OPINION: America (On Line, at least) gives debate win to McCain

Looking at the current** (Saturday, 5:30 p.m.) results of the AOL Hot Seat (unscientific) poll, John McCain won the first debate by a 57 to 37 margin, with about 6 percent who are clueless. The state-by-state break down confirms my impression of this year's presidential race. Barack Obama is the clear choice of blacks and left wing loonies. I draw this conclusion because McCain was declared the winner in every state of the Union (including Obama's home state of Illlinois) except Washington, D.C. and Vermont.

**Results may change as more voters express their preferences.

Now we all know D.C. has the highest proportion of black population of any place in America. The apparent propensity of blacks to vote skin color and even (partial) ethnicity over any and all issues is racist, by definition. So, when the Obama whiners talk about how he will suffer unfair disadvantage due to non-black racism, remind them that he is gaining an offsetting advantage from black racism.

Less known, but easily provable, Vermont is like that candy bar -- chuck full of (left wing) nuts. It is the home base of the only truly socialist senator in Congress, Bernie Sanders (left, of course), and the headquarters of Ben and Jerry, who dole out left wing propaganda with ever scoop of their ice cream.

You may recall from past blogs, it is also famous for the alien village of Brattleboro, which voted to have President Bush arrested for violating the U.S. Constitution if he set so much as one toe across the village boundary. The irony that their action is ... ah ... unconstitutional is lost on the good people of brattleboro.

I have said it before, and I will say it again ... the American part of America would glady let Vermont slip out from under the Union if it was not for thier maple syrup.

So ... there you have it. The bedrock of Obama's support are racists and nuts.

DISCLAIMER: In these days of uptight politics and anal attitudes, I find it necessary to note that the above blog is offered as a tongue in (my) cheek commentary. It is not meant to be reverse reverse racism or mean spiritedness. If you cannot see the good natured jest then you don't get it -- or you are uptight with an anal attitude. Lighten up!

LMAO: What ... and give up show business?

You know it's always my desire to bring you valuable behind the scenes information that is often overlook by the major media. Here is one such example.

I am sure you have not read any reports about the guy in the photo just finishing up his important work. This unheralded hero is responsible for cleaning up the bullsh*t after each presidential debate. He claims to be able to determine the winner of the debate by the amount of refuse he has to remove around each podium.

So ... how did he judge this debate? After cleaning up the stage, he is reported to have commented, "I've seen a lot worse. This was pretty evenly spread around both podiums."

He tells friends that nothing compares to the Reagan/Carter debate, where he says the entire stage was knee deep in bullsh*t. He regrets not being around for the historic Nixon/Kennedy debate. "I hear stores that the bullsh*t overflowed the stage, but no one kept records in those days," he said.

When asked why he is assigned to this mission after each presidential debate, he simply replied, "I'm the duty officer." (No pun intended).

REACT: Who won? It's debatable.

If you think of the first of the four presidential debates as the first quarter of a football game, I say no touchdowns ... no fumbles ... and minimal yardage gain -- mostly John McCain recovering lost yardage due to economic set back and dropping the ball on the pre-debate strategy (as in threatening not to show up for the game).

Despite a lot of attempts, Barack Obama could not get control of the ball. The best sacks of the quarterback were McCain's remark that he does not have a (presidential) seal yet -- alluding to Obama's past unveiling of HIS seal, which was pretty much trash canned due to negative public reaction to the obvious (execpt to Obama) arrogance and presumptiveness of the gimmick -- and McCain's cleaver comparison of Obama's persistence in the face of misjudgement to the governing style of the unpopular George Bush.
I think the contest suffered from some bad ref'ing. This game was to be played on the foreign policy field. However, for almost the entire first half, Jim Lehrer, of PBS, had them over on the economic field. This was an inappropriate call, and cannot be explained other than Lehrer's desire to be the celebrity questioner on the pressing domestic issues of the week. He made a very lame attempt to justify the call by saying the eocnomy impacts on foreign policy. I would call for an official protest on the ruling.

OBSERVATION: Team Obama off message?

First we have Bill Clinton appearing on “The View” and “The David Letterman Show” on the same day. Given two major opportunities to push the Barack Obama candidacy, Good ole Bill hardly mentions the Democrat presidential nominee. I would say Clinton damned Obama by feint praise, but he didn’t even offer up any praise, feint or otherwise.

In responding to a number of questions, Clinton was more impartial than the average left-leaning news anchor. Most of his praise we reserved for his wife, with John McCain coming in second. His omission of any mention of Obama was so obvious that comedian Chris Rock, who followed Clinton on the Letterman set, did an impromptu schtick about reminding the former President who won the nomination this year. Rock mocked Clinton’s seeming inability to utter Obama’s name.

As if that was not enough surprises for Obama, his own pick for Vice President, Joe Biden, did a little dumping of his own. The Delaware senator said the "McCain can't email" television ad put out by Obama was "awful" and if he had known about it in advance, it never would have aired. I had made my own opinion known in a previous blog, but I never expected to get support from Obama's running mate. The commercial was offenisve because McCain cannot email because war injuries pervent him from useing a keyboard.

Are these guys a wee bit off message?

FOLLOW-UP: More naked truth?

A while back I was wondering out loud why liberals think nudity adds to the relevancy of their various protests. In one of those blogs, I noted the ditzy views of one Earth Friend Gen. She claims you cannot address (or is it undress?) the problems of the world until you are … as they say … comfortable in your skin. And … she believes you cannot be comfortable in your skin unless you are willing to show your comfort level to the mostly unwilling eyes of unsuspecting men, women and children. <--Listed in the ascending order of unwillingness.

I mean … it is okay to be comfortable in one’s own skin, Gen, but that does not mean others are as comfortable with YOUR skin as you are. In many cases, naked bodies are … sorry to say … unattractive at best and nausea-inducing at worst.

Seems my friend Gen (rhetorically speaking, since I never met her) is in the news again. This time for naked skating. She initially sought permission to skate naked in the Portland, Oregon Fourth of July Parade. They turned her down. I guess if you don’t have any place to stick a flag pin you can’t parade in Portland on Independence Day.

Well, despite the parade ban, or maybe protesting it, Earth Friend Gen has been gliding around town wearing only a pair of inline skates. Police report that a number of construction workers have complained.

