his race.

No candidate has received more votes because of his race than Barack Obama. Blacks voted overwhelmingly for the candidate who shared their race. Their support handed him the nomination; without it he would have just been another liberal candidate grabbing 30% of the vote.

Instead of acknowledging this reality, the media pretends that Clinton alienated black voters, that the African American vote was in play before Bill Clinton compared Barack Obama to (horrors!) Jesse Jackson during the South Carolina primary. At that point, Obama had already won 80% of the black vote in Nevada, and 75% of black voters had gone for "Uncommitted" in Michigan.

Even some black conservatives are now considering voting for Obama.

"I don’t necessarily like his policies; I don’t like much that he advocates, but for the first time in my life, history thrusts me to really seriously think about [voting for Obama]."--Armstrong Williams

That's not "history". That's race. Williams, Colin Powell, J. C. Watts have all said they are considering a vote for Obama. (Michael Steele and Thomas Sowell, to name two others, will still be pulling the lever for McCain.)

DBAGD stipulates that minorities voting on the basis of race has an emotionally acceptable resonance that doesn't hold true for whites, and that while the double standard is hard for many to take seriously, there's not much point to arguing about it.

However, Obama's (largely unearned) status as the "post-racial" candidate demands some level of consistency, doesn't it?

So how about we make a deal:

Obama makes a speech in which he rejects all black voters who are only interested in a black president.

OR

Everyone stops lecturing McCain about the trivial percentage of whites who might prefer a white President.

Otherwise, post-racial my ass.

Michelle Obama tells the DNC Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council that "Barack Obama will fight for equal rights for gays just as he fought to help working-class families overcome poverty".

Gays and lesbians should run like hell, if Obama's "fight" for the working poor is what they have to look forward to.

Grim Proving Ground for Obama's Housing Policy (Boston Globe)

As a state senator, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee coauthored an Illinois law creating a new pool of tax credits for developers. As a US senator, he pressed for increased federal subsidies. And as a presidential candidate, he has campaigned on a promise to create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund that could give developers an estimated $500 million a year.

But a Globe review found that thousands of apartments across Chicago that had been built with local, state, and federal subsidies - including several hundred in Obama's former district - deteriorated so completely that they were no longer habitable.

How bad?

About 99 of the units are vacant, many rendered uninhabitable by unfixed problems, such as collapsed roofs and fire damage. Mice scamper through the halls. Battered mailboxes hang open. Sewage backs up into kitchen sinks. In 2006, federal inspectors graded the condition of the complex an 11 on a 100-point scale - a score so bad the buildings now face demolition. ... Eleven of Rezmar's buildings were located in the district represented by Obama, containing 258 apartments. The building without heat in January 1997, the month Obama entered the state Senate, was in his district. So was Jones's building with rats in the walls and Frizzell's building that lacked insulation. And a redistricting after the 2000 Census added another 350 Rezmar apartments to the area represented by Obama. ... Nonetheless, the buildings deteriorated badly. The problems came to public attention in a dramatic way in 2004, after a sport utility vehicle driven by a suburban woman trying to buy drugs struck one of the buildings, causing it to collapse. City inspectors arrived in the ensuing glare, finding a long list of code violations, leading city officials to urge the federal government to seize the complex.

All of the usual suspects benefited from Obama's legislative efforts to create these hellholes masquerading as "affordable housing projects"--Valerie Jarrett, Allison Davis, Tony Rezko, among others. In return, Obama benefited from the $175,000 these developers shoveled into his various political campaigns.

So plenty of people benefited. None of them lived in the slumpits Obama's legislation sponsored, though.

Again--Obama has accomplished nothing of note. He's good at quid pro quo, though. He wins mostly rigged elections and shovelling money to the people who bought his victories. Adequate for a vacuous nobody who reads pretty speeches off a teleprompter. Not enough for a state Senator, much less a US Senator. And certainly not enough for a president.

Greta van Susteren wants to know if "Senator Obama's campaign is booking CNN?"

I debated whether to tell you this or not…but I did promise behind the scenes information here on GretaWire….so here it is…yesterday at 9:00am I personally booked Reverend Sharpton to appear ON THE RECORD at 10pm eastern to discuss Don Imus. At 8:12pm, less than 2 hours before we were to begin our 10pm news show, I received a call in my office from Reverend Sharpton…he said that Senator Obama’s campaign had called and asked him to appear on CNN at the same time he was due to appear on ON THE RECORD and thus could not make our show at the top. I told him that our first segment was the one he had been booked for almost 12 hours earlier and which we had discussed …he said Senator Obama’s campaign called and wanted him on CNN and that he was sorry.

Greta's missing the lede, as Michael Calderone points out:

Sharpton's spokeswoman declined to discuss the content of his personal conversation with Van Susteren, including possible details of what involvement, if any, the Obama campaign had in the decision to appear on Cooper’s show instead.

This morning, when I contacted Obama spokesman Bill Burton by e-mail, he said he wasn't aware of Van Susteren's blog item. Subsequently, I’ve followed up with additional e-mails and am still waiting for a response from the campaign.

It's important, because if there was coordination with the Obama campaign, shouldn’t that be disclosed on the broadcast? On Cooper’s show, Sharpton wasn’t identified as a surrogate for the campaign.

Indeed. And when Calderone contacted van Susteren, she said:

Van Susteren responds: “I am 100 per cent clear on this. I know what he said. I spoke DIRECTLY to Reverend Sharpton – it was not via a spokersperson. He called me shortly after 8pm. He said it to me more than one time in the conversation as the reason why he “had to” do CNN instead of meeting his agreement that he made to me in our 9am phone call. Reverend Sharpton and I have known each other professionally for many years (I like him) and he was attempting to get my blessing for his decision to do CNN and breaking his agreement with me."

Is CNN using Obama surrogates as supposedly independent analysts?

Let's go ask Donna Brazile.

Another article on "Clinton supporters" (still referred to as "mainly women", but you can't have everything) and the growing network of Democrats pushing anyone but Obama:

The Obama-McCain comparison is what Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) has been trying to emphasize. A prominent Clinton supporter, Wasserman Schultz said for women who care about reproductive rights, the economy and a range other issues, the only choice is Obama. "The opportunity to elect a woman has been missed this time, and that's deeply disappointing," she said. "While I understand the temptation to gravitate towards a Puma attitude, I don't think that is productive. In fact, I think that is counterproductive. It will result in an outcome, if it becomes widespread, that elects John McCain by accident or de facto."

