However polls are just that, polls. The number 1 team in state dont always win the championship, ie Mart.
I guarantee McCain and Pallin will win Texas.
MC, remember this post that you had no answer for?
Would you care to exlpain this change?
The mantra for Obama is change. I admit heís a new face and a new color, but can anyone clue me in on how, politically, he is different from the other candidates? I mean this as a serious question, and Iíd appreciate serious answers. So far, Teddy Kennedy seems representative of those who flock to the Obama standard, in that theyíre mesmerized by what heís not ó heís not a Republican, heís not Clinton, and heís not white ó but no one seems to articulate what he is. And as a voter, since I think thereís a good chance Iíll be stuck with him as my President, Iíd like a strong handle on what he actually stands for.
His website, by the way, does not help. Iíve gone to his issues page and discovered a few things that indicate that heís almost identical to every other Democrat, except in the area of Iraq, where heís not just a fool, but a damned fool.
First off, to the extent he has a little quotation at the top of his web page, what the heck does it mean? ďIím asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington . . . Iím asking you to believe in yours.Ē My what? My believing in belief? My personal ability, as a Mom in Marin to change Washington? I keep thinking of Peter Pan and Tinker Bell, with that theory going along the lines of ďIf you believe in fairies, clap your hands.Ē This supports my belief that heís a master of meaningless platitudes, a demogogue who says nothing but who, like Chance the Gardener, enables people to attach their own meanings to his banal statements.
But back to his issues page. As far as I can see, when it comes to the economy, heís promising to expand the government, which strikes me as same old, same old Democratic stuff. Heís going to give a large rebate to those who pay the least in taxes (which means heís going to raise taxes against everyone else). Heís going to force government preschools, something that was tried in California and that, thank goodness, failed. There arenít a whole lot of details, but there are promises: Iíll make schools better; Iíll be a tough negotiator, Iíll sneak a national health care plan in under the guise of benefitting small businesses. And on and on. It sounds like a typical Democratic plan for more government involvement in peopleís lives and finances. No change here.
On Iraq, he opens by announcing that yeah, well, the Surge worked, but it didnít work well enough to suit Obamaís high standards (whatever the heck they are when it comes to Iraq). Obama does assure us that he knows what heís doing in Iraq, not because heís studied military strategy, or the political situation in Iraq, or Islamic fundamentalism, or the Middle East, but because he voted against the war. Even if I agreed with his ďnoĒ vote, which I donít, Iíd feel compelled to add that even a stopped watch is right twice a day. It doesnít mean Obama has any understanding of the complex situation in Iraq. Also, to the extent someone is whispering in his ear, Iím not thrilled about the radical pro-Palestinian whisperer heís chosen. Since Obama has professed that his only qualification to deal with Iraq is his ďNO, NO, NOĒ stance itís scarcely surprising that his entire Iraq strategy is to bring all Americans home ASAP. It didnít work in Vietnam, when it paved the way for the Killing Fields, and Iím quite sure that, if Obama succeeds in this plan, Vietnam and Cambodia will look positively benign compared to what happens in Iraq when he whistles the troops home. Oh, and by the way, once heís removed the iron hand, Obama assures us that heíll use his empty velvet glove to really, seriously, pretty-please ask the Iraqis to get along with each other. Iím sure that will work. I lost heart about here and couldnít make myself read the rest of his Iraq page. The man is a lightweight. Heíll certainly change things in Iraq, but only for the worse.
On homeland security, which marches hand in hand with Iraq, Obama makes a few obvious promises, none of which are harbingers of change: heíll guard chemical plants and water supplies, help families unite in emergencies, and track nuclear waste. Laudable goals all and, as far as I know, theyíre already part of national homeland policy. Obama makes no reference whatsoever to the reason why we might need homeland security, something that was not on the political agenda ten years ago. Apparently weíre protecting these things against chimerical beings, without form or identity. Change? For a Democrat with a head buried deeply in the sands of denial, I donít think so.
Healthcare? Heíll nationalize it, an idea thatís old (think Hillarycare), so Iím still looking for change.
On faith, Obama assures us he has it, but I have to admit to being a bit worried about the company he keeps, given that his minister is an outspoken antisemite and black supremacist. Kind of makes you wonder about Obamaís own deeply held beliefs. This really isnít a change issue, unless you think itís a change to have a closet antisemite, black supremacist in the White House.
And how about the judiciary? Well, Obama doesnít really say. That is, he has no tab for ďjudiciary,Ē so you kind of have to guess. Considering that he supports unlimited abortion rights, and considering that, whether you support abortion or not, you have to concede (if youíre honest) that itís not a right hidden in the Constitution, one has to assume that he will advance judges who believe in creative Constitutional interpretation. As you know, I am someone who forces myself to be honest here, because Iím ambivalent about abortion. Iíve grown up believing in it, and I think there is a narrow place for it (which doesnít mean itís an alternative for birth control), and would hate to see it vanish entirely. Iím enough of a Constitutional purist, though, that I believe we should arrive at abortion rights (whatever they end up being) either through appropriate statesí rights action or through a national Constitutional amendment. The Supreme Courtís cheating in 1973 cheapened the Courts and the Constitution.
Anyway, I didnít mean to go on for such a long time about Obama, but I truly donít see any ďchangeĒ in him, aside from the fact that his election, if it occurred, would change us over from a Republican to a Democratic administration, with all the accompanying ideological changes that would inevitably occur with such a shift. As far as I can see, the only differences he has from Hillary are that heís black and sheís white; heís male and sheís female; and heís an idiot when it comes to Iraq, while sheís a pragmatist. Oh, and heís quite possibly a closet black supremacist and antisemite, neither of which are labels I like to see near an American president.
So, if you can offer concrete reasons why Obama is a genuine agent for real change (as opposed to snarky comments or meaningless adulation), please use my comments section for that purpose. Otherwise, I still think Obamaís a stuffed shirt, with little to offer in any significant areas of government, except for a real chance to be profoundly, dangerously stupid when it comes to Americaís security. And if you canít offer any reasons, can you explain to me why everyone is jumping on the Obama bandwagon when heís precisely the same as the other candidates, only with even less experience than Hillary (who at least knows how to find her way around the West Wing). God knows, I never thought Iíd promote Hillaryís candidacy but, compared to the others, she looks less scary.