That is perhaps the DUMBEST but most telling thing said yet. See, I had some empathy for the MORONS on college campuses who cannot tell you who Grover Cleveland was but know the lyrics to all rap songs—then I recalled that they DO get their “news” from moonbats like these two. Thanks for proving my point.

Oh, the other insane part I read was that the environment is a top priority amongst collegians. Yes, yes, Al Qaeda really cares about the env’t. Yes, college radical fools, you are mostly morons—thus you support Obama.

Why must you people cheerypick on all the media soundbytes and ignore history? We still have troops in Germany, Korea, Japan, etc. Is that upsetting you at all?

Look, in America, freedom is NOT free. That is why we are better than Britain and other Eurabian countries being overrun by Islamo-fascists.

Obama is the only choice? Why? Has he ever done a thing in terms of leadership? Or does white guilt and naivete carry the way for you, Mr. North?

The McCain haters only have three “arguments” and they’re all flawed:

he’s old
he’s the same as Bush
he wants to win the war on terror

only the third is relevant, but they are so ignorant.

Meanwhile, there are a million arguments agst a BHO presidency, but WHEN he loses, the left, always full of rage and emotion, will cry racism.

Where is Obama? He hasn’t uttered a word about it. He is in it for himself and says it’s about “your hopes and dreams”. He must be laughing all the way to the bank!

The Illusion that is Obama

POLITICAL campaigning necessarily produces a wide gap between words and deeds. This is the price of bringing together a broad coalition with disparate interests. All effective politicians are at times authentically insincere or sincerely inauthentic. Exaggeration, embellishment, overstatement, doubletalk, deception and lies presented as metaphorical truths are the order of the day.

So, of course, Barack Obama is no different. He exaggerates the credit he deserves for a limited piece of ethics-reform legislation. He embellishes when he presents himself as having had a consistent record on the Iraq war when in fact he’s done a fair amount of zigzagging.

He engages in doubletalk when, on free trade and Iraq, he tells the yokels one thing and the policy people another. He overstates when he presents his minimal accomplishments in the Illinois Senate as proof of his stature. He engages in systematic deception when he says he doesn’t take money from lobbyists.

He presents a lie as metaphorical truth when he says it was the 1965 bloody Sunday attacks on peaceful civil rights protesters in Selma, Alabama, that inspired his parents to marry. (They had been married for years already.)

All of this is unappealing, but also unexceptional. What makes it different is that there’s not just a gap but a chasm between his actions and his professed principles, which would normally kill a candidacy. And because his deeds are so few, the disparity is all the more salient.

Obama, far more than the others, is the “judge me by what I say and not what I do” candidate. He wants to be the conscience of the country without necessarily having one himself.

The disparity between Obama’s rhetoric of transcendence and his conventional Chicago racial and patronage politics is a leitmotiv of his political career. In New York, politicians (Al Sharpton excepted) are usually forced to pay at least passing tribute to universal principles and the ideal of clean government.

But Chicago, until recently a city of Lithuanians, blacks and Poles governed by Irishmen on the patronage model of the Italian Christian Democrats, is the city of political and cultural tribalism.

Blacks adapted to the tribalism and the corrupt patronage politics that accompanied it. Historically, one of the ironies of Chicago politics is that the clean-government candidates have been the most racist, while those most open to black aspirations have been the most corrupt. When the young Jesse Jackson received his first audience with then mayor Richard Daley Sr – impervious to the universalism of the civil rights movement in its glory – offered him a job as a toll-taker. Jackson thought the offer demeaning but in time adapted.

In Chicago, racial reform has meant that the incumbent mayor, Richard M. Daley, has been cutting blacks in on the loot. Louis Farrakhan, Jackson, Jeremiah Wright and Obama are all, in part, the expression of that politics. It hasn’t always worked for Chicago, which, under the pressure of increasing taxes to pay for bloated government, is losing its middle class. But it has served the city’s political class admirably.
(snip)

A lot of voters are already trying to make the parallel to Bush simply b/c of party affiliation — yet I find there is little similarity between the two. Bush was somewhat “annointed” the throne through his family affiliation – relatively little effort needed to be made to push through the political ladder. McCain has done yeoman’s work in the senate over the past 25 years, following his heroic tour of duty in Vietnam. He’s put himself front-on-center on international issues (i.e. war, immigration, etc.) as well as everyday domestic issues such as consumers’ rights. Having this experience gives him an understanding that Bush never had (nor Obama/Clinton).

And for those who say that experience is overrated – I give the example of a precocious young baseball player standing in the batters box against an MLB pitcher who throws 95 mph with a wicked curveball. He might have the talent to hit a home run (Obama) – but his inexperience will “leave him guessing” more often than not, and he’ll strike out much more than make contact. Meanwhile, the old pro (McCain) – the guy who has some ability but is workmanlike in approach – knows all the tricks of the trade and finds ways to get base hits and score runs, bit by bit. Over the long run, I trust the old pro….