Not a problem for Cristi Adkins, a registered nurse from Reston. She co-founded Clintons4McCain.com, a site that is more anti-Obama than pro-anybody else. "I think he is dangerous. I think he is unvetted and unqualified," said Adkins, an independent who said she voted for Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004 and Al Gore in 2000.

Reporters like Kevin Merida still can't seem to get their brains wrapped around the notion that many Democrats simply find Obama unfit to be president:

The clearest and strongest sentiments seem to be that party leaders tried to force Clinton out of the race prematurely, allowed sexism and misogyny to go unchecked in the media, and made decisions about the Florida and Michigan contests that were designed to favor Obama.

Still, it's the first article with more data than psychobabble.

Some fun facts by Google. Just count the hits. (use quotes)

Dismisses:

"McCain Dismisses": 17,800

"Obama Dismisses": 49,000

Shrugs

"McCain Shrugs": 1,260

"Obama Shrugs": 37,000

Mocks

"McCain Mocks": 7,670

"Obama Mocks": 11,100

Accepts Responsibility

"Obama blames staff": 157

"McCain blames staff":

A Note to Our Liberal Overlord

Scarlett? I just emailed her once.. (Obama knows all about piling a bunch of bullsh** on a single fact.)

Obama hypes his small donors, but still spends more time working on big money

Speaking of big money fundraisers, check out the details of his most recent:

Donors sipped wine and bottled water. Waiters wearing black
vests, white shirts and black ties served hors d'oeuvres: endive spears
of brie, toasted almonds and truffle oil; tuna tartare with passion
fruit ponzu and macadamia nut on wonton crisp; beef short rib skewers
with Asian flavors.

Seems Karl Rove wasn't all that off-base about Obama and the country club.

Poor Mrs. Obama.

The Loud Silence of Feminists

Michelle Obama has become an issue in the presidential campaign even though she isn't running for anything.

Smearing Michelle

Does she mention on the stump that she and her husband finished paying off their student loans not long ago, plainly an attempt to convince voters that they are regular folks who know about economic challenges? .....[White men] are now confronted with yet another spouse who is obviously more than a demure helpmate to her husband.

Let us all boo a big ol' hoo for Mrs. Obama, who has been out there on the campaign trail, spreading the Obama family fables, uninformed, uninvolved electorate who won't earn her pride until they elect her husband. We can likewise sob sympathetically while she headlines fundraisers and rakes in cash so hubby won't look the fool for flipping on public financing.

It's just so unfair, picking on a helpless wife and mommy who wants nothing more than public adulation with nary a hint of criticism.

Let's not wonder why all these angry protests came out only after Obama officially denied the existence of a "Whitey" tape. For most of June, the press has been ignoring the rumor and tiptoeing around Michelle Obama because (shhhhh) they were all worried it might be true.

But now that it's not, boy, are they pissed.

Obama kept Law Review balanced

While Politico usually offers a reasonably unbiased examination of the Great Messiah, Ben Smith and Jeffrey Ressner work overtime as cheerleaders on this piece.

For example:

In recent months, Obama's stewardship of the Review has generated a small dustup in the blogosphere, with some critics insisting that "Obama's Vol. 104 is the least-cited volume of the Harvard Law Review in the last 20 years." The claim has methodological problems, however, including the fact that Obama oversaw only the first four issues of that volume. Review veterans said he would have an increasing influence — as well as a final read — over the latter half of Volume 103, then a diminishing influence over the second half of Volume 104, produced after he left the presidency.

"Review veterans"? Names, please. Or perhaps a check back with the author of the original "least-cited" claim?

Eleanor Kerlow, the author of "Poisoned Ivy: How Egos, Ideology and Power Politics Almost Ruined Harvard Law School," depicted Obama's tenure as a calm before the storm. “I never heard anything negative about him” while researching her book, Kerlow told Politico.

If they went to the trouble of interviewing Kerlow, and since they clearly had checked the blogosphere on Obama HLR commentary, why wouldn't they ask her about page 11 of her book?

Obama was friendly and outgoing, but the class succeeding him wanted a tougher editor to lead them. [The new editor] was seen as someone who would be a more rigorous blue-penciler."

One would expect them to at least ask her to put this remark in context, if not actually explain how Obama's reputation as a gladhanding lackadaisical nice guy wasn't even a tiny bit negative.

Note how Susan Estrich (Clinton supporter) gets in a little jab:

One thing Obama did not do while with the review was publish any of his own work. Campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said Obama didn't write any articles for the Review, though his two semesters at the helm did produce a wide range of edited case analyses and unsigned “notes” from Harvard students.

Estrich believes that Obama must have had something published that year, even if his campaign says otherwise. “They probably don’t want [to] have you [reporters] going back” to examine the Review.

But again, the authors don't follow up on this. If Obama genuinely didn't write anything, was that normal for a HLR president? If not, what does this say about Obama? The campaign's attempt to hide Michelle Obama's Princeton paper demonstrates that they'd just as soon hide bad news if they can get away with it.

Finally, noted conservative jurist Michael McConnell speaks highly of Obama, and is apparently the patron who got Obama his lecturer position at University of Chicago. Given the history of Obama's patronage, though, one might be forgiven for wondering what was in it for McConnell.

Upon reading Rick Klein's hosanna to Obama's money, DBAGD was all set for another vent on the annoyance of conventional wisdom that isn't.

But Tom Bevan did it first:

....what if it turns out Obama's massive cash advantage isn't so much of an advantage? Let's remember that Obama outspent Hillary Clinton by an order of magnitude in Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, and South Dakota and still lost all of those states - and in every state except TX and IN he lost by significant, and in some cases, HUGE margins. Obama's massive money advantage did not appear to matter much at all.

Indeed. To which DBAGD can only add two words: Mitt Romney.

Michael Gerson

These are welcome gestures, but they are not policies. Perhaps Obama is just conventionally liberal. Perhaps he has carefully avoided offending Democratic constituencies. Whatever the reason, his lack of a strong, centrist ideological identity raises a concern about his governing approach. Obama has no moderate policy agenda that might tame or modify the extremes of his own party in power. Will every Cabinet department simply be handed over to the most extreme Democratic interest groups? Will Obama provide any centrist check on liberal congressional overreach?