Whoa! Construction workers complaining about a naked woman whizzing by on roller blades. We all know that construction workers are the number one “bird” watchers in America – and no one appreciates jiggly boobs and bouncing butts more than those guys with the hard ones ….. hats, that is. (Shame on you!) If they are complaining, you would think Earth Friend Gen has to be a bit on the au naturale ugly side. Judging by her photo (left), I would say not pin up pretty, but not bad enough to have the Portland construction gawkers calling the police, for heaven's sake. They are a hard to please crowd out in Portland. The pot bellied construction workers of my hometown of Chicago would think Gen a Venus -- and if they did call the police, it would only be to join in the chorus of wolf whistles.

With all that is going on in the economy and in the war on terror, I should not spend too much time on the antics of Earth Friend Gen. However, this blog has now made it a mission to keep you updated on the latest news in nude protesting. After all, someone has to do it.** Maybe I should add to the banner head, “All the nudes that fit to print.”

Rest assured, I will keep you posted on any future naked protest sightings.

**I don’t usually use the expression, “someone has to do it.” When you read that, don’t you more often than not say to yourself, “No. No one really has to do it” -- whatever “it” is?

INSIGHT: Biden his time ... for Hillary

For a moment in time, there was question whether John McCain would replace Sarah Palin as his vice presidential partner. This seems to be mostly generated by the liberal pundits as an indirect way of exaggerating Palin's negatives. Now cometh a more persistent backroom whisper -- that Barack Obama will trade in Joe Biden for Hillary Clinton.

The rumor that is getting increasing volume in the blogosphere and among mainstream pundits is that Old Joe will resign in the few precious weeks before the election due to health reasons. They even specifically say an aneurism will be the stated malady. This would give Obama a woman, to offset the surprise and effective selection of Palin, and a former adversary a la Jack Kennedy's selection of Lyndon Johnson.

It certainly is a most cynical theory -- so cynical that it is politically feasible. (I wonder if this would be matched by Palin dumping the geriatric McCain for Mitt Romney.)

Would Obama and the Democrats go to such an extreme? Why not? The Democrats are the consummate pursuit-of-power party with an anything-to-win core philosophy. I have long suggested that Obama was unelectable. If the Obamacans and Democrat leaders did not see it quite that way over the long haul, they most certainly have come closer to my thinking since the appearance of Palin on the political platform. Maybe they now see it slipping way.

The question is ... Is such a bait-and-switch too cynical for the American public. Will voters be enthralled with the progressive's dream ticket, or revolted by the chicanery of it all. Of course, much depends on the credibility and believability of Biden's health claim. Death would be much more convincing than some last minute infirmity of convenience, but not as easy to accomplish.

The more serious question ... "Would Hillary actually help?" If not, then the strategy is nothing more than bloggers with more time than knowledge playing head games.

I think the switch is within the realm of possibility because I think the Obamacans could think Hillary would pull them out of a noise dive by checkmating Palin. However, just because they think so, does not make it so.

My own unsolicited opinion is that the Hillary gambit would backfire. Hillary looks good as the also-ran. No reason to think of those pesky Whitewater days, the IRS lists and the stolen White House china. The Clintons are intriguing personalities, but that does not mean that 51 percent of the voting public would like to see them in office again. In some ways, they are political O.J. Simpsons. Their every move generates a celebrity fascination, but behind that, we all know they did it.

If Palin was the "carrot' to motivate the conservative base, Hillary is just the stick that would whip the right wing into a rabid campaign frenzy.

Furthermore, the suddenly more serious and intense vetting of the Clintons (yes, both of them) would likely lead to the exposure of a number of troublesome issues that will lay dormant as long as they are sideliners. In addition to a re-examination of all those Clinton era accusations and findings, there are more contemporary matters. Her senate fundraising activities have not been without controversy. And then there are Bill's post-presidency wheelings and dealings with Middle East potentates and liaisons of a more personal nature.

Hillary would do to Obama, what Palin did for McCain. She would shunt him off to the sidetrack of media attention. While the ham-handed McCain needed the temporary diversion of public attention, the charismatic Obama cannot afford to be taken off message in the all-critical final days of this very long, long campaign.

Also, standing next to the Clintons (yes, both of them), Obama would appear diminished -- less like a president. He would become the Sarah Palin of is own campaign -- a breakthrough novelty who seems a wee bit short of experience. This is a more serious problem for him because he is applying for the boss's position, not the assistant.

Then there is the question of breaking the racial barrier and glass ceiling at the same time. Is that just too much progress for the nation at one time. Could be.

Maybe Obama thinks this is a way to flip a losing campaign into a winning effort. I can also see Hillary buying in on the hope of preventing Palin from shattering through the ceiling many credit Clinton with cracking.

With the American electorate being so closely divided, it is not easy to forecast the results of such a dramatic turn of events -- especially with the potential of other issues, such as Iraq and the economy, to produce their own dramatic surprises.

However, my gut tells me the Hillary maneuver would fail. Instead of boosting Obama's currently rattling rocket, it may cause a complete flame out. There were many good reasons Hillary was not choosen in the first place, and all those good reasons are still lurking beneath the surface just waiting for the chance to be bite Obama in the butt.

LMAO: Obama "calling" for reform in Illinois

While Barack Obama showed not on scintilla of interest in reforming the thoroughly corrupt political machine that produced him, he is not under some pressure to poop, or get off the reform pot. National and Illinois-based media has been wondering out loud why the self described agent of change is not pushing to pass the reform package on languishing in the Illinois Senate -- Obama's form venue. The question is particular pesky since the state senate is headed by Emil Jones, Obama's fellow African American, close friend and political godfather.

Well I am happy to report the under pressure from the media, Obama has taken action. Well ... at least the appearance of action. He said he would "call" Jones to encourage him to pass the reform legislation.

I can hear that call now.

Obama: Hello, Godfather.

Jones: Hello boy. (<-- African-Americans can use that word about each other.)

Obama: Godfather, I have been getting a lot of flack about never doing anything about reforming Illinois.

Jones: I've been reading that. They just don't know that Illinois ain't ready for reform.

Obama: I know, but its getting me some bad press ... and you know how I hate bad press.

Jones: Of course, son. You're not used to it like the rest of us. Just water off the ducks back.

Obama: Well ... today I told the press I would call you to ask you to pass the reform legislation.

Jones: Smart move, boy.

Obama: Thank you, sir.

Jones: I'll be sure to tell the press about your call, and how strongly you pressured me to pass the legislation. I can say I am reconsidering my position. Oh! Better yet. I'll say I will work to pass it because you are such a persuasive guy.

Obama: Really? You'll really pass it?

