"... even though I'm feeling a lot of antagonism towards the smugness of the Democrats this election cycle, ya know, how they're all walking around as if Bush has fucked up so badly that everything they believe in is now incontrovertibly validated - even though that's true, I haven't gone Republican. It's simply that when I'm listening to a conservative, I'm comfortable knowing that he's lying to me and that he's comfortable knowing that he's lying to me: there's a nice symmetry there. Trouble with liberals is... I think they actually believe what they're saying. It's very disturbing..."

well, the bastards are at it again: another article about how McCain is playing on peoples subconcious fears regarding blacks. I mean, the Obama camp and its wretched acolytes and apologists in the press are shameless with this race baiting nonsense. They smeared Hillary with it [and her husband] but other than denying the reality of it she really couldn't counter attack since a significant section of Democrat primary voters were sympathetic to the black thing - hell, look what they did to Geraldine Ferraro: she simply pointed out the obvious, that a certain element of the left wing were in love with idea of electing a black president, and was labeled a racist. McCain will indeed have a freer hand when it comes to refuting this nonsense, but when the goal of the smear is to rouse subconscious sympathy for Obama by simply suggesting, no matter how tenuously, that any attack on him has a racist element to it - well, can you refute something like that? Suppose so - but will have to be smart about it.

Of course republicans have been doing the same to liberals for years over ideas of patriotism and support for the military etc - what's curious is how comfortable extreme elements of left wing are with turn around is fair play notion - that seems quite out of step with their purported ideals. Don't quite know what to make of that. Other than it worries me.

"... so she gets this salty look on her face and says to me 'Oh, you just don't like Obama because he's popular, you're such a dyspeptic bastard'. I thanked her for the compliment and pointed out that our relationship may have ended like a Nietzscheian whelp in the darkness - but at least it improved her vocabulary. Though not, apparently, her sense of humour, seeing how she stormed off leaving her current beau to sneer at me as if I were an undergrad or some such awful thing. I mean, of course I don't like the guy because he's popular. American Idol is popular. Bowling is popular. And if Hollywood starlets are preening and prattling over a thing, well, fuckin' eh, I'm goin' dyspeptic..."

See Israelis just conducted military run through of attack on Iranian nuke sites - large deployment of F-16s with fuel tankers on 900 mile trip over the Mediterranean, the exact distance to Iran's main nuclear facility. They did this so everyone with vested interest in Iran's nuclear ambitions would notice. Some have pointed out rightly that this is to send a message: we're prepared to stop this thing if no one else can. Nobody seems to be pointing out though that sending a message of this sort pretty much commits Israel to act on its implied threat should the problem persist: Israel has shown in its history that it really doesn't make idle threats, views them as dangerous, and that one would be foolish to doubt their resolve or imagine they're bluffing. No one seems to be noticing that with these maneuvers Israel has just upped the ante significantly. The remorseless logic of war will soon reach a point where its conclusions cannot be denied.

Interesting: Obama campaign defends efforts to 'shield' their candidate from press and photogs by playing victim card ie they have no choice but to closely guard his image since he has been so unfairly characterized in the past - it has nothing to do with trying to hide something, heavens no [undoubtedly only a racist would think something like that]. So when they moved two Muslim women wearing head scarves from out of the camera frame at recent speech, or when Obama met with national black leaders and photographers were not allowed access nor were the attendees allowed to talk to the press afterwards, well, you see, that was because Obama has been a victim of bias. Got to hand it to these people: they've mastered a Democrat version of bull shit to rival the Republicans' version. Now, I guess in one sense there's nothing wrong with that - after all, when in Rome etc etc - but that his supporters, who have railed against similar GOP tactics, do not seem troubled or even aware of this, that gets at the root of my apprehensions concerning Obama - people who not only inspire but actively seek out such blind devotion should give one pause.

Of course, a marginal counter argument could be that in any ostensibly free system the will of the people will always be somewhat blind by nature. I mean, one could argue that the only virtue of democracy is that it allows for the fact that its citizens do stupid things and exhibit poor judgment on a regular basis and therefore regular change is welcomed as a necessity and that openness in turn feeds the dynamism of the system - whereas closed systems on the other hand fail because they fear change. One could argue that - the key variable being that change does not inoculate the system against abuse, in fact, change can be a catalyst for abuse - and Obama is the change you can believe in candidate. You've been warned.