David Brooks

This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator.

Liz Sidoti

Obama blamed his decision in part on McCain and "the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups." But he failed to mention that the only outside groups running ads in earnest so far are those aligned with Obama — and running commercials against McCain.

So much for being a straight shooter.

CBS News (on Obama's free trade rhetoric):

But there may be something of a gap between the reality of Obama's position and the impression his words left.

No. Really?

So many pundits, so much sorrow, so little knowledge.

As DBAGD has observed before, it's a fool's errand to try and reconcile Obama's words with his beliefs or actions. He reads off the teleprompter. He has no genuine beliefs, unless he genuinely accepts the views of the leftist academics he hangs out with. He will act in his own benefit, with no concern for his country.

Start from that premise and there's nothing to reconcile.

Promises aren't Plans

Let's hope that just one high-profile journalist pushes Obama on the following questions:

* How would you find Osama bin Laden? What, specifically, would you do differently?

* What would be the rules for capturing or killing Osama?

* How would you manage the consequences of the military incursion into Pakistan you've threatened? Are you willing to go to war with Pakistan?

* What would be the specific results of a swift troop withdrawal from Iraq?

* Why would a judicial approach to defeating terrorists work this time when it failed to protect us in the past?

* Do you truly believe that self-admitted terrorists, when captured, deserve the full legal privileges of US citizens?

If this highly talented candidate has glaring gaps in his understanding of the world, voters deserve to know. If his campaign promises have no substance, we deserve to know that, too.

Sen. Obama, tell us how.

Suburban Women are Key, trumpets the Herald Tribune.

While party leaders watch anxiously to see if those voters are too disenchanted to support their nominee, polls suggest that Obama is beginning to pick up many of the women who once formed a critical part of the Clinton army. One recent poll shows former Clinton voters choosing Obama over Republican John McCain at a rate of 3-1 (61-19%).

Of course, the reporter uses a poll covering all Clinton voters as evidence that Clinton's women supporters are moving over, which is shaky, but no matter. Clearly, this reporter is shaky on math.

TWENTY PERCENT of Clinton voters are choosing McCain over Obama, according to that poll. On what planet is that good news?

Michelle Obama is ready for her closeup, working hard to help the media forget her unfortunate truthiness on what a rotten country this is until we hand it over to her husband. So she's going to "reintroduce" herself--which means she'll just be repackaging the same distortions about her "working class" childhood, her mother staying home, her dad working shifts on the city boiler.

So when she does, just remember that this:

is the house that the "working class" Robinsons lived in (her mother still lives there).

The Truth About Michelle Obama's Working Class Credentials:

"Michelle was from a middle-class family," confirmed one of her long-time friends, Angela Acree.

"She came from a regular family. They had a nice home. It wasn't a mansion, but it was just fine. It was a decent neighbourhood."

Angela is a huge Obama booster who attended Princeton with Michelle Obama, clearly going way off-message.

Moving on...

The Robinsons grew up on the upper floor of a house built in the Twenties. Number 7436 South Euclid Avenue - a classical reference to the Greek mathematician which found an appropriate echo in Michelle's subsequent respect for traditional learning - even has a small garden, shaded by a large elm tree, and an ornate stone bench.

.....

No one could pretend they were rich and it is true that her father, Frasier Robinson, spent some time as a maintenance worker for Chicago's Department of Water Management.

However, he was a good deal more than the labourer that many seem to imagine.

Indeed, according to family friends, Michelle's father was a volunteer organiser for the city's Democratic Party, a by-word for machine politics in America, and his loyalty was rewarded with a well-paid engineering job at Chicago's water plant. Even before overtime, he earned $42,686 - 25 per cent more than High School teachers at the time. (emphasis added)

(To understand what it meant to be a precinct captain in Chicago, see this 40 year old Time article on a Robert Novak story.)

The Obamas have no significant achievements to point to. All they offer up is their stories, secure in the knowledge that the press will repeat uncritically.

But if the Daily Mail article is correct, Michelle Obama's "life story" is all story-telling.

Not everyone on the left drinks Koolaid. Adolph Reed has been speaking out against Obama since 1996. His last broadside was shot off before the Pennsylvania primary, but much of it is still timely.

Obama No

He's a vacuous opportunist.I’ve never been an Obama supporter. I’ve known him since the very beginning of his political career, which was his campaign for the seat in my state senate district in Chicago. He struck me then as a vacuous opportunist, a good performer with an ear for how to make white liberals like him. I argued at the time that his fundamental political center of gravity, beneath an empty rhetoric of hope and change and new directions, is neoliberal.

....

And, as many Progressive readers may know, I’m hardly a Clinton fan. I’m on record in last November’s issue as saying that I’d rather sit out the election entirely than vote for either her or Obama. At this point, though, I’ve decided that she’s the lesser evil in the Democratic race, for the following reasons: 1) Obama’s empty claims to being a candidate of progressive change and to embodying a “movement” that exists only as a brand will dissolve into disillusionment in either a failed campaign against McCain or an Obama Presidency that continues the politics he’s practiced his entire career; 2) his horribly opportunistic approach to the issues bearing on inequality—in which he tosses behaviorist rhetoric to the right and little more than calls to celebrate his success to blacks—stands to pollute debate about racial injustice whether he wins or loses the Presidency; 3) he can’t beat McCain in November. (emphasis added)

Those of us who noticed Obama's emptiness from the first moment we saw him have trouble understanding what anyone sees in him. While conversations with Obamatons can often make one feel like Kevin McCarthy in Infasion of the Body Snatchers (the original, where he got away, not the remake where he got run down by a car), bad Democrats can remind themselves that Clinton did, in fact, win self-described Democrats by several points. Obama won on points, not on momentum; the pods took over the Democratic leadership but never got to the people themselves.

Check out Five Financial Queries For Obama to learn of a number of discrepancies in Obama's campaign narrative.

DBAGD doesn't think the sums in question are sufficient to enable the Senator to build a secret financial empire. However, these questions all attack key elements of the Obama narrative, carefully constructed to impress us with his self-sacrifice and struggle, to say nothing of his standing as "just a regular guy".

He's welcome to say what he likes, of course, but the media oughtn't repeat the stories obediently until he ponies up some facts and gets the stories straight.

