What’s Wrong with the World

Well, there is this small matter of Obama's _lying_ about his relationship with Ayers. ("He's just a guy who lives in my neighborhood.") And then there's the bizarre accusation that people are, er, _racist_ for point the friendship out? I mean, I suppose he could say, "Heck, yeah, I've been good friends for quite a while now with a terrorist who was on the lam until the statute of limitations ran out and who is proud of what he did. In fact, he launched my Senatorial campaign. What of it? Who cares? Focus on the issues."

Somehow, since I see no pigs flying, I don't expect that.

But I suppose outright lies from the left are pretty much to be expected nowadays. They may still be at least somewhat worth noting, though.

Sure, Obama's lying about his relationship with Ayers. I get that. At the same time, there is not one scintilla of evidence to the effect that Obama shares Ayers' 'radicalism'. Obama prevaricates in order to spare himself - hopefully - the public interrogation over the issue, and to conceal the real truth of the matter, which is that Ayers, as a player in Chicago politics, was of some use to Obama as he embarked upon his political career - in other words, Obama is a run-of-the-mill Chicago pol specifically, and a run-of-the-mill pol generally, inasmuch as he'll throw anyone under the bus, or use anyone as a ladder to get where he wants to go. The real story here is that Obama isn't the 'change we've been waiting for', but 'more of the same', just a bit more thoughtful and eloquent. Boring.

Mr. Martin: I'm sorry to hear about your health concerns, but am relieved to hear you call them temporary, and I wish you a quick return to health.

I agree with you about the this matter, but I suppose I can understand others thinking this shows something grave about Obama. I mean, when the facts (even when one sticks to the actual facts) are presented in certain ways, it does sound very bad. And I haven't dug into this story very deeply. (I also tend to agree with you about ZZZZZZZzzzzzz factor.) But many close to the situation seem to think it was perfectly acceptable to be associated with Ayers. Here, for instance, is an Illinois Republican:

"It was never a concern by any of us in the Chicago school reform movement that he had led a fugitive life years earlier ... It's ridiculous," Republican Rep. Diana Nelson said. "There is no reason at all to smear Barack Obama with this association. It's nonsensical, and it just makes me crazy. It's so silly."

But others seem to take Ayers as still untouchable (because "unrepentant"). But even if that's right, what I don't see is how this can cut any significant ice in favor of Republicans and McCain. I mean, if we're going to slam Obama for his association with Ayers, then it seems one would have to slam the Annenbergs themselves at least as hard. ("What were they thinking?!") But surely Republicans don't want to go there. Among other things, Ms. Annenberg was the chief of protocol at the State Department under President Reagan. They seem to have been, and she still seems to be (Mr. Annenberg is now dead), very honorable people. And McCain himself is happy to trumpet Ms. Annenberg's endorsement of him: His campaign just released an on-line list of 100 former ambassadors who have endorsed McCain, and she (because her last name is so early alphabetically) is second on that list. Should McCain renounce this endorsement because of Ms. Annenberg's troubling ties with domestic terrorist Ayers? No, that would be silly, I'd say.

"...labouring as I was - and still am - beneath the combined weight of a handful of (temporary) declining health indicators,..."

Fairly disturbing way to begin an otherwise excellent survey of the political scene. Hope you get well quickly as your absence from the line-up leaves a gaping hole in the batting order.

The G.O.P. Convention gave us all we needed to know about the aims of an improbable McCain Administration and the intellectual emptiness of the contemporary "center-right". Two things stick-out. First, the ubiquitous and Orwellian "SERVICE" placards suggested Sparta, not Athens and certainly not Jerusalem, would serve as the civic model. Second, was the Dionysian moment during Sarah Palin's speech when an aroused crowd took up a chant with the decidedly sexual fillip of; "Drill, Baby Drill". Surely, they didn't plan a campaign based on titillation, and tribal identity, did they? I guess they did. Save yourself Sarah, and create some space between yourself and his cynical handlers.

At any rate, good luck to your Phillies; Beat L.A. and enjoy their exploits during your convalescence.

The entire "Country First" branding of the McCain campaign just gets my back up; while I understand that it is intended as a patriotic interpretation of McCain's "maverick" positioning within the GOP and the Senate, it simply rubs me the wrong way. Country first? Umm, no, how about God, Church, and family first, and if you compel me to choose between the former set of obligations and country, country is going to lose?