Jones: No! Of course not. You crazy? But I can say I will -- at least until after the election. I control enough votes to make sure it never passes. I'll come in favor of the bill, but make sure it gets locked up in committee anyway. You know how we do these things.

Obama: That's really great. I knew I could count on you.

Jones: No problem. After all we got to get you elected. The Chicago machine never controlled the White House before. And of course, you need to be President to get rid of that U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald. Maybe you can appoint Mayor Daley's brother as the new one.

Obama: Sure.

Jones: And brother Bill Daley to the Cabinet if he decides not to be governor.

Obama: Sure.

Jones: Personally, I would not mind being ambassador to Jamaica ... or Aruba ... or Puerto Rico. Obama: Puerto Rico is part of the United States.

Jones. Oh! Well you decide. I just want a nice tropical island.

Obama: Sure. And thanks for the help with the reform thing. People in other parts of the country seem to take that stuff pretty seriously.

Jones: Sure, son. Any time. And don't forget ... that tropical island.

Obama; You got it. Bye Godfather.

Jones: Bye boy.

LMAO: In praise of the (con) artist.

I have recently written about lunacy in the political world (lots to write about) and lunacy in the education world (ditto), so why not turn to the wacky world of fine art. I have to confess that when it comes to knowledge of fine art, I belong to the I-know-what-I-like-when-I-see-it school of artistic appreciation. So, the art snobs can dismiss me immediately as an unsophisticated oaf. That is ok because I think a lot of them are pseudo-sophisticated, low self esteem elitists.

Case in point.

Just recently, Sotheby’s Auction House sold the works of guy named Damien Hirst. I never heard of this guy, which should come as no surprise. But, I love him. Oh! Not for his art. That’s the lunacy. But for his extraordinary achievement in making fools of snobby art connoisseurs – AND making a lot of money in the process.

You see, I think a lot of modern art is simply … hmmm … trash. It’s just a bunch of no-talent pseudo-art. Not even good enough to be “pseudo.” Hirst makes no pretense at being an artist. None whatsoever. That is the beauty of it. He is actually anti art --- you might say a (con) artist.

A lot of modern art exists because of a perfect marriage between (con) artists and the new age art collectors. The artists want money – lots of it – for very little work and creativity. The money bag collectors want to show off their wealth and get their names on public galleries full of this crap.

Here is my theory. What better way to show off one’s obnoxious wealth than to be able to spend enormous amounts on things of no value, artistic or otherwise. I saw this in the antique business. (Yeah, I once owned an antique shop.) There were three types of customers. Those who looked at the price tag, and slapped down the money. Those who negotiated a better price, and then would brag to friends what a “bargain’ they got. And, believe it or not, those who actually preferred to overpay for things so they could brag how much they spent on the item. Texas seems to have a lot of the latter.

I am not talking about the difference between a Lamborghini and a Saturn. Some things are just better made and have greater real value. I’m talking about the person who announces, and usually very loudly, “This here cigar I am smoking cost me $950 smackaroos.” Or, “Take a sip of this (yucky) wine. Cost me $12,000 a bottle. I bought a case.”

These are the folks who spend hundreds of dollars for a $5 tie or $8 t-shirt because it has the name Versace on it. I mean, it’s not even personally autographed. The name is stitched on by a fifty cents an hour worker in Asia – where, incidentally, you can buy all the “Versace” ties you want at the street markets for about a buck a pop. Some even have the name spelled correctly.

The value of such “status symbols” is just that. Showing off that the purchaser can afford to pay extraordinary amounts of money for things of modest real market value. It’s the same thing as dropping $500 tips for a $100 meal. It's just a means of showing off. The greater the differential between the true market value and the amount paid, the greater the ego fulfillment – the bragging power. It is their way to flex their money muscles on the Venice Beach of life.

Oh yeah! Art. In the Hirst case, they are paying ENORMOUS amounts for almost nothing of value. THAT is power. Hirst merely provides them with the opportunity to show off their wealth. In return, they provide Hirst with tons of money for dubious art.

Let me be more specific.

Recently this guy Hirst put a lot of his “works” up for auction. Someone paid $18.6 million for a dead bull in formaldehyde with a gilted thing-of-a-jig on its head (above right). What taxidermist would not stuff that late bovine for a lot less? It looks like something that should be on display at the Indiana State Fair instead of a metropolitan museum.

But Hirst is not a one trick scammer. No. No. No. He also sells pressed butterflies for millions of dollars. I used to collect butterflies myself – and framed them. It appears I may have pitched away about $6 million worth of the winged beauties – at least at Hirst rates.

But, as they say on those ubiquitous television ads – that’s not all folk. Hirst also makes millions on his “spin” art.

(Excuse me while I pause. I am convulsing in laughter. I mean, “spin” art???)

Yeah! I am talking about the kind of “art” your kids did in the second grade, at the carnival, or on their very own Fischer-Price “Spin-O-Matic.” You put the paper on a rotor, drizzle paint and, voile! You have created “art.”

Sometimes I feel like the kid looking at the naked king. Don’t these money flashing art collectors realize how incredibly stupid they look? While they can certainly show the power of their money, they are also revealing their insecurities and lack of common sense. And no matter how much the pay for this stuff, it isn’t fine art. It hardly rises to the level of “craft.” There is nothing wrong with rich people buying nice things – better cars, larger houses, fancier boats, bigger diamonds – but stuff like this … ???

Well, it is said that a fool and his (and her, to be politically correct) money is soon parted. Personally, I admire the fooler more than the foolee in this case. You go, Damien.

Footnote to Damien Hirst: Have you ever considered Paint-by-Numbers or Etch-A-Sketch?

FOLLOW UP: Blago’s CTA senior subsidy a loser

Well the chickens have come to roost on the buses and el trains of Chicago.

I am referring to Governor Rod Blagojevich’s blatantly political, self-serving legislation that gave all seniors, regardless of income, free rides (<= read that, taxpayer subsidized) on the cash starved public transportation system. He seems to think “old” means poor. Or maybe just more liberal politics designed to make everyone beholding to government for damn near everything.

As predicted, the ridership among seniors has increased – along with the budget deficit. The Governor’s plan was never about the poor. I can see some means-tested subsidy for seniors who must travel by public transportation. Give me a reason they need to travel, and show me they cannot afford it, and I say, “”give them a freebie.” Why any sane community would give gazillionaire Sam Zell (who spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on his annual birthday party) a taxpayer subsidized ride is totally beyond me. It is nothing less than welfare for the greedy, not the needy.