Obama to Ed Rendell, when the governor tried to talk Obama out of holding a Philadelphia fundraiser when everyone will be off to the New Jersey shore:

"We don't need the people. We just need the checks."

One of DBAGD's particular interests is the Asian American vote, as the bloc is largely ignored by the mainstream media and deserves the occasional mention.

Back in March, John Copper noted that Clinton and McCain were winning the Asian vote by large margins, despite Obama's Asian Pacific background and minority status. He had some interesting qualitative reasons to offer:

Asian Americans generally perceive that Obama thinks affirmative action should help blacks and to a lesser extent other less fortunate (financially) and academically underperforming minority groups. Asians don’t fit this mould.But it is more than this. Asian Americans note that Obama’s support base is largely very rich white liberal Americans and blacks, neither of which they identify with very well.

Another matter that strikes Asians is the fact that Senator Obama is the favourite of the media and Hollywood. Asian Americans see both as biased toward them--in their news coverage and how Asians are depicted on screen.They similarly observe that during his political career Obama has done nothing worth mentioning for Asian Americans. They say that Hillary has. Or at least the Clinton administration did. Bill defended Wen Hou Lee. He improved US ties with Asia.

....

Asian American newspapers observe and report who is attentive to Asia’s success and its issues. One said recently that the presidential candidates had authored articles on their foreign policy views for the prestigious journal, Foreign Affairs. Senator Obama didn’t mention Asia until page 12, and then in the negative context of global warming. He gave little indication he realises Asia is growing in importance to the US. Hillary did better. McCain, who set forth clearly America’s goals and interests in Asia, did the best.

Finally, Asian Americans are aware of the important role the US has played, and still needs to play, in keeping Asia a secure region. Asia has engaged in regional and global commerce and has prospered because the US military has kept the peace in the area. Senator Obama’s hostile view toward America’s use of military power is not a good omen for Asia say a large number of Asians in the US.One has to conclude that Asian Americans are thinking more rationally than most Americans about their choice for president and that is why Senator Obama does not get as much support as the other two candidates.

HT to Asian Americans for McCain, and thanks for the mention!

Democrat Increase Inevitable in Senate

The critical significance of an enhanced Senate majority for Democrats cannot be understated. Although no one is yet betting that Democrats will come near the 60 seat-“super-majority” they need to break Republican-led filibusters, a gain in the 5-to-7 seat figure Dean predicted would make it extremely difficult for a President McCain to secure a Supreme Court nominee unacceptable to Democrats, or to have vetoes of spending bills sustained.

At the same time, a larger Democratic majority would make it easier for a President Obama to get confirmation of liberal nominees to the high court, (assuming, of course, that Republicans do not engage in the practice they criticized Senate Democrats for and filibuster judicial appointees) a high-spending budget, or whatever is on his agenda.

Which sounds more attractive to moderate Clinton supporters? Would it be better for a President Obama to spend like the Bush adminstration of the first six years, or for a President McCain to nominate acceptable compromise Supreme Court candidates?

Obama's Father's Day speech is predictably winning kudos for its "bravery" in telling a largely African American argument that no matter how rotten America has been to them, they owe their children better, without excuses.

Everyone is careful to mention that Obama also chastises the suburban parent for watching too much TV. Rich talk from the man whose wife said " It wasn’t that [Obama] didn’t care, but he wasn’t there."

Feminists often mocked Phyllis Schlafly for celebrating stay at home moms while living the life of a career-oriented woman. As the quintessential career-obsessed dad, whose daughters have come second to his ambitions their entire lives, not just since his current campaign, Obama should stop calling the kettle (if you'll pardon the term) black.

However, one section of the speech reveals exactly why Obama has trouble "connecting" with many voters. On the lessons that all fathers must learn:

The first is setting an example of excellence for our children – because if we want to set high expectations for them, we’ve got to set high expectations for ourselves. It’s great if you have a job; it’s even better if you have a college degree.

While many people would agree that college is a safer economic choice, there's something off about arguing that it's a superior parenting choice.

Minor note: Obama's delivery may have wowed crowds, but his speechwriters appear to be repurposing. Parts of the speech were cobbled up from Obama's other family lectures back when fewer people were paying attention (e.g, 2005, 2007)

It's hard to tell anything this far out, but while this Mason Dixon poll has the two candidates tied, it's also got some potential promise for McCain among Hispanics:

In another crucial demographic, Obama, 46, prevails among Hispanic voters, with 53 percent, but nearly one-fifth are undecided and McCain still draws 28 percent.

Wisconsin Democrat delegate now publicly supports McCain

As an avid supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic primaries, Debra Bartoshevich is not alone in her frustration over Clinton's defeat.

She’s not alone in refusing to support Barack Obama.

And she’s not entirely alone in saying she’ll vote this fall for Republican John McCain instead.

But what makes her unusual is that she holds these views as an elected delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Denver this summer.

“I’m sure people are going to be upset with me,” said Bartoshevich, a 41-year-old emergency room nurse from Waterford in Racine County, and convention delegate pledged to Clinton.

The Wisconsin delegates unanimously passed a resolution asking the national party not to recognize her, so it remains to be seen if she'll remain a delegate.

But it's a step in the right direction.

Obama has been celebrating his noble, self-sacrificing decision to go into community service ever since his first memoir. His decision to leave a great career (okay, so he exaggerated) for "$12,000 a year plus $2,000 for an old, beat-up car" has been a key element in his life story--and of course, given that he hasn't done a thing of note, his life story is all he has.

So DBAGD notes with interest that a year ago, in a story about Obama claiming undue credit (what else is new?), Hazel Johnson, an Obama critic, forced the Obama campaign to reveal that his sacrifice, like so much else in his biography, was at the very least exaggerated:

[Johnson] and her daughter Cheryl produced a document, for example, showing Obama's 1987 salary as an organizer in the development to be $25,000 – not the $13,000 he often talks about.

There is a very simple explanation for that, Obama's aides say. He did indeed make $25, 000 in 1987, but he was initially hired in 1985 at a salary of $13,000.

The accompanying video shows the document, a planned 1987 budget. Recall that Obama arrived in Chicago in July 1985.

So Obama, far from suffering three years at what would be a normally decent starter salary, lived on a decent income for the last two years, at least.