Besides that, it is an attempt to short-circuit policy debate and ordinary political discourse. Want to get out of the Mesopotamian quagmire? Sorry, COUNTRY FIRST! What are you, some sort of terrorist sympathizer choosing DEFEAT!? Forget your inconsequential preferences and aspirations. COUNTRY FIRST! This bizarro quasi-Spartanism (merely quasi because, as The Decider reminded us so maladroitly, our "responsibility" was to go shopping) was also reflected in the right-wing reaction to a MoveOn advertisement aired earlier in the year, in which a mother holding her infant son tells John McCain that he cannot have the child to man his 100-year crusade in Iraq. Certainly the advertisement was mawkish, and McCain didn't actually intend to endorse a century of conflict, only a century of garrisons, if necessary, but the reaction in the encampments of the Weakly Standard was predictable: the ad was perceived as an exemplification of the solipsistic, self-indulgent, sacrifice-averse, too-much-like-the-French part of America that needs the tutelage of John McCain in order to rise to the destiny of world-historical greatness, or something. Or not - really, the ad simply played to a primal awareness on the part of most parents that their obligations to their own offspring supercede any pseudo-obligations arising from politicians' pursuit of Global Democratic Hegemony. Certainly, I consider myself obliged to counsel my sons against serving in unjust wars, risking death for the nihilism of the imperium.

"Drill, Baby, Drill" is one of those memes which fairly begs for the ministrations of some Continental critical theorist, who will tease out all of the sexual resonances, and the relationship of these innuendos to the American culture of improvidence, fiscal, geological, and otherwise. Or, if critical theory is not to taste, any monk could interpret the meme in terms of our disordered passions and enslavement thereto. The tendency of the GOP to associate cultural affirmations with which I identify, such as the culture of life, with this sort of rabble-rousing anti-intellectualism, this refusal of thought as though it were a conspiracy against the common man, is truly alienating. They'll not only damn me for the desire to keep my children from the empire, they'll demand the sacrifice of my intellect.

McCain would have liked "America First", but was reminded of its dark connotations by Randy Scheunemann; "Buchanan, Taft, Lindbergh, volunteer fire departments, village green preservation societies, coat drives for homeless shelters and a lot of other lowly pursuits by dullards...we've got bigger plans, Mac."

Too bad, "The Empire Strikes Back" failed the focus group testing.

At least Max is a Phillies fan. We can agree on that. We'll build from there. So, first thing we do is pray for Charlie Manuel.

Seriously, Max, may God bless you in every way.

So supposedly personnel is all important.

We're all supposed to know, somehow through psychic skill or something, that Obama isn't going to staff his departments with the creatures he's been running with his entire adult existence.

Even though just the other day, a key former foreign policy staffer stated that the world needs to invade Israel and impose its will upon Israel. But nevermind, such creatues I'm sure will be weeded out.

Whereas an ONGOING THEME of HARD Left ideology, running through a candidate's ENTIRE ADULTt existence, -------------------------- that's somehow irrelevant.

Please explain for this guy how that is not patently absurd and brain dead.

Such a position isn't a logical position; it's a pose.

And posing shouldn't be a subsitute for logic, and when it is, ---------------------- ESPECIALLY in affairs of the state, it almost inexorably leads to disaster.

Ayers IS THE issue.

NOT an issue, not marginal, central, SALIENT.

Because it ALL goes to character.

We're all supposed to know, somehow through psychic skill or something, that Obama isn't going to staff his departments with the creatures he's been running with his entire adult existence.

I'm not going to go on and on, but I think Dan has a point here. Obama is far more comfortable (to put it mildly) with crazy radicalism (to put it mildly) than some of his probably equally unscrupulous but more cautious co-partisans. I tend to think there is probably a gestalt connection among the Rev. Wright, Ayers, Obama's involvement with ACORN, and the so-called Obama Truth Squad in Missouri: Obama's campaign has asked local _prosecutors_ to threaten people (with what law, no one is quite sure) who "lie" about Obama in political ads, where "lying" includes...wait for it...questioning whether Obama is a Christian. I saw an interview clip with one of these prosecutors. She literally said, "We want people to know that Barack Obama is a Christian and is offering tax breaks to everyone who makes less than $250,000." Qua prosecutor. That kind of radical politicization of everything and willingness to use threatening tactics is, I fear, going to be somewhat shockingly typical of an Obama presidency.