Now with the increase in ridership, the CTA is experimenting with the idea of getting more people on each el car by removing seats and provide more standing room. This is where I start to appreciate irony. You know where I’m going … right?


Yep, we add all those shaky old people, with their canes and walkers, and we accommodate them by taking away their seats. This is a joke … a game. You put 50 tottering seniors on an el car and see how many are still standing at the end of the line. You get points for knocking them over like bowling pins. Or, maybe it is more like bumper pool, were the oldsters bounce off the more foot secure passengers until the post-prime riders all topple to the floor.

When we get these kinds of half-ass solutions, just remember that the money to solve these problems has been siphoned off by the insider crooks – which some of us call the “corruption tax.” The problem with the corruption tax is that it gets raised secretly. No budget. No vote. And until U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald indicts someone, we don’t even know where the money went.

Next time you are motivated to give up your seat to an oldster, just remember, they are not paying for the ride much less the seat.
(This gives me an idea. How about we charge extra for seats? People with seating privilege get special “seating tickets.” In fact, we can even provide “season tickets” with designated seating like the pews in the colonial churches. Hmmmm. The only problem … the crazy Governor and is friends in the legislature will probably give away all the valuable seats to the old fogies – except for the ones provided to those who have at least precinct level political clout.

That’s already how the handicap license plates and windshield signs work. I am betting a lot of you … like me … know people who have handicap car signs and are quite able bodied. If you don't know anyone like that, just hang round a handicap parking spot and you will meet quite of few of them.)

REACT: Obama a reformer? Puhleeeez

In a recent Chicago Sun-Times column, Carol Marin advised Barack Obama to start naming his Cabinet as a means to get past the lipstick level journalism of the day. She suggested naming U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald as Attorney General. A splendid choice, but the usually insightful columnist seems to have forgotten where she resides. So, I thought I should send her this letter.

Dear Carol,

I am a great fan of you and your professional work. However, your recent Obama column shocked me for your lack of realization of the world in which you live. Apparently you got suckered into believing that Obama IS a reformer. Oh sure, he is selling that image nationally where people do not know Chicago and Illinois politics. But, you should know better.

Obama is the product of arguably the most corrupt political operation in America. For Mayor Daley to sanctimoniously deny the existence of “the Machine” is as absurd as his father once denying the presence of “the Mob” in Chicago.

(I have to interject here. LMAO The photo on the right of Obama and Chicago Mayor Richard Daley is the first photo that pops up on google images when you search for "Chicago political corruption." And you think life ain't full of funnyironies? Actually, under that search there are quite a few photos of Obama and nefarious characters. Okay, back to the letter.)

Obama was first elected to office by knocking all the competition off the ballot in the good old Chicago tradition. He was the benefactor of the patronage of some of the sleaziest influence peddlers and inside wheeler-dealers – one of whom, Tony Rezko (left), is now a convicted criminal.

Obama endorsed all the machine candidates, and in doing so he endorsed flagrant cronyism, nepotism and illegal patronage. His political god-father is Illinois Senate President Emil Jones, who supported legislative pay raises while opposing every bit of reform legislation. His chief political consultant, David Axelrod has been the flack for the machine for years. And on and on.

And what about Obama, himself? He has never … not once … produced or supported any reform legislation. He has never voiced criticism of the corrupt practices of the Machine. Most recently, he was asked to encourage Jones to pass ethics legislation. He demurred. Never once has he pointed a reform finger at the corruption within his own political base. He never challenged the establishment. He never voiced his support for whistle blowers and investigators. He never promoted “change” in Illinois – believable or otherwise.

On the other hand, as a state senator, he played Chicago-style politics by doling out taxpayer money to friends and supporters without much oversight and accountability. Several of his community improvement projects failed and the money “vanished.” He left his district not much better than he found it.

On the matter of Fitzgerald (right), Carol, you completely missed the mark. As President, Obama will do what the Machine demands – fire Fitzgerald. The most serious problem the machine has is a truly honest, independent REFORM U.S. Attorney. Whatever promises or lip service you may hear to the contrary, Obama will serve the Machine, not the public interest, in this matter. He owes the Machine bosses that much. He will deliver in the good old Chicago way.

REACT: Pay-for-Grades … more nonsense from education industry

As a long time education consultant, I take a special interest in the subject of urban education. I never cease to be amazed at the idiotic stuff the education industry comes up with to pretend to reform our city school systems which they do not really wish to reform. That is why decades of so-called “reforms” have failed at the bottom line – student performance.

These are the folks who have jerry-rigged test scores to make results look better. They promoted black vernacular under some notion that black students cannot learn English. They produce Spanish-only education, insuring that Hispanics will not matriculate successfully into the American culture (<= read that, good jobs). They invented “social promotions” to shove ill-prepared kids out of their classrooms and schools. They keep students held prisoners in substandard schools rather than embrace school choice. They have opposed every effort to rid the schools of unqualified and underperforming teachers. Because diplomas are now meaningless as indicators of a student’s knowledge, the education lobby offers special senior year testing to see who has skill levels and who does not. They have shortened the school day and school year to provide more time off for teachers and less education time for students. (You wonder why the Asian education system is killing us).

Now cometh the newest doomed-to-failure idiocy from the folks in Chicago.

In 20 schools students will receive cash on the barrel head for grades. Not only does this create the wrong incentives. It violates every notion of the purpose of education as a life-long process. More importantly, however, it will further corrupt an already corrupt system. With that added incentive of money (the source of all corruption), students, parents and teachers will game the system. We will see superficial success in the improvement in grades, but it will not indicate an improvement in learning. The system will dumb down the grades even further to get the money. Simple as that.

This is a form of bribery – paying money for something that should be accomplished without monetary compensation. Oh! Wait! This is Chicago, where bribery, of one sort or another, is the only way to get things done.

We are not talking allowance and lunch money. A straight-A student in one of the select school can “earn” up to $4000. But even Cs can get you money. Being average, even mediocre, is no barrier to financial rewards. The kids get half the money with the grade, and the other half is reserved for them until they graduate.

Now, my cynical mind wants to know … where is the reserved money kept? Is it just a down the line expense that will have to be funded later. That’s one of the major problems already. Or … will the money be preserved in some sort of escrow account that can be manipulated for maximum political benefit like the underfunded retirement accounts? Either way it is a loser for the taxpayers.