Of course, DBAGD assumes he wasn't reducing his original salary for effect in much the same way he reduces the number of bedrooms in his first condo, and that any raise he received wasn't yet another act of patronage. Given Obama's history of outside income, it's certainly reasonable to wonder whether his salary boost came from an outside benefactor.

But if everything is on the up and up, Obama really should make his salary boost a regular part of his campaign speech. Many more college grads would take up his call to go into community service if they were guaranteed their salary would double in 18 months.

Just Say No Deal kicks off.

Mission statement:

Growing exponentially -- individually, but infinitely together in one unifying mission -- they are Senator Barack Obama's gravest concern. On the evening of June 8, 2008, dozens of grassroots organizations and political activists convened a conference call and formed a coalition: Just Say No Deal. Its goal? : To turn the current race on its head and remind voters that all options are on the table this November.
 
  Just Say No Deal is an umbrella organization giving voice to over 80 grassroots organizations, blogs and millions of self- professed PUMAs (Party Unity My A_ _) intent on one mission: NOBAMA! Coalition members are pushing varying agendas and voting strategies, but the factions are united in their unwavering decision to not “fall in line” by supporting Barack Obama.
 
  Concerned citizens have come out of the woodwork to express their distaste for and frustration with party leaders and the outcome of the nominating process. The Just Say No Deal website offers those voters an array of choices to assist in their decision-making process. The coalition will continue to organize in pursuit of its mission of keeping another

Oh, wait. It's my brother, Malik.

So much for those hateful religious bigots. It's Obama's own spreading the news! (HT Jim Geraghty)

Since disclaimers appear to be necessary, DBAGD thinks the only thing more tedious than the discussion about Obama's Islam beliefs is the constant assurances of the press that he's Christian. One might think that there's something wrong with being a Muslim. Frankly, DBAGD suspects that Obama's religious beliefs are as manufactured as the rest of his story.

Even Obama's opposition repeats his mythology as fact. Jim Geraghty, in No, You're Wrong observes that Obama has changed from his earlier, less partisan self:

Perhaps one of the best examples of [Obama promoting mutual respect and trust] came shortly after he was elected to the Senate. In 2005, he wrote his second book, The Audacity of Hope, and described an e-mail from a doctor at the University of Chicago Medical School. The message expressed how the campaign’s website made it impossible for the doctor, a pro-life Christian, to support Obama....

So Geraghty accepts, based solely on Obama's word, that he used to be the kind of politician who reached across party lines. But what verification is there of Obama's story? Did it actually happen?

Like Slate's John Dickerson, Geraghty is assuming that Obama has changed, using Obama's own highly unreliable narrative as the basis for his belief.

Four years ago, the author of this site, who voted for John Kerry, was involved in a just-for-fun 527 called Football Fans for Truth, which said that John Kerry was not fit to be our sports-fan-in-chief. (See? Not a very good Democrat.)

The best source for Kerry sports absurdities was this ESPN Magazine interview, in which the candidate tried to be a "regular guy" and talk sports. After finding several inaccuracies with a number of his comments, the truth suddenly hit home: Everything he said about sports was a lie. Absolutely everything. And that meant that Kerry wasn't at Game 6, mourning, when the ball went between Buckner's legs.

And indeed, he wasn't, as Football Fans for Truth proved. At least, he was at a dinner that same evening. Kerry actually had to send his senior campaign adviser out to argue that Kerry left the dinner to hop a copter to the game. Oooookay.

The parallel is instructive.

Obama's past reveals a man with ambiguous convictions who relied almost entirely on patronage and political affiliations to move ahead. He was friendly with the far left. His own stated political views were those of a standard liberal hack who never had to worry about winning over the center. He wrote an entire memoir on his obsession with race.

Then suddenly, in 2004, he is a man who rejects political labels, claims he wishes to "transcend race", and wants to renounce "politics as usual". Yet in case after case, he is found to be distorting or flat out lying about his past. Given the role Obama's life story plays in his campaign, his lies represent a far more serious problem than, say, not actually having attended Game 6.

The conservative side of the media aisle should start with the premise that everything Obama says about his life is a lie.

Jim Geraghty should ask when Obama's actions have done anything other than belie his rhetoric, instead of bemoaning a change that probably never took place.

Obviously--or perhaps, hopefully--a few of Obama's touching stories will turn out to be true. But journalists should stop accepting them at face value and make him work to prove his life narrative. He's more than earned the doubt.

The Obama cynics are on the rise! From the moment Obama dismissed the news that veep vetter Jim Johnson had received favorable loan terms from Obama villain Countrywide, they all waited for the inevitable kissoff.

You know the movement is growing when Jim Hoagland cracks wise:

After Johnson was portrayed in the Wall Street Journal as having received favorable treatment from Countrywide Financial Corp., a mortgage company Obama has frequently attacked, the Democratic presidential candidate immediately labeled Johnson as being only "tangentially related to our campaign."

Shifting into overdrive, Obama added that "these aren't folks who are working for me," referring to Johnson and his two associates on the vice presidential vetting team, Caroline Kennedy and Eric Holder.

It was enough to make you wonder if the three had somehow broken into Obama's office, stolen his letterhead stationery and appointed themselves to interview the capital's good and great about who should join Obama on the Democratic ticket.

Writer Kim McLarin, writing at Slate's XX Factor, casually links to Tim Wise's essay to white women who vote for Obama, Your Whiteness Is Showing.

And now for a third question, and this is the biggie, so please take your time with it: How is it that you have managed to hold your nose all these years, just like a lot of us on the left, and vote for Democrats who we knew were horribly inadequate--Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, right on down the uninspiring line--and yet, apparently can't bring yourself to vote for Barack Obama? A man who, for all of his shortcomings (and there are several, as with all candidates put up by either of the two major corporate parties) is surely more progressive than any of those just mentioned. And how are we to understand that refusal--this sudden line in the proverbial sand--other than as a racist slap at a black man? You will vote for white men year after year after year--and are threatening to vote for another one just to make a point--but can't bring yourself to vote for a black man, whose political views come much closer to your own, in all likelihood, than do the views of any of the white men you've supported before. How, other than as an act of racism, or perhaps as evidence of political insanity, is one to interpret such a thing?

All the white men who ran for president were complete losers, apparently. After all, if white women could support Kerry or Dukakis, but draw the line at Obama, what other reason could there be but racism?