Lydia is right (to put it mildly).

"I'm not going to go on and on..."

Wanna bet?

Look at the bright side, an overreaching Left that inherits the enhanced apparatus of the Security State, the Treasury Dept's open vaults, pursues the globalist agenda on immigration, invades Pakistan and places abortion beyond legal sanction will likely awaken a comatose conservatism. One can hope, anyways, but then most of these policies can be seen as a continuation of the past 8 years.

Obama's association with William Ayers, whatever its nature and duration, is relevant to this particular election, at this juncture of American history, if and only if an Obama administration is likely to be staffed with terrorist Commie retreads from the halcyon days of the New Left.

As a matter of practical electoral politics, you are correct that harping on Ayers isn't going to save McCain, but Obama's long and comfortable association with the fringe of the academic and religious left is not insignificant. It tells us where his sympathies lie. McCain is little better, and I still insist I won't vote for him, and besides, if America wants to drive off a cliff, who am I to stand in the way of majesty of The People? Vox populi, vox Dei and all that. But I don't look forward to an executive branch staffed with advocates of critical race theory, slavery reparations, feminist jurisprudence, and "confirmative action," to name but a few.

Worst. Election. Evar!!1!!!1

Go, Cyrus.

Thank, you, Lydia. Though I see I forgot to close my italics.

I honestly believe that Obama's radical associations simply do not mean what you all think they mean. They are not the harbingers of some new, radical phase of leftist activism or governance, but expressions of what the left has been for four decades now. Pose the following question to yourselves: Were Hillary! the Democratic nominee for the presidency, wouldn't we be hearing an awful lot from establishment conservative media outlets concerning her Wellesley thesis and what a parsing of its turgid phraseology discloses about her New Left sympathies and/or allegiances? Of course we would, because, during the long night of conservative Clinton-hate, which often substituted for actual thought, negative emotion being both easier to conjure and more pleasurable, to boot, we actually did hear about precisely those things.

This is nothing new. It is not unique, and it is not an unprecedented threat. Nor, for that matter, are all of the machinations of Obama supporters nationwide. The left strives to suppress certain avenues of inquiry, certain forms of political and cultural discourse. We all know this. This ought to be interpreted as of a piece with recent Democratic noises about the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine - opposition to which much not be mistaken for an endorsement of the cognitive wasteland of conservative talk radio, nor of the grotesque degrees of media consolidation with which this debate is often associated.

Moreover, the left is scarcely unique in this respect. The establishment right, too has tried its hand at the suppression of discourse, what with numerous programs intended to blacklist university professors who run afoul of movement conservative orthodoxy, and loose neoconservative talk about the treacherous behaviour of war critics; manifestly, some sectors of the right would like to constrain political discourse, using a panoply of tactics that would - and do - arouse incandescent fury if practiced by the left, and it is no stretch to imagine some conservatives lying awake at night fantasizing about what could be accomplished if only they possessed the sort of powers exercised by the Wilson administration in policing and repressing dissenters. The only real difference is that the left have the courage of their convictions, while the right do not; perhaps they would have had the Bush era, so fulsomely prophesied by legions of hacktacular journalistic hacks in the early oughts, not spluttered out ignominiously. In other words, given time and the perpetuation of its grasp upon power, the actually-existing right would have engaged in incipient repressions perfectly analogous to those now pursued by the left. It is this overlapping area of unacknowledged consensus that interests me, and what it signifies about the erosion of our political and cultural institutions. I believe I may be pardoned for refusing to participate in this sordid 'continuation of civil war by other means.'

I'm with Dan, Cyrus, and Lydia. An Obama administration will not be another Clinton administration. It will be full of ACORN graduates and other people with far-left associations and views.

I don't see any reason for complaisance or moral equivalence. Throughout this campaign, there have been repeated attacks on freedom of speech and attempts at voter fraud, ALL of which have come from the left.

What evidence do we have that Barack Obama is not an American Hugo Chavez?

What's with the continued attacks on McCain & his faltering campaign?