Related: David Brooks in the Times today points out, in reference to Obama opting out of public financing, in direct contradiction to everything he's said over the last few years, and rationalizing this move with some pretty specious arguments, Brooks points out that republicans fail to see what a ruthless political animal Obama is. Certainly, that's one of my theories concerning the guy: that he's essentially a charlatan lusting for power for whatever reasons and, if that's so, what becomes troubling is the question of why? Power for power's sake, possibly to appease some inner demon or as a reflection of an abiding arrogance? To implement a radical liberal agenda? His record is so thin it's impossible to know. Probably the later, given his political roots, but who the fuck knows. The point is, once you start connecting the dots on this guy red flags should be going off all over the place - assuming of course you're an objective observer. And there's the rub - to wit: reading one of the top left wing blogs to see what they have to say about Obama opting out and they essentially fall over themselves trying to avoid drawing obvious conclusion that Obama is not what they so desperately want to believe him to be [of course if what they're after is implementation of a radical left wing agenda no matter the cost then I guess, in a sense at least, that he's exactly what they want him to be].

Do the troops deserve or require unquestioning fealty in service of their mission? McCain argued something of that nature in thesis written just after release from Vietnamese prison, postulating that the reason he and those like him survived the ordeal was because they believed in the mission and had faith in their cause while those who capitulated to their captors no longer believed in the war nor the principles that put them in harms way. Liberals have objected to McCain's thesis.

Now, on the surface of it Liberal complaints seem reasonable - you certainly don't want the military running around untethered, free from oversight or objective analysis or public control: that would certainly be contrary to democratic principles, not to mention the constitution. Yet - there is an unreasonable constituent to a military ethos - hell, the entire command structure is based in large part on unquestioning fealty. And so? Obviously a delicate balance must exist and be maintained between a society and the military entrusted with protecting and preserving the rights and desires that define that society - which suggests to me that McCain is more right than he is wrong and liberals more wrong than they are right, insomuch that McCain seems to understand that there's an irrational component to the effective projection of power and liberals I think are not at all comfortable with that.

Which brings me to an interview Obama did with the Wall Street Journal regarding his views on the economy. What struck me was how reasonable and evenhanded he sounded, how educated he seemed, how open to suggestions he was without ever really getting into specifics on anything - and I realised this is why the educated class likes him so: they want to believe that their ideas matter and that the world is amenable to reason: avarice, lust, violence, ignorance - war - all those things threaten the world they want to believe in whereas Obama's dulcet tones makes it seem possible. No doubt why pampered youth clamour for him as well - he makes it all sound so sweet.

"... what was it he said? Something about how Iraqis don't use toilet paper and were fond of just dropping a deuce in any abandoned building regardless of American troops sleeping there - not as an affront, you understand, but because they didn't really see anything wrong with it. Jesus fuck the christ. If they were bad shots they would say that's God's will and not bother practicing. He said when he walked patrols with a geeky looking fellow officer the Iraqis would never listen to the geek because he didn't look threatening enough, even if he was just trying to be helpful: you wanted them to stop shittin' in your billet you had to get mean. They were like children, children you didn't want to share a space with, and that lead to a lot of bad policy at first, a lot of needless violence and half-assed efforts. Obviously he wasn't particularly optimistic about the situation but agreed with McCain: with grunts finally figuring out the culture of these people it'd be idiotic to leave now, cause without a strong hand to guide them they could go wrong in a very ugly way..."

Got first hand look last night at what's at the root of the Obama phenomenon. A group of people were hanging around the restaurant for drinks and chatter, thirty something types, and they were going on with worshipful exaggeration about The Chosen One - most of which could be reduced - rendered may be the better verb - down to: He's gonna change everything. I laughed and said in so many words you mean because he's black. They protested and started throwing around some vague set of beliefs ostensibly defining a nebulous idealism. I laughed and said ah, you mean because he's black and quite liberal. They protested and, like true Obama fans, suggested that maybe I was a racist. I laughed and said not at all; I'd support a Colin Powell presidency, not Condelezza though, she was a fuck up as the NSA. They looked a bit confused with that, troubling acronym no doubt, then stumbled into some pronouncements on the whole new world order of hope vs racist conservatives rant. I laughed and said but I already said I'm not a racist, nor a conservative for that matter; I'd vote for Powell - the key here is you wouldn't nor would you be all awash with excitement if Powell were the one breaking the colour barrier here. It's because Obama intimates support for the ultra left wing shibboleths you idiots hold so dear to your hearts and is a black man to boot who conveniently speaks with the calming appeal of a white academic thus allowing you to safely imbue him with all kinds of new agey bring the world together bullshit, that's what's got you all excited. He's the perfect vessel to fill to the brim with your noxious liberal brew of sentimentality, shallow idealism and shoddy thinking. That kind of killed the conversation and I wandered off.