Gosh, I don't know, Tim. Actual achievements, maybe? Kerry and Dukakis were both terrible candidates, but at no point did the country need to wonder if they were capable of running the country. Obama can't point to anything in his resume that shows competence to run a small company, much less the country his wife just bothered to be proud of.

One has to wonder how much sting the "racist" label can carry, when considered in light of Obama's weekly presence in a church with a pastor who screamed about the US of KKK and subscribed to black liberation theology, in which blacks are "the chosen people" who will only accept a god who assists their aim of destroying the "white enemy."

It's hard to get worked up about being called a racist these days, isn't it?

A Vote for McBama

Sounds as if he's arguing for both of them, but Samuelson, who is usually sensible, does not disappoint.

On Obama:

On the one hand, he projects himself as the great conciliator. He uses the metaphor of his race to argue that he is uniquely suited to bridge differences between liberals and conservatives, young and old, rich and poor -- to craft a new centrist politics. On the other hand, his actual agenda is highly partisan and undermines many of his stated goals. He wants to stimulate economic growth, but his hostility toward trade agreements threatens export-led growth (which is now beginning). He advocates greater energy independence but pretends this can occur without more domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.

All this reflects Obama's legislative record. From 2005 to 2007, he voted with his party 97 percent of the time, reports the Politico. But Obama's clever campaign strategy would put him in a bind as president. Championing centrism would disappoint many ardent Democrats. Pleasing them would betray his conciliating image. The fact that he has so far straddled the contradiction may confirm his political skills and the quiet aid received from the media, which helped him by virtually ignoring the blatant contradictions.

And what does the straddle tell us of him? Aside from ambition -- hardly unique among presidential candidates -- I cannot detect powerful convictions in Obama. He seems merely expedient in peddling his convenient conflicts. He strikes me as a super-successful graduate student: the brightest, quickest, most articulate guy in the seminar. In his career, he has advanced mainly by talking and writing -- not doing -- and may harbor a delusion common to the well-educated: that he can argue and explain his way around any problem.

On McCain, after an evaluation that is considerably kinder:

But for me, McCain does have one provisional and accidental advantage. By most appraisals, the Republicans will get slaughtered in congressional elections, and I have a visceral dislike of one-party government. It didn't work well under Bill Clinton or George W. Bush. Divided government doesn't ensure good government, but it may limit bad government by checking the worst instincts of both parties.

For those who haven't drunk the Obama Koolaid, the best reason for moving to the McCain column is to keep the Democrats from gaining complete control, especially after ignoring the moderate wing. That way lies some crazy times.

Just more evidence that it's time to stop being such a good Democrat.

John Dickerson in Slate wants an Obama instruction manual:

How does Obama, who says his mistakes with his friend Tony Rezko represent a lapse in judgment, show us he's grown?...it would be great if Obama could show us the instructions for how his new kind of politics works on this front. He has a chance now.

But why would anyone have believed Obama's "new politics" in the first place? Whether it's his racist church, his far left politics, or his questionable patrons who bail him out and pay him plenty, Obama has a past right up to yesterday that shows nothing of his "new kind of politics". He's been using a particularly unsavory sort of old-style politics that has allowed him to move up from job to job while never actually having to do anything.

He's certainly never made tough calls or, heaven forfend, a stand on principle. He campaigned on "bravery" by giving a few well-prepared speeches to a supposedly hostile audience (fuel economies to car manufacturers, charter schools to teachers) So long as he can read his orders off the teleprompter, he can "speak truth to power". But his actions tell a different story. Obama's Lackluster Record on Education and Obama's 'No, I Can't' Moment are just two of the many examples of Obama weaselling out of taking a stand, or endorsing once the danger's over.

Then there's his claim to be a moderate, his willingness to reach across the aisle. In fact, Obama shows all the signs of a standard leftist. He never renounced his views, or modulated them. He just held all those views until he didn't. The candidate who sought the endorsement of a Marxist party in 1996, who has strong ties to anti-Israel advocates, whose buddy list reads like a who's who of anti-America, whose 1996 questionnaire reveals the political beliefs of a standard liberal hack now wants us to believe that he's a moderate centrist with a reputation for reaching across party lines (a reputation, remember, he earned because his patron took away legislation from the people who actually did reach across party lines and put Obama's name on it).

His views themselves aren't the issue--many Democrats may agree with some of his stances. However, Obama has blamed his staff for the responses on that questionnaire precisely because he knows full well he can't admit to having been so far to the left in the past. He's written his two autobiographies already--he can't fake a "moment of clarity" that presaged a move to the center. There's no "growing up" moment that John Dickerson asked for. We are simply to take his word--or words. That's all he's ever had to offer.

Why McCain Can Beat Obama

And this brings me to what may still prove to be the most significant fact about McCain: he is a war hero. (Indeed, in this respect, he bears more of a resemblance to John Kennedy than does Obama.)

He has proved himself to be unflinching in danger and courageous under fire. When people (especially Americans, who still regard military bravery as an exemplar of virtue) come to choose the man to lead them through a crisis, that will count for a lot.

To European eyes (and to some American ones, too) this is an election to determine how America sees itself: can it elect its first black president? Can it present itself to the world in an entirely new guise - as a member of the modern European club of social democratic societies?

But to most Americans - the ones who are less beguiled by rhetoric and more concerned with financial survival, and those who need practical reassurance more than inspiration - this election will be about proven character and tested judgment.

DBAGD has received a number of letters asking if a vote for McCain will put paid to health care reform. After all, both Democrat nominees competed like crazy on picayune details of their plans--who will be covered? who is forcing enrollment?--so it's only natural to think that health care reform will play a huge roll in the next four years.

Except, alas, it won't. DBAGD is sorry to break the bad news, but there will almost certainly not be any health care reform in this presidential term, regardless of who wins, because Congress--ruled by Democrats--doesn't think there's enough money. As The Hill reported back in April, congressional Democrats are already hedging on health care

Congressional Democrats are backing away from healthcare reform promises made by their two presidential candidates, saying that even if their party controls the White House and Congress, sweeping change will be difficult.

It is still seven months before Election Day, but already senior Democrats are maneuvering to lower public expectations on the key policy issue.

