Bottom Line: Obama should be winning easily. Instead, he is running a campaign that is still messaging to the already converted. While McCain is not running a great campaign, he is running a steady one. Senator Obama is blowing it.

Argument:

Polls can fluctuate, but at present Senator Obama seems unable to close the deal with the American electorate. There is no respectable poll that shows Obama getting over half the vote. Almost all of them show him getting a good bit less.

Following my rule of thumb set at the start of the race, as a challenger Senator Obama is losing when he dips under a five point lead in the polls this early. Why? Obama is a challenger in a year for challengers and poll weakness early on is dangerous. Ask Jimmy Carter who won, but barely in a race that he should have put away. I think this was because Carter never expanded his base, because he believed (with everyone else) that he could not lose in a Democrat year. [more]

Timing, as they say, is everything, and not just for baseball players trying to hit a 95-mph fastball.  For example, if Hitler had come along 70 years later than he did, I have no doubt that he would have succeeded in conquering all of Europe.  One only has to look at how close he came, and that was in spite of all those nations and the U.S. aligned against him.  Today, much of Europe has no backbone, and I doubt that, in the wake of Iraq, Americans would have the collective will required to oppose Nazism.  It bears remembering that when we went to war against the Axis powers, FDR was never asked if he had an exit strategy.

While it’s true that our presidents must deal with a great number of issues other than war, war and national defense are at the top of the list.  Can anybody actually picture Barack Obama, a man born to be a left-wing social worker, as commander-in-chief?  Keeping America safe is simply not on Obama’s to-do list.  He has made that perfectly clear by several of his statements.  For instance, he insisted that John Kennedy got Nikita Khrushchev to pull Soviet missiles out of Cuba by sitting down and reasoning with him.  He obviously believes he will turn evil dictators into peaceful lambs by the sheer power of his personality. [more]

by Steve Finefrock - Hollywood Forum [scriptwriter]

Robert Redford’s startled expression of realization and discomfort was so precious, appreciated more in later years’ viewing as my politics moved from short-pants liberalism-lite to more and more conservative long-pants appreciation of the enduring verities of life.  As ‘Condor’ in “Three Days of the Condor” the young hero, Joe Turner, confronts Higgins, the CIA executive, in Times Square, where they square off for the film’s coda scene.
 
Redford is disbelieving as this scene plays out, following the tortuous storyline of evil CIA rogues’ war-gaming scheme to plan for potential military confiscation of Middle Eastern oil fields in the event of some potential world crisis:... [more]

The Democrats have been saying for some time that Barack Obama will restore our reputation in the eyes of the world, and I have been wracking my brain trying to figure out what went wrong in the first place.

The world hates us. We know this, because our own media inform us of it regularly through polls, editorials, and documentaries. Because of our actions, our policies, over the years, we have built up a reservoir of resentment worldwide that only Obama can sooth.

You know, I think they are right. Let's look at the sins we've committed with an eye toward helping our next president, whoever it may be, to regain our popularity in the world.

Most of the complaints have to do with the American reaction to problems overseas. Should America get involved, and in what capacity? From my observations, we have clearly blundered many times, causing them to hate us. [more]

Michael Kinsley is wearing his intellectual short pants again, in his essay on Swiftboating. Wishing upon wishes for a ‘clean’ campaign of purity, he asserts, “Swift-boat is shorthand for the brilliant, despicable Republican campaign strategy in 2004 that turned John Kerry's honorable service in Vietnam into a negative factor in his campaign. The phrase has become more broadly the term for a particular category of campaign tactics and has even become a verb. To ‘swift-boat’ somebody is to use these tactics against him or her.”
 
Kinsley is not stupid, nor ignorant, but plainly very conveniently ‘forgetful’ of much history in his lifetime, never mind that of the DNC and its minions earlier in the century, before Kinsley’s mind was even a glimmer in his parents youthful eyes.  Swiftboating began in January of 1929, nine gestative months before the Black Tuesday stockmarket crash foreshadowed the Great Depression, and the swiftboating by historians and journalists of Herbert Clark Hoover. [more]

by John Mark Reynolds [author, academic]

My most delightful Christmas gift was Life With Jeeves. Nearly as delightful are the video versions which include a young Hugh Laurie (House). My children claim that House is hateful, because Jeeves has left him.

For me, the compilation of three of P.G. Wodehouse’s Jeeves novels was the perfect antidote to the serious nature of our times.

There is the War.

There is an election coming.

There is poverty and injustice.

On the other hand, the gentleman’s gentleman Jeeves must save Bertie from an ill advised marriage to a woman of the sort who “suddenly asks you out of a blue sky if you don’t sometimes feel that the stars are God’s daisy-chain. . ." [more]

by John Mark Reynolds [author, academic]

Some people pick churches the way they pick clothing: based on personal comfort and style. Other people select their religious home for bad reasons: they hope to gain some personal or political advantage from it.

It is difficult to understand how Senator Obama could attend a church for twenty years, defend it in one of the most eloquent speeches I have heard, and then suddenly have an epiphany, in the heat of a political campaign, about the nature of the place where he trusted his own and his children’s spiritual well being. If God appeared to the Senator on the Road to Denver, then miracles still do happen, but this miracle happened very conveniently for the Senator’s ambitions.

Perhaps Senator Obama is not made of the stuff from which martyrs are made, but if so it is very sad. [more]

Whenever retreat-now activists or their favored presidential aspirant are confronted with our progress in Iraq, their stock reply is, "Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq in 2003."