It seems all moot at this point as one thing is quite certain (much to the delight of most here, it seems):

OBAMA ALREADY WON. PERIOD.

Worst. Election. Evar!!1!!!1

Except for the next one.

In other words, given time and the perpetuation of its grasp upon power, the actually-existing right would have engaged in incipient repressions perfectly analogous to those now pursued by the left.

Oh, come on, Maximos, that is totally conjectural. I have never heard of a single right-wing prosecutor threatening people for denying that the Republican candidate is a Christian. Nor would I expect it to happen. Give me a break.

A McCain administration will be populated by the sorts of neoconservative hacks, ideologues, and magical-thinkers who made of the Bush administration such a rousing triumph. This is not a choice, but a justification for alcoholism.

"What evidence do we have that Barack Obama is not an American Hugo Chavez?"

He's totally beholden to the very interests that have brought us to our present state of economic and cultural decline. Sprinkling in some producers of "street theatre" and refugees from the multi-cultural mental wards will add only add a more comic aspect to our anti-Christian ruling class;
"...out of the two and a half million donors to the Obama campaign, around 180,000 top dogs account for almost 60% of his campaign treasury. Who are these people? Let’s take a closer look…."
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/establishment_messiah/

A McCain administration will be populated by the sorts of neoconservative hacks, ideologues, and magical-thinkers who made of the Bush administration such a rousing triumph.

In other words, 'More of the Same'.

We. Get. It.

I said "analogous", not "identical". As I stated, while the establishment right sought to blacklist professors who, say, objected to Israeli settlement policy, or intimated - at a minimum; sometimes, I think, the references approached express accusations - that critics of The Decider's war policy were traitorous, they lacked the courage of their convictions, and so never got quite as far as the Democrats. It wouldn't happen - on this we agree - precisely because, while the GOP hack cadres share some of the impulses of the left, they lack the courage to act upon them, which speaks well of them, albeit only in the sense that it is marginally better to plot an act of adultery and fail to consummate it than to fulfill one's evil intention.

He's totally beholden to the very interests that have brought us to our present state of economic and cultural decline.

Precisely. There are reasons the financial elite of America have flocked to Obama, and they have nothing to do with ACORN or Billy Ayers.

We. Get. It.

And Obama will be more of the same. That's my argument: not a choice, but a reason to drink.

Maximos,

I suppose I should be grateful that you've returned to writing once again at W4. I do hope you get better.

Still, I can't see how you can be so dismissive of the whole Ayers association.

Would you be similarly dismissive had it been Theodore Kaczynski himself?

Speaking of whom, did it even cross anybody's radar that the Obama/Biden website itself back in September had actually attempted to associate Sarah Palin et al. with Theodore Kaczynski?

At the very least, Obama's sordid association with Ayers was the truth.

Sarah Palin and Ted Kaczynski
By James - Sep 14th, 2008 at 4:41 pm EDT

I sat down and re-watched No Country For Old Men. It was illuminating, in light of how the Republicans are approaching this election. It was White. It was Country White. It was 'Forrest Gump' Country White. You know, the country white thing where everyone sounds just dumber than a load of coal but makes incisive brilliant decisions all the time. And the crime thing. People are just out of control all over. War on drugs. War on everyone. Violence everywhere. Everyone has a gun. A big gun. Big automatic guns. You just gotta have them or the bad guys will get you. And its okay to kill the bad guys before they kill someone. The bad guys are, well, just the bad guys. You know who they are. They are ugly and scowl a lot. Hmmm, kind of reminds you our current leaders, but never mind

Luddites. Ted Kaczynski was right. Technology is not going to kill us. Our reaction to it is. And this Republican Party of today is all about that. They hate the technology, except that which can be used to control people. They do not even want to operate the technology. They want to control the people who do. But they hate it. It is almost as if they think they could make it in the world without technology. Try no central heat. I lived with it in Duluth, Minnesota when I was kid. You fed that coal-burner in the basement day and night. It was awful. How about no air-conditioning. I did that in Michigan. What a couple of lousy summers those were. And then the garden. How many Republicans can farm? Not very many, I'll bet. But they will take what you farm!