And so in answer to the queries about the future of health care reform, DBAGD replies a little history lesson that provides with one of the defining memes of this site: Congress makes law. The Democrats own Congress. If the only thing stopping Congress from achieving a popular, widely accepted reform is a McCain veto, then don't expect McCain to veto. But don't expect the president to do Congress's job.

Moreover, it's worth remembering that in modern history, major advancements in controversial policy has always been achieved when the president is from the party you'd least expect it from (cf Nixon in China, Clinton and welfare). If history is any indicator, meaningful reform is more likely from McCain than Obama.

Did the bowling episode teach him nothing?

Even marginal cyclists are going to notice the flat tires...and the jeans are worse.

Besides, who's he reaching out to? There can't be that many treehugging swing voters he can impress by the pretense that he rides to work.

Four years ago, another Democratic candidate did his campaign no good by playing at playing sports:

Now Obama is trumping that bad judgment.

Maybe they can just play bridge.

Candy Crowley asks Obama what he would say to a "45-year-old female Hillary Clinton supporter" who is planning on voting for McCain or staying home.

So here's the first thing Obama could have done: he could have actively rejected Crowley's implicit adjective, "middle aged". He could have said "Well, I'm from their generation. I know the wide range of issues they face. Some women my age are still paying for after-school care, while others are worried about college bills. Other women my age are returning to college for a second career. Still other women my age aren't worried about money at all, but they have strong social policy concerns for other women who haven't done as well as they have. So the first thing I'd do to reach out to them is not make the mistake, as you just did, of presuming that all 45 year old women have the same concerns."

And then he could have made his pitch.

But this is a man who calls women "sweetie".

And there’s going to be a clear choice, and for that 45-year-old woman who is trying to figure out — how am I going to send my kids to college? I’ve got a plan to make college more affordable. John McCain doesn’t. For that 45-year-old woman who is trying to figure out how do I manage my health care bills? I’ve got a plan to provide her health insurance if she doesn’t have it, and to lower premiums if she does. John McCain essentially is going to provide tax cuts, but may lead to her employer dropping her coverage altogether.

If she’s got a son, who is in Iraq right now, maybe on the third or fourth rotation, I’m telling her that I’m going to bring her son home, and start ending our commitment there. John McCain would continue it.

One might discount this sort of insulting behavior from McCain, who is from a different generation and the less politically correct party to boot. And yet, he's the one talking about Hillary the Achiever:

Senator Clinton has earned great respect for her tenacity and courage. The media often overlooked how compassionately she spoke to the concerns and dreams of millions of Americans, and she deserves a lot more appreciation than she sometimes received. As the father of three daughters, I owe her a debt for inspiring millions of women to believe there is no opportunity in this great country beyond their reach. I am proud to call her my friend.

Juan Williams, one of the few people to point out that emperor was naked in Barack Obama's pseudo-historic "race speech" of March 19th, is now suggesting that the candidate give a new speech:

Only by admitting to his own sins can Mr. Obama credibly claim that he has seen the promise of our country, in which Americans of all colors work together. Only then can he convince dubious white voters that he is ready to move beyond racial antagonism and be their president.

So first Juan Williams accurately calls Obama a liar for refusing to acknowledge that Wright was making racist statements. Then he points out that Obama tried to "skate by" the issue of his own justice by lecturing the rest of us on our need to have a dialogue on race.

But Juan will forgive Obama if he will just "admit to sins of using race for political expediency":

He has to say that, as a biracial young man with no community roots, attaching himself to Rev. Wright and the Trinity congregation was a shortcut to move up the ladder in the Chicago political scene. He has to call race-baiting what it is, whether it comes from a pulpit or calls itself progressive politics.

So Obama is supposed to admit that the man he called mentor was just a political expedience, that the church he's belonged to for 20 years was a mere convenience.

And then we're supposed to believe him?

Hillary Clinton Supporters for John McCain

Their goal: raise money for a 527 and run pro-McCain ads in swing states.

Also, got word of a Joe Lieberman email about a new group "Citizens for McCain".

The RNC seems to be trying to reach Democrats against Obama; ads like this one are a good step in that direction.

In his speech last night, celebrating his presumptive nomination, Obama reproached McCain: "I respect his many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine."

What accomplishments would those be, again?

The only political achievements Obama has on his resume list are those that Senate Majority Leader Emil Jones hijacked from other, senior legislators. After they'd done all the work, Emil Jones handed Obama all the glory. Why? Because Obama went to him in supplicant mode and asked Emil Jones to take on the role of kingmaker.

So for his first six years, Obama didn't do a thing. In his last year, thanks to his deal with Emil Jones, he "sponsored" 26 bills that others had worked hard on over the years. There's little to suggest Obama did anything more than show up at the signing ceremony to take credit.

In the US Senate, Obama did even less because he hadn't had time to find a kingmaker. There, all he did was show up for press conferences and use his star power to take credit.

Obama's one obvious achievement is his ability to win nominations by gaming the system. Beyond that, he's got nothing.

While most of the progressive blogosphere provides an insight into the liberal mindset for supporting Obama, relatively few national African American media figures are doing the same. Roland Martin, Donna Brazile, Eugene Robinson, and others have all been pretty obviously in the Obama tank, of course, but they've always presented their support as ideological (and indeed, it may be).

At the local level, some African American media figures are less reticent. Mary Mitchell, Chicago Sun Times columnist, gives the outsider a glimpse of the expectations and values from the most loyal of Obama's constituencies:

Her most recent article, Next, Obama's foes will go after his wife is revealing. Mitchell sees Father Michael Pfleger as a "John Brown", a characterization she clearly sees as complimentary, and finds the Trinity congregations "hooting and hollering" to be an entirely reasonable response to his racist behavior. She agrees that resigning from Trinity Church was the right move so long as people are playing to white fears, but says that black people around the country are silently wondering "when is the brother going to stand up and stop letting the right wing of the Republican Party push him around?"

She continues:

But because Obama is running as the post-racial candidate, there is little tolerance for painful conversations about racial wrongs, let alone the angry rhetoric by Wright or the mocking condemnation by Pfleger.

Indeed, until this thing is over, black activists, especially those even remotely associated with Obama, better not get caught saying a negative word about white people.

Um. Let's see that again:

Indeed, until this thing is over, black activists, especially those even remotely associated with Obama, better not get caught saying a negative word about white people.

It's hard to know whether the correct response is "not get caught?" or "good thinking!"