Well, I happen to agree with Sen. Barack Obama and his supporters on that count: At most, the terrorists had a tenuous connection with Saddam's regime. But it's 2008, not 2003. And our next president will take office in 2009. It's today's reality that matters.

It's as if, in June 1944, critics had argued from facts frozen in June 1939. ("Why invade Normandy? Hitler's content with Czechoslovakia.")

In the course of a war - any war - the situation changes, enemies evolve and goals shift. A war to preserve the Union becomes a war to end slavery; a war to defeat one set of totalitarian systems empowers a new network of tyrannies. It's a rare war whose end can be forecast neatly at its outset.

And you don't get any do-overs. [more]

This election will be all about Senator Obama.

He has made history in a good sense. Only a racist or a fool (while all racists are fools not all fools are racists) isn’t happy to see a nation conceived in the original sin of slavery nominate an African-American for president. That is not a good reason to vote for him, but it is a good thing.

Like Reagan in 1980, the country is fed up with the incumbent party. Like Reagan in 1980, the country is open (which is rare) to somebody more from the edge of acceptable politics. The attractive challenger can get a big majority of the voters . . . if. It is the “if” that makes this election interesting. My bet is that in the end it will not be very close. If Obama can show he is acceptable to moderates, then he will win. If he cannot, he will lose in Dukakis style.

Senator Obama has to not lose in order to win. [more]

Although its their own internecine fight, I have been impressed at the main stream media's manipulation and outright partisan interference in the Democratic primary. One doesn’t have to be a fan of the Clintons to see what’s going on - the overt attempt by the main stream media to anoint a presumptive nominee months before primary elections are held and decided.
 
They have pursued an overtly anti-democratic process, with their own cadres of pundits and commentators dictating the desired or forecast results prior to millions of their fellow citizens having the opportunity to vote.  Let us recall, that until recent history, presidential candidates were selected at the convention, following roll -call votes by the state delegations. Until such roll-call votes are held there is no official candidate.
 
Led by Tim Russert since early February, all of MSNBC and most of CNN has not only declared Obama as winner, they have been an echo chamber for Obama's campaign to urge Clinton to drop out and concede or to ridicule her for not doing so. "It's inevitable" they keep repeating. Then, following up on their arrogant prescience they belittle every subsequent primary victory for Clinton, even when won with lopsided 70-30 percent margins. [more]

Barack Obama insisted that he was going to be the post-racial presidential candidate, the man who was going to bring us all together and make us forget our racial differences.  It’s funny how that worked out.  I guess he forgot to mention his master plan to his nearest and dearest. 

First, let us consider his wife, Michelle.  If she is, as they say, his better half, I’d sure hate to see his other half.  What’s with the Democrats, anyway?  It’s bad enough that they keep coming up with creepy candidates for president, but look at their idea of a first lady.  Hillary Clinton, Teresa Heinz-Kerry and Michelle Obama, remind me of the three witches in “Macbeth,” but without their cooking skills.  As awful as the other two ladies were, when it comes to sheer nastiness and bitterness, they couldn’t hold a candle to Mrs. Obama, although one would be sorely tempted to try. [more]

The Washington Times recently reported that "the church where Sen. Barack Obama has worshipped for two decades publicly declares that its ministry is founded on a 1960s book that espouses ‘the destruction of the white enemy.’ Trinity United Church of Christ’s Web site says its teachings are based on the black liberation theology of James H. Cone and his 1969 book ‘Black Theology and Black Power.’ …Conrad Worrill, a leader of the Chicago-based National Black United Front, said…’I think most black people would agree that what Jeremiah Wright said is the truth.’"

It sure is ironic, then, that a parishioner of such a church, with the full backing of the church, would be seeking to inhabit the White House.

Or not.

After all, it’s part of a widely noticed but not often spoken of pattern among black Americans. Starting with soda, for example. Most white people drink Coke or Pepsi -- the dark sodas, in other words. But black people consistently prefer Sprite. That is, the clear or ‘white’ soda. ‘Sprite’ even rhymes with ‘white’. [more]

Did ya see the Red Sea parting?  Water turned into wine? Loaves and Fishes? And to borrow from Islam, the Miraj/Night Journey?  None are so amazing as the media finally, FINALLY, FINALLY getting around to playing referee in a game which to date has been all-Obama all the time.
 
The web is filled with Obama-bashing – who knew it would ever happen?  The temptation is to say: It had to happen, it was overdue, it was inevitable. But, why now, instead of earlier?  Is it the hiatus between major primaries?  Did some magical critical mass develop, over the Reverend Wright issue? It had been in the public realm for over a year, yet it never met the tipping-point cascade of this past week. [more]

by John Mark Reynolds [author, academic] 2/27/08

Senator Clinton will never be president. Obama would be a fool to put her on a ticket and he is no fool.

Against a weak field, cleared out for her, she failed. She is a phenomenally weak campaigner who is exhausted by crowds and people. She is smart, perhaps having the most book smarts in the race, but she has not “people intelligence.”

To give just one example of her bad ear for the “people” side of debate: [more]

For a long time, there has been a controversy brewing in America over whether or not to make English our official language.  The arguments in favor seem overwhelmingly compelling to me.  Doesn’t it seem absurd that when so many people living in foreign countries see obvious advantages in learning English, that millions of those who actually reside here, who make their livings and raise their children here, and who vote in our elections, can neither read nor write the language?

Yet, most Democratic politicians and even some Republicans balk at the idea.  All this time, I have assumed that their objection was predicated on their fear of being labeled racists, and worried that it might cost them votes in future elections.  But I am beginning to wonder if their reluctance isn’t based on the fact that for so many of those in public life, basic English skills are simply beyond them. [more]