But they are the same way about war. They want to be seen as being tough enough to go to war, but they don't want to go themselves. They want to saber rattle with Russia. Oh Sarah! Like we can go kick some Russian butt just now. Hell, Nixon's idea of a balance of powers is starting to look pretty good nex to this idiocy. Not that Ms. Palin would have any clue about that, much less the Bush policy. No, they don't have to study. They don't need science. They have God and the gut instinct. What a hoot? Ever studied comparative religions? Which God? There are only about six hundred and thirty three "One True God" religions out here, and they all claim that there God is the true God. The media will not cover the fact that the Republican Party has become a farce. And they (with the media as partners) are willingly and loudly leading this country right over the brink. We can all laugh as we fall, but there is a bottom down there somewhere. I think this is going to hurt.... and very soon.

SOURCE: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/james%20strauss/gG5Z7L

This is not a choice, but a justification for alcoholism.

The best, most accurate, and most concise description of the 2008 Presidential Election I have yet seen!

albeit only in the sense that it is marginally better to plot an act of adultery and fail to consummate it than to fulfill one's evil intention.

Um, hmmm, let me get this straight: The nasty neocon hacks "plotted" to have people prosecuted for opposing the policies they favored but lacked the courage to bring about their "evil intention"? No. Hmmm. Doesn't seem to be what you're saying, Maximos. No, what you're saying is that trying to "blacklist" people--like, maybe, not hire or tenure them--for views one considers crazy, or just in a blog thread questioning the patriotism of someone for views one considers crazy, is sort of kind of somehow like plotting adultery where trying to get people to _prosecute_ someone for views one disagrees with is sort of kind of like carrying out the act of adultery.

Really bad analogy.

That's my argument: not a choice, but a reason to drink.

Really bad analogy.

Only because you don't grant the premise, which is that some unhinged segments of the right floated some trial balloons for a more active stance of opinion management, which balloons happened to sink, for the most part, precluding the possibility of further action. Such earlier failures never deterred the left, evidently, whereas they seem to have deterred the right.

I'm truly sorry to have to say it, but all of that loose right-wing talk about the proper conduct of the press during wartime, and the responsibility of Hollywood, and the promulgation of tired stabbed-in-the-back memes, with the implication being that it is a patriotic duty to fall in lockstep behind the Great Leader whenever he commits military forces to an overseas theater, and that it is treacherous and subversive to do otherwise, just was the trial balloon. Had it been received more favourably, action would have been more likely. One does not impugn the patriotism of others, and suggest that they are dishonouring their country, even betraying her - all of which accusations were flung about quite promiscuously - without implying the possibility of repression. Language means something, and that language, in a republic, means that you believe your adversaries to be traitors.

There are different kinds of awfulness on offer in this contest. Neither deserves choosing, but they are not identical.

That's what I said in the original post, in the paragraph concerning incommensurables. I simply don't see this as a big deal, since we've known for 35 years that the New Left is part of the Democratic package. The Clintons were compelled to throw the critical race theorist Lani Guinier under the bus, indicating that this New Left association is rather non-specific in the Democratic establishment - scratch most Dems, and, sooner or later, you'll find these folks. Of course, they were compelled to throw her under the bus because conservatism had yet to discredit itself as thoroughly as it has done in the Age of The Decider; now, no one has much of an inclination to listen to right-wing hectoring, not after nearly eight years of ruinous misgovernance.

My personal theory is that most people probably didn't even know the extent of what Ayers really did in the 60's and 70's. They probably heard he was a '60's radical' (which usually just means something like hippie)...maybe they heard he had some legal problems but they assumed that stuff was behind him now and if he had done anything really bad he would have been sent to jail.

But others seem to take Ayers as still untouchable (because "unrepentant"). But even if that's right, what I don't see is how this can cut any significant ice in favor of Republicans and McCain. I mean, if we're going to slam Obama for his association with Ayers, then it seems one would have to slam the Annenbergs themselves at least as hard.

Indeed, McCain's campaign just patted themselves on the back because Leonore Annenberg, widow of Walter and President of the Annenberg Foundation just endorsed him. WELL if it was wrong for Obama to sit on a board of which Ayers was one member then isn't it even more wrong for a Foundation to have given Ayers $50M to begin with? This sort of thing is a big glaring red sign that says McCain doesn't take Ayers seriously and if he doesn't then tell me why aren't the people who do simply being played for suckers?