Presumably, if this “experiment” is successful, all Chicago students well reap the rewards. Students who naturally get A’s simply now get a windfall of money from the cash starved school system and the overburdened taxpayers. This idea generated out of the academia sector of the education industry – specifically the Education Laboratory of Harvard University. In other words, we have a theoretical solution from those who spend their life with theoretical problems. I would be more impressed if Harvard would launch a program to pay there students for good grades. Don’t hold your breathe for that one.

Well, for a while this will produce some faux results, and eventually slip in the recycle bin of history only to be replaced by yet another non-start idea from and industry more interested in the appearance of reform than the reality. Urban education will not improve until we get it out of the hands of the entrenched liberal establishment that sees the primary purpose of education as the perpetuation of their political power.

LMAO Say What?

I had to break out in that special laughter of disbelief when I read the recent offering by Chicago Tribune columnist Dawn Turner Trice. Okay. I will first tell you what she wrote, and see if you catch the line that produce the guffaws in me – and a number of others with whom I shared the column without any hint of my reaction. Here goes.

“(Sarah) Palin is only attractive to women (and men) who appreciate her conservative views; her life-time membership in the NRA; and her anti-abortion stance. But she’s not fooling women who don’t. Women aren’t just blindly going to vote for a sister. Just like blacks won’t blindly vote for a brother.”

Say what?

I don’t even think I had to add my own emphasis to the last two (almost) sentences for anyone to get it.

According to polls, Barack Obama is getting close to 95 percent of the black vote. This is not issue driven. This is racism in action. They ARE voting “blindly” for a brother. The black vote is an extreme example of what Trice claims is not even happening.

As a secondary note, you will see that Trice’s main point is her belief that those supporting Palin are only those who agree with her. Duh! Now there’s a startling piece of insight.

REACT: Obama takes the lowest of the low roads to mock McCain physical disabilities

As a political junkie, I am rather sick of the “gotcha” brand of politics – which I blame mostly on the press. If the reporters and editors did not dwell on statements that can be made to look like gaffes, the politicians would stop reacting the way they do. I don’t think Barack Obama was insulting Sarah Palin personally when he used the well worn metaphor of “lipstick on a pig.” I don’t think Palin was war mongering when she said Georgia’s inclusion in NATO could place America in potential military confrontation with Russia. She is not wrong. That is what the alliance is about.

When McCain jested about his Iran policy by singing “bomb … bomb … bomb … bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune of the old rock song, “Barbara Ann,” the Democrats tried to have it taken as a serious policy statement. It was a joke. Hellooooo. JOKE. The McCain bashers decided it was tasteless. Actually, I thought it was just funny. I did not take it as a serious policy statement.

I don’t think John McCain’s snide comment about how many houses he has any bearing on his capability to be president. His wife’s wealth is immaterial. Presidential candidates are millionaires, Obama included. Kerry married the Heinz ketchup heiress – who got the money when her Republican husband, John Heinz, was killed in a plane crash. Who is richer than the Kennedys, whose family fortune came originally from rum running during Prohibition? Al Gore was the privileged son of one of the wealthiest families in Tennessee. Even with those who claim to have risen from poverty, the rise was very early in their lives. There are no giant leaps from pauper to president in American history – at least not in modern times.

We recently had one of the worst examples of such meaningless accusations I have even seen – or could have imagined. This one deserves attention because it brings gotcha politics to a new low. The Obama camp put out an ad seizing on the fact that McCain said he cannot use emails – interpreted by Obama as evidence that McCain’s technical deficiency disqualifies him from the presidency.


In making this specious argument, Obama heartlessly ignores the fact -- well enough known that there is no way team Obama can plead ignorance -- that war prison torture has left McCain (right, after release from POW camp --note bandaged hands) incapable of typing. He also cannot raise his arms high enough to comb his hair or bend over far enough to tie his shoes. He is a physically handicapped person, whose limitations are cruelly mocked relentlessly by the left wing. Furthermore, there is no need for a President of the United States to have to write his own emails. It is almost crazy to think he should. And this mockery comes from those who idolize the wheelchair-bound Franklin Roosevelt. Such cruel hypocrisy.

In view of the well-established media bias and lust for the latest gotcha, it will be interesting to see how the press handles this outrageous breech of decency. I suspect they will largely ignore this one in favor of some contrived interpretation of an off handed remark or joke by McCain or Palin.

OBSERVATION: Obama shifts from pre-emptive winner to panicked underdog

Here we are in the post convention season, and the tide has taken a dramatic turn. While most media observers lavished praise on the tightly controlled and well executed Democrat convention, and reported the Republican convention as a bit of a disaster – rescheduling around a hurricane (the ghost of Katrina haunting the GOP), lackluster speeches, the Palin blunder, etc.

The only problem in this media-driven imagery was public reaction. Seems like more folks actually watched the Republicans. Left-wing pundits spent a week noting with awe that 38 million people tuned into Obama’s fascist-background acceptance speech, but grew silent when the numbers came in on Sarah Palin. She topped 40 million views, -- WITHOUT the black stations that carried only Barack Obama.

Despite the panicked predictions from Democrat liberal feminists that “women will not be fooled by Palin,” her post convention numbers soared. It appears that as many as 12 percent of women voters switched allegiance to Sarah – and 23 percent of the Hillary voters are going for McCain despite what was described as the most enthusiastic support from both the Clintons.

All of this pushed McCain into a narrow, but sustainable, lead.

Now here is where I get a little self-serving. I have recently read a number of columns and blogs that talk about the unexpected turn around. They say Obama has blown an all but certain victory.

For those of you who read this blog, you know that the recent events are totally consistent with my past writings. Obama never had the numbers to win. Right after the South Caroline primary, I proffered his defeat. More recently, I even suggested that this campaign was essentially over.

Well folks … hang on to your remotes. This campaign is about to get really ugly and very racial. I have said in the past that David Axelrod (right), Obama’s senior guru, is one of the toughest and most ruthless political consultants on the scene. He makes a Pit Bull look like a Poodle. (I mean, take alook at his photo and tell me he doesn't look like a guy who would drown puppies).

As long as nice-nice was working, Axelrod will behave. Now that the bloody sweat of fear and desperation is permeating the Obama camp, you can expect Axelrod to unleash the rabid dogs of political warfare. He suddenly is representing the underdog. (What’s with all this “dog” stuff? If Palin had made it a Piranha instead of a Pit Bull, would I be locked on fish analogies?)

For the next few weeks, you will be able to judge the desperation of the Democrats by the viciousness of their campaign tactics. The above-it-all, agent of change, Obama, is about to start fighting like the Chicago machine politician he is.