These people were all in their 30's, were college educated with pretty good jobs, were in relationships but not married, had dogs but no kids, liked to smoke pot, a lot from what I could tell, liked to sit around bars and restaurants talking nonsense with like minded friends. Read into that what you will.

"... I'm telling ya, Olmert will step down as PM, a hawk will replace him and Israel will bomb Iranian nuclear installations before the US election in November - not just to forestall the Persians plans and ambitions but also to deny Obama the US presidency... they'll risk a war to stop a bigger war... it'll get that bad..."

"... Bernoulli asked that a logarithmic spiral be placed on his tombstone but the engraver, a simple man no doubt, stuck an Archimedian one on there instead, implying therefore not the intricacies of infinity and the beauty of nature but rather the boredom of routine. I imagine that's god's way of saying fuck you and your number theory: I'll allow a certain amount of meddling in my affairs but you cross the line and I'll fuck you: it's still my show..."

Well, I see I wasn't alone in being concerned about how bad McCain's speech was in comparison to Obama's. Stories all over the place about it this morning - media consultants popping up everywhere to analyze and proffer advice.

Still, I think a key point that I tried to make is being missed. They're all focusing on how bad at speech giving McCain is and how Obama I guess is the best orator since Pericles - but no one seems to be paying attention to the why. To me, McCain's shortcomings and Obama's proficiency in this area reveals clues to their respective personalities and character - clues which speak to McCain's virtues and Obama's flaws. If McCain's handlers are smart they'll be able to exploit this, to turn Obama's supposed advantage here on its head - if they're really good every time Obama delivers one of his trademark orgies of eloquence, his core base of obsequious acolytes will still fawn over him but independent, uncommitted voters may take a second look and conclude: the guy's a phony.

"... on one hand I don't see how McCain can win. On the other hand, when McCain or surrogates can run ads that quote Obama saying he never missed a Sunday at church and then quote him saying after the Wright scandal broke that he had no idea the kind of nonsense that was preached there and then can ask something like 'don't the American people deserve to know which statement is not true?' - well, it's hard to see how Obama can win... it's obvious Obama is lying, possibly in order to hide an extremist agenda, possibly just for the sake of winning... and it's obvious McCain may be too old to out run the deathly influence of the Bush legacy or reinvent a party that looks to be in desperate need of reinvention... I suppose Obama could win if he continues to dissemble as adroitly as he has so far... then again the lethality of the Bush miasma could be significantly mitigated by interceding events which suddenly make McCain seem not so very old at all..."

Hell, I come up with a nice Machiavellian scenario re Hillary and the VP slot and then she goes and ruins it by making nice with the guy. These people are really starting to piss me off. Somebody better start using real bullets here or I'm just gonna turn the TV off - they don't deserve my scorn, bloody make the world a better place liberals.

Of course my scenario really a stretch to begin with - it would have required Hillary being stand offish for an uncomfortably long period of time while the whole VP selection process wore on, which would not have played well. Although, does she really need to be rude here? Scenario could still play out even with her pretending to be nice, possibly better that way - but did read this morning an Obama insider saying Hillary has to show 100% support or risk shouldering the blame should the Chosen One lose in November, so maybe they're on to her game, if she even has a game - other than doing all I can to ensure a Democratic win in November - so bloody boring. Any troll can toss bread at fish. [what does that mean?]