Which brings up the second issue of why Ayers wasn't mentioned by McCain in the debate? If it was really about coddling radical terrorists in a time when we are at war with terrorism why not bring it up? The two answers I see are:

1. He doesn't really believe the Ayers attack line himself. Which means people who do are being played.

2. He does believe it but for some reason thinks it is more important to berate Obama for voting against his pork filled energy plan from a few years ago, in which case he is unfit to be President.

We’re learning why moral authority and philosophical consistency are precious commodities to be protected at all times. After defending or rationalizing practices like; renditions, torture, warrantless eavesdropping and other devices from Leviathan’s tool-kit, coupled with the recent nationalization of our banking system, many voters are going to learn about Ayers, Wright and Obama’s days with the Young Democratic Socialists and conclude these maniacs were simply ahead of their time.

I, for one, am perfectly capable of questioning someone's patriotism without even contemplating repression on those grounds. Perhaps this ability is more widespread than you think, Maximos.

Certainly, Lydia. But when the calumnies are as specific, and implicated in present controversies over state policy, and accompanied by descriptions of what the guilty parties should be doing, then that's not really the case.

I'm truly sorry to have to say it, but all of that loose right-wing talk about the proper conduct of the press during wartime, and the responsibility of Hollywood, and the promulgation of tired stabbed-in-the-back memes, with the implication being that it is a patriotic duty to fall in lockstep behind the Great Leader whenever he commits military forces to an overseas theater, and that it is treacherous and subversive to do otherwise, just was the trial balloon. Had it been received more favourably, action would have been more likely. One does not impugn the patriotism of others, and suggest that they are dishonouring their country, even betraying her - all of which accusations were flung about quite promiscuously - without implying the possibility of repression. Language means something, and that language, in a republic, means that you believe your adversaries to be traitors.

What is so remarkable about this speech is that it is practically the very same given in a Closing, delivered with such oratorical grace (as that of a Marc Antony), by none other than the current entertainment celeb anti-hero of the Left: Alan Shore -- whose satirical right-wing friend, Denny Crane, is one so magnificently done that even Colbert fails in comparison.

Perhaps Maximos own thoughts served as its inspiration?

I don't know who would be equivalent to Ayers in regards to Obama choosing his VP, but I sure as heck know that Biden wasn't that guy. For me, that is sufficient indication of how dangerously radical Obama will be as president.

Sorry to disappoint, but I had not even heard so much as a whisper of these folks until reading your comment. I prefer disinterested contemplation of the politico-cultural scene, as opposed to a conservatism of aversion, according to which anything once said by a lefty is forever verboten.

Maximos,

Haven't had time to catch up on this thread and I've lost track of this blog for some time but "conservatism of aversion" is an interesting phrase.

One of the things I've noticed is in this race Obama seems to have the more conservative temperment (small 'c', I'm talking more style here than specific policies). He seems averse to action, hysteria, in essence radicalism. His stance seems to be the quiet stranger who sits and listens intently as the more uppity types give their rant and then he decides quietly what to do. His personal life seems to mirror this. For all the hysteria about radicals, all accounts are that Obama is a quiet and frugal family man who does his duty to wife and kids without fanfare and with quiet dignity.

The economic meltdown, I think was an interesting contrast. McCain, IMO, went crazy. He suspends his campaign because the country needs 'leadership'. He goes to DC but appears not to actually care much about the bailout package. He then jumps to calling for the SEC head to be fired for 'betraying America' in front of a cheering crowd that to me sounded almost like a lynch mob (I heard it on the radio so I don't know what it looked like). Then the strange charge that Democrats failed to put country first because they couldn't get more than 60% of their people to vote for the bailout (as only a 1/3 of Republicans were voting for it...).....

I think the SEC thing bothered me the most. Here it was obvious that McCain had no idea what the SEC head failed to do, should have done or whatnot yet he was screaming for the poor guy to be fired. The whole thing struck me as downright disrespectful and unfair to someone McCain probably doesn't even know. Of course the markets didn't seem very impressed with this 'leadership'.