NEWS: Good news from Hollywood

Crazed child abuser and political nut case, Alec Balwin, has repeated is previously broken promise to leave America forever is the public puts the Republican in the Oval Office.

You may recall that he made a similar promise on the eve of George Bush's election. He reneged. Hopefully, this time will do the trick.

You will recall Alec as the guy how brutally berated his 11-year-old daughter in a voice mail message. He also is leading the fight to get horse-drawn carriages of the streets of New York and Chicago. You can see he is a man who can grasp the most compelling issues of the day.

I was so impressed with his campaign against carriages that I decided to memorialize him by naming the sacks suspended between the horse's hind legs to catch the horse droppings as "baldwin bags." That term is now recognized in the Urban Dictionary, and officially adopted by the horse carriage associations.

REACT: Jamie Lee Curtis acting intelligent

Speaking of "stupid." In her latest contribution to the liberal blog, The Huffington Post, Hollywood star Jamie Lee Curtis (right) asks the headline question: "Do you think I'm stupid?" Since she asked, yes I do -- but that's just one man's opinion. My opinion is jaded by the fact that Hollywood personalities have proven time and time again that despite talent in producing fantasy, they can be quite ... well ... shall we say ... stupid in the real world.

One of the things that seems to differentiate liberals and conservatives is their regard for the public. Folks like Curtis think THEY are the only smart ones. The majority of Americans, who disagree with their left wing notions, are considered stupid. That is why liberals have a self-proclaimed noblese oblige to regulate and care for those they see as the ignorant masses.

If you think this is not true, tune in to (hot) Air America a listen to their strident left wing talk show hosts and callers. Anyone who is not a liberal, Democrat or Barack Obama supporter is ignorant, stupid, dumb, idiotic, at best, and sleazy, mean-spirited and corrupt, at worst -- and mostly both. I am not interpreting their comments, this is what they say. These are the words they use to describe you and me. That is why they don't trust the public to exercise democracy.

Conservatives, on the other hand, trust the people to make the decisions about their lives with as little interference from government as possible. We think the public is innately intelligent and capable of sound judgment.

I don't think a person who disagrees with me is automatically stupid -- just wrong. But I respect their right to their opinion -- and even their sincerity, in most cases. Occasionally, I have to admit, I come across someone who I consider to be stupid -- sometimes even a fellow conservative.

OBSERVATION: Obama sucker punched by a lady

It is an ancient saying that "whomsoever the gods would destroy, they first make insane." I prefer to think the gods just make them stupid. Apparently, the imminent implosion of the Barack Obama campaign is preceeded by sudden stupidity.

To fully appreciate this, one has to appreciate the excellence and percision of the campaign to date. They have taken brilliant strategies and executed the flawlessly. They crossed the finish line in the preliminaries with the "dark horse' candidate (<-- For all you paranoid leftists, who see racism in every utterance, "dark horse" is a political term in use long before African American presidential candidates were even possible.)

John McCain is using Sarah Palin to set up the sucker punch, and Obama is falling for it. Suddenly the campaign is a contest between Obama and Palin. In taking on Palin directly, the Democrat nominee has now lowered himself to the vice presidential level, he his basically neutered Joe Biden, his own vice presidential pit bull, and has taken all the pressure off of McCain. For the time being, McCain and Biden are in the audience in the match of the oratorical Titans.

For the past two days, the top newsmakers in the presidential race have been Obama and Palin -- and it appears this will be the case for some days to come. I have said before, in our culture a male candidate cannot beat up on a female candidate. It rubs the electorate the wrong way. NOW ... make that a black male beating up on a white female, and the negative response is significanly more intense. I am not saying it's right, just recognizing the reality of it.

By what leave of their senses the Obamacans have allowed this stupidity to happen, I do not know. If they do not figure a way out of the obvious trap they have so willingly entered, the poll numbers will tip to McCain even more.

OUTLOOK: Congress no slam dunk for Dems

Now that the real election season is started, and what parties and candidates do and say has significance to the outcome, we can expect to see the GOP rev up the congressional election machine. With the presidential race on a track to victory, they can focus some attention on the congressional races -- House and Senate.

Rather than allow the Dems to realize their heady dreams for substantial gains in the House and a veto-proof majority in the Senate, the GOP is ready to challenge them in every district and state. Funding will improve as prospects improve.


The "change" theme, so persuasively advanced by the donkey party is about to bite their own ass -- in both usages of the word. If you don't think so, just remember that the public's opinion of the Congress is lower ... yep, lower ... than their opinion of the George Bush presidency.


Just as John McCain has burst the Democrat bubble of optimism at the White House level, the GOP has ever opportunity to burst it at the congressional level.

READT: Post-convention polling? I told you so!

John McCain goes over the magical 50 percent mark in a major national pool, and leads Barack Obama by anywhere from 4 to 10 points. The top story on AOL declared Obama now to be the "under dog."

For those who have been tracking my unwavering prediction -- a McCain win (even when few believed that possible) -- this is precisely the trajectory I outlined. The only chance Obama has is the success of a massive registration effort and a very, very lopsided turnout.

For sure, there is massive registration going on on the Democrat side at the moment, and the GOP is lagging. However, expect the Republicans to close the registration gap before November (with Sarah Palin being part of the stimulus), and the pachyderm party holds an edge historically in being able to get their folks to the polls.

The hard line progressives are NOW claiming that these polls do not mean much. There basic position is that these are national polls and you reall have to look at state-by-state polling to see what happens in the Electoral College. The irony that they would be hoping for an electoral victory even if not a popular vote victory should not be overlooked. However, most independent polls show McCain with a win at the electoral level too, if, as the say, "the election were held today."

Despite Lincoln's admonition, we are a nation divided, so you can expect the lead to go back and forth a bit, and vary from poll to poll. But barring any major screw up by McCain (always a possibility), this election is over except for the official tally on Election Day.

OBSERVATION: Maybe we should be scared

To innoculate against future GOP attacks, the Barack Obama campaign and its minions on the progressive left are forwarning against the use of scare tactics. I suppose, saying that the country will be harmed irreparably, social securty will evaporate, and you will lose you jobs and your homes if John McCain is elected is NOT a scare tactic? Puleeeeez! It is nothing more than a case of the pot calling the kettle black. (<--Some how that expression takes on a little different meaning this season. Maybe is is some of that "code" language the paranoid left hears in evey utterance.) Don't buy into scare tactics, they tell us, but maybe we should be scared. As I got to thinking about the forces that have been the booster rockets of the Obama campaign, there are four -- and they bother me a lot.