Still, imagine a McCain/Clinton ticket. Sure it's absurd - but you could rationalize it in an irrational, counter factual sort of way, and then it becomes somewhat revealing. You'd have to figure out if the moderates, independents and disgruntled liberals McCain would reap would make up for the reams of conservatives he'd lose; you'd have to figure out a convincing explanation for Hillary which would be something like 'I'm really a moderate realist who was forced to run too far to the left by the activist dictates of the Democratic primaries, these freaks could never accept that I voted for the war, they all hate the military etc etc'; you'd have to make the case, probably not hard to do, that a McCain/Clinton ticket does in reality what Obama can only talk about - true bipartisan unity; and you'd have to figure out a way to explain to those conservatives who don't immediately run out and shoot themselves why such a move will renew the GOP.

Of course McCain could possibly achieve all of that and avoid the toxic effects of Clintonism by simply naming Sam Nunn as his VP. Or how about Mark Warner? Wesley Clark? Give the ticket a real Roman militarist feel...

I think what is being missed here concerning Obama's promise to talk directly with Iran and sundry rogue states is not whether it's good policy or not [I personally believe there is no wholesale right or wrong answer here - each case would demand a specific approach, although in general it seems to make little sense strategically to play your big card first] - but what's being missed, or if not missed then not paid close enough attention to, is Obama's apparent belief that he personally can effect some dynamic change for the good simply by speaking with his counterpart. That strikes one as delusional and a very dangerous sort of delusion if one believes Obama has gotten this far in his career by taking that very approach - dangerous because in his rise through the ultra left wing politics of Chicago and a presidential primary process that was, because of the war, very much controlled by the left wing of the Democratic party, he has essentially been speaking to people who want to believe him, long to share in his point of view and hope in their hearts that he is right. He's not gonna find such a nice, receptive audience in the big boy world of international relations - in fact if he is thusly delusional and this delusion is naively based on a misunderstanding of his putative success up to this point then guys like Putin et al will I imagine eat him alive.

What are the chances that Hillary still refusing to actually concede while letting it be known that she's open to being offered the VP slot does so because she knows Obama will never stoop to offer her a place on the ticket and so as a consequence she'll come off looking somewhat reasonable and conciliatory and he somewhat, well, not nice? I don't believe for a second either of them wants her as VP and I don't really see how it could work if it were to actually come about - sounds like a disaster waiting to happen, especially when you factor in Bill - but if you look at it she's kind of got him in a box, no? There's very little that separates them as far as delegates and popular vote goes, she's done much better than him over the last month or so, and she's indicated she'd be open to the idea - how can he not offer it to her? Hard to know what she's thinking, but if you assume there's no way in hell she wants to be his VP, kind of makes sense that she's sucker punched him here. [the sucker punch of all sucker punches would be if spurned by Obama she accepts a place on the ticket with McCain - of course that's pure fantasy but, my god, wouldn't it be fun to watch?]

Looks like Obama is now officially the nominee, not that Hillary's conceding that point - but she's pissed off and rightly so and will need some alone time to get reacquainted with reality - anyway, we have our nominees and they gave competing speeches last night and since only optics matter here - pundits may hash over the content of a speech, voters really only care about how it feels - so, just going by optics then, McCain doesn't stand a chance. Put simply, the man gives a horrible speech: his body language is all wrong and seems forced, he can't take his eyes off the teleprompter, the lines he's reading don't sound like they were written for him and he does a very poor job of delivering them - possibly a writer more in tune with McCain's speaking style could improve things but he gives the overwhelming impression of a guy who will never be comfortable giving a set speech. Obama on the other hand loves giving set speeches, oration is absolutely his thing and he exudes the confidence of a man who's convinced that what he's saying is not only brilliant, but sounds brilliant, and in his mind I imagine the two things are probably not adequately distinguished - certainly they are not distinguished in the mind of his audience. Drop him into the agora of a couple thousand years ago and I have no doubt Socrates would have lavished praise on his compelling style and delivery - and then ruthlessly pinned him against the wall as a sophist. Obama also exudes a fair amount of arrogance when speaking and it's hard to tell if that's because he is arrogant or because in his mind that's what power looks like - again, one imagines that in his mind the two things are confused. Like with a good actor, or, ironically, since the Obama folks hate the Clintons so much, Bill Clinton, these people have spent a lot of time thinking about how they sound and look when speaking, probably as a consequence of some deep, dark insecurity, and so when they present themselves publicly it all seems very smooth and natural when in fact it's completely manufactured: it seems natural because for the actor the illusion is reality. I guarantee you Obama, like Clinton and every have decent actor out there, has spent a lot of time speaking in front of a mirror - and I'm pretty sure McCain definitely has not. [not to draw some comparison here, but call to mind those pictures Hitler had taken of himself while practicing his speeches - people like this are very conscious of their image and the impression they're making] [It certainly sounds like youre comparing Obama to Hilter here] [No, not at all, that'd be absurd... I mean, certainly there are personality types that... no, no: just because Obama seems to inspire mindless devotion just like any half decent dictator would doesn't mean... well, it means something of course, but...]