DBAGD holds that the nomination's results have been virtually fixed since March, given the lparty leadership's determination to give the race to Obama. However, for those who still hold out hope for Clinton, a petition is making the rounds.

Blogger explains purpose

Petition: Democrats and Independents Against Obama

Much has been written of Obama's strange omission of military service as a form of public service. Inflation calculators have been drafted into service to point out that $12K wasn't all that bad a living back in 1985.

Only William Kristol has pointed out that Obama didn't quite tell the truth in this section of his speech:

So that by the time I graduated from college, I was possessed with a crazy idea – that I would work at a grassroots level to bring about change.

I wrote letters to every organization in the country I could think of. And one day, a small group of churches on the South Side of Chicago offered me a job to come work as a community organizer in neighborhoods that had been devastated by steel plant closings. My mother and grandparents wanted me to go to law school. My friends were applying to jobs on Wall Street. Meanwhile, this organization offered me $12,000 a year plus $2,000 for an old, beat-up car.

As Kristol points out, there was a 2 year gap between Obama's 1983 graduation and his arrival in Chicago in 1985. And, as Dana Goldstein says, most liberals would even find his decision to go into community service more admirable if they knew that he'd left a "real job" to go work for the people.

So why doesn't Obama mention that part of his resume, Goldstein wonders. Actually, Obama did make much of his two years in private sector employment in his first biography:

Eventually a consulting house to multinational corporations agreed to hire me as a research assistant.....as the months passed, I felt the idea of becoming an organizer slipping away from me. The company promoted me to the position of financial writer. I had my own office, my own secretary; money in the bank. Sometimes, coming out of an interview with Japanese financiers or German bond traders, I would catch my reflection in the elevator doors—see myself in a suit and tie, a briefcase in my hand—and for a split second I would imagine myself as a captain of industry, barking out orders, closing the deal, before I remembered who it was that I had told myself I wanted to be and felt pangs of guilt for my lack of resolve.

Exactly what Dana Goldstein asked for. So how come he doesn't mention it anymore?

Alas. Obama isn't just fudging his job description at Business International. He's flat out lying about it, as a co-worker documented back in 2005: Barack Obama Embellishes His Resume. Read the whole post for a complete description, but here's a laundry list of the inaccuracies in Obama's description:

• It wasn't a consulting house. Business International was a newsletter publisher.
  
• He wasn't the only black man in the company, although he was the only black professional. He didn't join the beer rounds when the professionals got together with the black employees, as he was "not that kind of guy".
  
• Barack wasn't a "research assistant", but a copyeditor.
  
• He always had a small office, just as everyone else did. Any promotion left his job duties unchanged (assuming he got one).
  
• He never had a secretary.
  
• He most assuredly never wrote articles about interest rate swaps, but probably wrote an outline on one once.
  
• He never left the office and no one in the company wore a tie.
  

Obama wrote his first memoir before the Million Little Pieces scandal, before memoirists had to deal with the unsettling fact that their readers expected their stories to be, well, true. But when he republished it, he should have openly acknowledged the more egregious distortions.

Instead, he just omits these two years from his resume.

Rasmussen Reports asked who was more trusted on the following issues:

A quarter of the polled Democrats trust McCain. Just 64% of Democrats trust Obama.

Rasmussen:

It is interesting to note that while McCain has the edge over Obama on these issues, Democrats are trusted more than Republicans on a generic basis. This ability of McCain to outperform the party label helps explain why he is competitive with the Democrats in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking poll.

As DBAGD has pointed out, the Republicans have nominated the one candidate that sane Democrats can support--not because they agree with him on much, but because they trust him. His policies can be tempered (or overridden, as needed) by the Democratic majority in Congress. His character and leadership qualities have been tested for a long time and held up under considerable pressure. Given our choices, McCain is the best man for the job.

In Can't Follow the Money, DBAGD questions the source of the Obama's $110K down payment on their first condo.

By now it's commonplace to observe the media's Great Obama Shill, but it's still astonishing that the NY Times article didn't mention that Obama was paid six figures (probably $125K) for his first advance.

Generally, the media has given the Obamas a free pass on their constant claims to be regular people who have just paid off their school loans while living in a tiny condo that keeps losing rooms. But if they're ever willing to do their job, here's a list of questions an enterprising reporter could ask about:

• How long did Obama keep his "six figure" advance? He received it while still in law school.
  Did he give back all of the advance, or some of it? Did he invest or otherwise bank the advance to benefit from it while he held on to it?
  
• Where did the Obamas get $110K to put down on their condo?
  
• If they were in so much debt that they were getting nag calls, why didn't they put off buying a condo and pay down some of their school debt?
  
• The Obamas put $20,000 into his losing Congressional campaign. Which was larger, their credit card payments on that debt or their school loans?
  
• The Obamas have yet to substantiate their claim that they paid off their school loans in 2003. How much money did they originally borrow?
  
• Did they in fact pay less for their mortgage (hardly shocking, once you consider they paid 40% down, but it should still be documented).
  

As mentioned in the Mad Donkey Manifesto, Obama's political history shows all the signs of a radical leftist. In two autobiographies, he never once mentioned a political transformation; rather, we are expected to believe Obama is a moderate purely on his assurance that indeed, it's so.

But the evidence of his active embrace of the left keeps mounting. In 1996, Obama actively sought the endorsement of a Marxist political party in Chicago:

About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July. The purpose of the meeting was to update members on local activities and to hear appeals for NP support from four potential political candidates. ...The NP's political strategy is to support progressive candidates in elections only if they have a concrete chance to "win". This has resulted in a winning ratio of 77 of 110 elections. Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.

The political entourage included Alderman Michael Chandler, William Delgado, chief of staff for State Rep Miguel del Valle, and spokespersons for State Sen. Alice Palmer, Sonya Sanchez, chief of staff for State Sen. Jesse Garcia, who is running for State Rep in Garcia's District; and Barack Obama, chief of staff for State Sen. Alice Palmer. Obama is running for Palmer's vacant seat.

A year later, after he'd won:

Secondly, the NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. ... Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.

(Note: while this was found during a google search, the research was made considerably easier by New Zeal, who found it all first.)

Does he genuinely believe all this far left nonsense, or did he just ape the pose while it was convenient? Although really, does it matter, given that he wants to run the country?