I know I'm not the first person to notice this but leave politics aside, Obama acts like a conservative and without getting too into McCain's personal life he, well, doesn't. Just wondering what you're thoughts are? It seems as the election is getting closer to a result the partisanship might just be easing back enough for those of us on both sides to reflect a bit.

Boonton,

He seems averse to action, hysteria, in essence radicalism. His stance seems to be the quiet stranger who sits and listens intently as the more uppity types give their rant and then he decides quietly what to do.

You seem to have neglected the fact that the very reason for his poise in all this (why he needs not go aggressive at all unlike McCain), is due to the very crisis that is before us, which all but guarantees his ascent to the White House.

Once Obama had established McCain as being nothing than a George W. Bush in disguise (you might say, not unlike a reductio ad Hitlerum where Bush, in this case, was Hitler & McCain being just as bad), Obama need only sit back and let the Crisis do the campaigning for him.

The worse the crisis got, the greater the animosity toward Bush and, consequently, McCain who, as it had been already established, was nothing but a Bush under all his rhetoric & policies.

The worse the crises got? Bush was at something like 30% before the crises. No I don't think you're making an honest assessment of Obama. He is by nature a quiet man which is a conservative trait while McCain is by nature the opposite (hence his immediate calls for dramatic policies like suspending all campaigning, all night negotiations over the bail out, firing the SEC head) that did not seem very well thought out. A good trait in a fighter pilot perhaps but as a leader?

Boonton,

I am well aware of the low popular opinion of Bush well before the crisis. However, where there was but stark approval by the masses then has evolved into sheer repulsion now (whereas before, at the very least, there were those who McCain could potentially still sway his way). You yourself seem oblivious to the fact that weeks before the fury of the crisis, Obama himself had campaigned ever so fiercely with negative ads and what not (the elections looked quite different several weeks ago than it does now since presently, to the American public, Obama has become the only choice), where only now you can hear but a whisper (more like a reminder) of who the public ought to vote for.

So, no, I don't accept your stoic hero representation of Obama.

It's only that the present circumstances has afforded him such luxury that he is able to recoil from a previous ferocity.

The times have proven quite auspicious for his campaign as they have become ever so disasterous to the American people.

Folks here can now cease their relentless attacks on McCain since, clearly, he's lost.

They can now take pleasure on one fact: OBAMA WON.

Corrigendum:

...where there was but stark [dis]approval by the masses then....

For the record, Boonton, since you inquired of me, yes, I believe that purely as a matter of temperament, Obama is more conservative than McCain; but to say this is to say no more than that Obama maintains a relative mastery of his passions while McCain either discharges his passions in immoderate and mercurial fashion, or struggles mightily to repress them, betraying them nonetheless, as in the first debate, when he could not bring himself to look upon a man for whom he harbours a profound contempt. To say this, in other words, is to say nothing of the respective policy programmes of the men. McCain, I believe, does not truly desire the presidency; rather, he feels that, all of the other contenders being inadequate to the burden of its exercise, it is his patriotic duty to contend for the office. There is something of immoderate ambition in that, yes, but also something more noble. It is not enough.

"They can now take pleasure on one fact: OBAMA WON."

Ari, the euphoria of an electoral landslide and disingenous claims of winning a "mandate", will give way soon enough to the unnpleasant conditions Obama has both inherited and authored. Liberal political and cultural dominance makes it a very large, ripe target for the disgruntled middle and working classes who are already churning with a deep sense of betrayal. That feeling is only going to intensify if they conclude the last vestiges of their nation are being swept away in a tide that combines the worst features of globalization's economic practices, neo-Marxist enlargement of the State, social libertinism and the continuing erosion of their financial prospects. If Obama in particular, and the Left in general become the sole face of the reckless. inept Managerial State, he will have wished he stayed in his safe ideological enclave of Chicago.

In the meantime, the virtue of humility will be imposed upon us all. Cultivating the talents necessary for life within smaller, more intimate communities is, but one of several tasks we must undetake.

Kevin,

Change is certainly preferred from that of the dire events in our current circumstances; however, I must specify that what's needed, what the masses are starving for, is a change for the better.

At this point, I don't know if an Obama administration (or even a McCain one, for that matter) will actually accomplish that or if it might, on the other hand, very well exacerbate it (although, it's a given that the latter is a foregone conclusion where the Culture of Life in America is concerned).