So, there ya go - if it comes down to speech making McCain is doomed. Lucky for McCain, the press is so in love with Obama that his speeches may never make it to air - which leads one to think: it may be wise for McCain to fore go speech giving all together and just rely on a forum he seems much more comfortable with, the town hall meeting. From what I've seen Obama is not as good in this informal setting, he's too convinced that eloquence equals meaning and therefore tends to get ponderous. It would be a bold move on McCain's part but, if I were advising him, I'd keep him the hell away from a podium.

But if McCain chooses Jindal as his VP? Much speculation about this seeing as how Jindal not only counters the Obama youth/ethnicity card but more importantly, as far as the fundamentalist wing of the party is concerned, because he's an evolution denying, ten commandments thumping, liberals equal moral decay bewailing social conservative. If McCain chooses him I will definitely be in a pickle.

On the other hand if lots of momentum builds for Jindal and McCain ignores it that would be a promising sign. Plus, on practical side, seems counter intuitive for McCain, who needs to attract independents, to go with an arch social conservative, especially one who effectively undermines his attack on Obama as being too young and inexperienced for the chief executive role. [which makes one wonder if a lot of the rattle re Jindal as VP isn't being made by liberals who reason it would be a misstep on McCain's part. After all, NY Times was my main source on this story]

"... see Obama finally dumped his church. Maybe now can have the hallowed conversation on race he promised us a few months ago when he said he'd never dump his church, that that'd be giving into the forces of intolerance, playin' I guess the old white mans game of hatin' on people. What a lot of bullshit. That speech he gave was nothing but spin yet the media lapped it up like a pack of idiot dogs. Well, now that it's revealed for the bullshit it was I expect some mea culpas. And it would also be nice if the press would stop allowing the Obama campaign to make the Reverend Wright problem solely a Reverend Wright problem. By placing the focus on Wright himself instead of the church as a whole and Obama's political career in relation to it you allow Obama to make the ludicrous claim that somehow he was insulated from Wright's opinions. But if you watch the Wright and Pfleger videos what you see is that the congregation not only welcomes what is being said, but rejoices in it, revels in it, champions it enthusiastically seemingly without bounds and therefore to claim as Obama does that he attended this church but somehow missed the message preached is absurd. A reasonable person must conclude one of two things: Obama wasn't really paying attention while in throes of most righteous worship which doesn't jibe at all with his oft stated devotion to the church; or, alternatively, he's lying and does in fact share in whole or part the opinions expressed or, if not that, was merely using the church to further his political career - or both, which actually seems like the most logical conclusion to draw when you examine his political roots. From that you're left with several further realities to consider: one, the rhetoric and premises underlying his campaign are bull shit; two, he's ambitious, craves power and is willing to practice deceit to attain it; three, his agenda is activist and far left in nature; and four, he's as willing as any Republican to use religion as a political tool. That last point is important because it's the type of thing liberals should be troubled by and yet they blithely turn a blind eye to it. Seems to me it would be wise to fear a man who not only inspires such blind devotion but also has displayed a willingness to use this devotion in service of a hidden agenda [not unlike way hardline righties devotion to Bush, oh irony of ironies] - yet liberals flock unquestioningly to their Saviour. I have simply stated conclusions one can logically draw simply by looking at the origins of Obama's political career and the bond between that career and the church whose membership he sought out and exploited for twenty years - it's hardly to engage in wild speculation to come to these conclusions - and yet the mainstream press says nothing and, less surprisingly but of no less import I think, left wing entertainment venues like The Daily Show, which have morphed into significant news sources for youth voters, not only say nothing but act as if Obama is beyond reproach. How can a rational person not be alarmed by this...?"