First is the corrupt Democrat machine of Chicago. There is nothing in Obama's past that would support his newly created image as a man above partisan politics --- a reformer. In fact, he is a strident partisan with deep loyalty to the political gang who launched his career in the Land of Lincoln. He has been supported and tutored by some of the most ruthless and brittle Democrat partisan in the nation, not the least of which are Mayor Richard Daley (left), Governor Rod Blagojevich, Senator Dick Durbin, Congressman Rahm Emanuel, Congresswomen Jan Schankowski and Illinois Senate President Emil Jones.

Second, he comes from the radical left school where racist black liberation theology, as espoused by his friend and pastor, Jeremiah Wright (lower left), is considered a legitimate religion, and his tactical political views are influenced by his admiring friendship with deadly terrorists such as William Ayers and his wife, Bernadette Dorhn (left).

Third, the mission to take over the White House by the radical left is being funded by an obsessed billionaire, George Soros (right). This is a man determined, and willing to use billions of dollars of his own money (and billions more of his friend's money) to impose a regime that otherwise would have little popular appeal. Never in the histroy of this nation, has one man had the resources, and the lust, to impose a personal President. Without George Soros, the radical progressive movement in America would exist only on the fringe, where they belong.

Lastly, as the first African American candidate (sort of), Obama benefits from black racism (some say reverse racism). He will carry the votes of more than 90 percent of the self identified black voters, even though his views on guns, abortion and school choice -- just to name a few -- are counter to the cultural values in the community. Issues and what is good for America are beyond any consideration -- trumped by skin color. The plea of Whitney Young, who said people should be judged "not on the color of their skin, but the content of their character," is being ignored. Whether successful or not, Obama will leave America more divided than he found it.

For each of these constitutencies, Obama is the perfect candidate -- a brutally partisan black elitist leftist. But he has an overarching quality that is rare among the extreme left. He is a charmer. Most of his ilk are snarling pit bulls without lipstick. They generally lack the boyish charm and charisma that Obama exudes.

We are always on guard against the wolf in sheep skin. Maybe we have been fooled a bit because we did not anticipate that the disguise would be the skin of a black sheep.

LMAO: Middle America will understand

My friend Bernie is pertty much middle America, and he has his own unique way of putting it. To give you an idea, I am reminded of something he said one time. I had invited him to go out for dinner, and he said,"Okay, but I want a real meal. No place that serves "dabbles" "dollops" and "drizzles." Bernie understands Sarah Palin, but more importantly, Palin undersands the Bernies of America.

OBSERVATION: McCain/Palin capture middle America

The elite liberal establishment disparagingly refers to it as “fly over America” – that portion of our nation that exits between Martha’s Vineyard on the east and Tinsel Town on the west. Former vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferrraro once snobbishly posed the rhetorical question, “What is this country without the east and west coasts?” For most of us, the answer is simple -- America.

The political value of this meat and potatoes region is reflected in John McCain’s naming Sarah Palin as his running mate. She exudes middle America values, and connects with the heartland constituency like no one since Ronald Reagan.

Granted, Bill Clinton has a bit of the common touch. However, he would never have been elected President had the GOP put up a populist candidate. George Bush and Bob Dole were the consumate elite D.C. insiders. Whenever an elitist is up against a populist in the quadrennial presidential election, it is the populist who usually wins.

Both sides know this, and that is why the Barack Obama people are trying to hard to avoid having the “elitist” tail pinned on his Democrat ass. (<-- Maybe I should have said "donkey.") Which means, all that effort to make Obama look more presidential, more intelligent, more sophisticated, more cosmopolitan may have been misspent. The efforts to compare him to the quintessential elitest, John Kennedy, is turning out to be a huge miscalculation.

The addition of Palin creates a crisis for Obama. No doubt about it. He and his advisors are back to drawing board, and maybe the dart board, to come up with a new game plan. The fact that they know the problem is reflected in Obama’s almost conciliatory response to the Palin pick. He knows attacking a woman is never good, and he has had the advantage of 18 primary elections to learn, as the song lyrics go, “how to handle a woman.”

Should McCain get a lock on middle America -- and it appears he is now making significant advances toward that objective – a portion of the credit will have to go to his upset-the-applecart selection of Palin. However, most credit goes to the Obama supporters.

Obama’s problem, and McCain’s windfall benefit has been the ham-handed and mean-spirited hysteria emanating from the hard core liberal establishment. While the viciousness of the left wing attack infuriated the fair-minded, the greater effrontery was the mocking of almost everything that represents the culture of middle America – religion, recreation, speech patterns and accents, entertainment, dress, sex, and home life.

In their zeal to capsize the newly launched candidacy, they published and promoted an array of personal, political and professional accusations – and many false accusations, as it turns out. They failed to appreciate that Palin instantaneously became personification of middle America, and an attack on her is an attack on them. This hysterical overreaction is driving voters to McCain.

There are still two more months for this campaign to pitch and yaw. As of today, however, fly over America is McCain land. The Palin selection maybe looked back upon as the beginning of the momentum that carries McCain/Palin to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

NEED TO KNOW: Obama's mud machine targets Palin

For all the sanctimonious rhetoric, you can count on Barack Obama's Chicago style campaign to do their own version mudslinging -- indirectly, of course. The sharks of the liberal media are on a feeding frenzy, and for a while they will churn the waters hoping to produce blood. More likely, they will silently swim away in search of other opportunities, having seen their prey either escape or prove to be to formidable a target.

If you want insight into the campaigns marching orders to the media, you only need to read the Dems 63-page comprehensive attack sheet on Sarah Palin. You can read it here thanks to a screw up in the campaign counterintelligence system. This "anonymous" document surfaced for a moment in time on the Internet -- on one of those Obama-friendly web sites. It has since been removed, but some good guy computer whizzes were able to access an undeleted back-up copy.

Given the amount of research that has gone into this document, and the extent to which they have gone to try to bring Palin down (including distortions, misinformation and outright lies), it is obvious she has rattled the foundation of their campaign strategy.

LMAO: Chicago cops know what they are talking about.

Chicago's requirement that their "men (and women) in blue" must live within the city limits has always generated controversy. Periodically, investigative reports ferret out an officer who lives in the burbs. Sometimes some 59-year-old officer claims his childhood bedroom in his mother's house as the domcile for him, his wife and their six kids -- who, for some reason, all go to school in a gated community about 20 miles from "home."

Some argue that they should be given higher pay for living in the city because of all those taxes the Mayor has imposed on "the City that works."

But, I thought one cop's reason for wanting to live in the burbs says it all. This front-line law enforcement officer does not want to live in the city because ... have you guessed? ... THERE IS TOO MUCH CRIME.

That says it all.

FOOTNOTE: No criticism for Mayor Daley

Little noted in the massive glowing coverage of the Democrat convention was a speech by Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. I found his remarks memorable for only one thing he said. Referring to the overall tone of the convention, he said, "We don't want any criticism." That is pretty much the way he runs Chicago.

There is no doubt that the latest Daley to rule Chicago wants Barack Obama elected. Seems natural since Obama comes from Illinois. But it is more than favorite son parochialism. It is more than the advantage in procuring those federal funds that comes with having your own President. The biggest benefit, however, is the firing of that pesky reform-minded, highly effective, crusading U.S. Attorney who keeps a rather impressive "to be indicted" list -- and many observers think Daley is on it, along with Governor Rod Blagojevich.

Most of the local folks, who watched Obama rise as a machine candidate, without the slightest inclination for reform, expect that once in the White House, he would drop any pretense of reform for politics the way he learned it -- the Chicago way.

UPDATE: Hillary's voters.

In a previous blog, I suggest that as much as 15 percent of Hillary Clinton's primary voters could cross over to John McCain. I thought I was being a bit optimistic, but calcualted even five percent as a serioius problem for Barack Obama. Well ... was I wrong. A recent poll indicated that as many as 25 percent of the New York senator's primary support will not vote for Obama. Wow! That is more than a disaster for Obama. That's the ballgame.

Now granted, they may not all be crossing over for McCain. The poll did not identify cross overs and the stay at homes. Regardless, that is an amazing defection.

It should be noted that the poll was taken after the Clintons' -- Mr. and Mrs. -- speeches at the Democratic convention, and before the naming of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate. Can it get much worse?

This all tracks with my unwavering belief that Obama is unelectable without a major ... and I mean major ... blunder on the McCain side.

REACT: Palin panics the progressives

As a political tactic, McCain’s selection of Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin is working out better than I could have imagined. The now apoplectic progressive democrats are positively in panic. They are piling on. Frankly, I am stunned with the meanness and viciousness of the first round of attacks. Barack Obama must feel like a general attempting to keep his troop under discipline command as they break ranks – running helter skelter across the political battlefield firing verbal assaults at every shadowy target.

They seem to have settled on a Dan Quayle comparison, referring to the young guy selected by George Bush the Elder to be his new-generation running mate, as their best option. Dan who? Right. The problem is, most of the general public have no real specific recollection of Dan Quayle. So, whether the compassion is justified or not, it is rather ineffective.

I am surprised that they did not find a better comparison in Spiro Agnew, the county exec from Maryland who was the surprise pick of Richard Nixon – making “Spiro who?” a political cliché. The allusion is more negative because Agnew was forced to resign in scandal ahead of Nixon. (I still have my Spiro Agnew watch.)

In irresponsible meanness, left wing bloggers, such as Kos, are floating claims that her Downs Syndrome child is really the offspring of her 16-year-old daughter, Bristol, and is only being raised as her child. First, there appears to be too much evidence that that is not the case – so much that Kos (and others) publishing the rumor can only be describe as scurrilous to the extreme.

But even if it were true, Palin might gain from the story. It is a human story to which most non-elitist families can relate. Consider this. A teenager gets pregnant. The child in the womb is determined to have Downs Syndrome. The family comes together to work out the best solution for all concerned. Most importantly, there is no abortion. Not for the benefit of the young mother. Not for the benefit of the family’s public reputation. Not because the child is less than perfect. Instead, the Palin family lives their pro-life values – as the story would go.

If this were the case, the anti abortion crowd will flock to the polls for this woman. Of course, the story appears to be ugly rumor advanced for misguided political purposes by those who accuse Republicans of cruel tactics. Just how low can they go?

In attacking her status in life, a hockey mom without experience on the world stage, the Democrats reveal their true elitism – one of the more serious chinks in the Obama armor. If they want to challenge the experiential credentials of the GOP vice presidential candidate, they will soon discover that she – point by point – supersedes the credentials of the Democrats PRESIDENIAL nominee. Her executive experience is infinite compared to Obama’s none. Her personal story is every bit as compelling.

As an agent of change, she has an impressive record of courageous and successfully confronting the entrenched corruption in her own state AND in her own party. Conversely, Obama never made any attempt to confront and reform the incredibly corrupt Chicago and Illinois political machines. Far from it. He rose with their support. He took money from the most sleazy of their benefactors. He endorsed the worst of them. He played their crass political game with taxpayer money. His poverty-stricken, crime-ridden Illinois senate district shows no signs of hope or improvement from his stewardship. In terms of reform, Obama cannot hold a candle to Palin.

The Democratic attack team proffers that the Palin pick is cynical. She was not chosen for her intellect, political philosophy, position on issues, experience or good judgment. It was simply broad over brains. If you believe the left wing rhetoric (and how could you?), the progressives and feminists are basically saying that this highly intelligent and successful woman is … well ... a bimbo. That’s the feminist equivalent of and “uncle tom.” Methinks this tactic is going to backfire.

They say the Palin pick was to shore up McCain’s weaknesses. We used to call that balancing the ticket – and it was considered a smart thing to do. However, if that is the measure to be applied, what does the Joe Biden pick tell us. Hmmmm. That Obama knows nothing about Washington … nothing about foreign policy … lacks experience. He needs to fill in much more substantial gaps than McCain.

In picking Biden, Obama may have boo booed. When you look at the two of them standing side-by-side, the very presidential looking Biden diminishes Obama’s political stature. Biden looks like the real thing. He looks presidential. Obama looks like an actor playing a black president in a television mini-series.

Looking at it another way, why did the candidate offering “change you can believe in” pick a good old boy for a running mate? Maybe it is because Obama is more interested in gaming the system than changing it. Maybe his rise in Chicago’s smarming politics is a better indicator of his passion for change than are the eloquent words he spews on the campaign trail.

More and more, the public is beginning to recognize the thinness of the Obama façade. Beyond a spellbinding speaker and a very lucky candidate, he seems to have nothing to offer. His substance is as ethereal as his words. I once referred to him as the “cotton candy” candidate. After you consume the billowy mass and savor the sweet taste, you realize that there never was much there.