Bad B.O.

Obama is supposed to be hard to attack. Our vaunted Republican Attack Machine can't RAM into him without seeming, uh, insensitive. He's black, you know. Poor man. It's best to just ignore that condition, eh? And every other condition -- or do I mean position? Just hands off, is all. Hasn't the poor man suffered enough already? LEAVE BARACK ALONE!!!

Actually, no -- he hasn't suffered at all. His lineage owes nothing to the tradition of enslavement and racism that has polluted this nation. He is truly an African American, in the way that I am not a European American. He's African the way my son is Australian -- by birthright from an alien parent. Barack was raised by a white mother in foreign tropical lands. His minority status is purely one of melanin and statistics. Indeed, Obama is not African-American at all. He's Kenyan-American.

Yes, he can be attacked. We'll just attack his white half. You know, his unthinking Kennedistic liberalism. His paternalistic Ivy League theoretician Big Sister Marxist devotion to platitudes. Lefty stuff. Harmless, entirely harmless, because of its fine intentions. What kind of a racist monster attacks such a benign person? Well, me, for one. Except that I'd disagree with your hateful characterization of me as a "racist" "monster" who "attacks" a "benign" "person." Oh. Oops. I didn't mean to put "person" in quotes. That makes it seem like I meant to imply he wasn't a person. He's more than just a mere person -- he's a personage.

We'll attack him, when we start to, for his positions. For instance, he says he'd meet as president with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Kim Jung Il. Face to face, that is. Sounds like a good idea. Sounds like a good idea. Isn't it funny that the same people who are okay with this are upset that he appeared at the same event where an anti-gay-marriage pastor spoke. Problem is, in his private life, or as a mere public figure, Obama bestows no special favor on those with whom he appears. As president he would represent all of us, and the holy radiance with which his presence would imbue these dicpotatoes would be blinding. Presidents are special, you see.

His Almanac of American Politics rating on Foreign Policy is 85% liberal -- not 100% liberal because of such odd positions as that he would invade Pakistan in order to attack al-Qaeda. "I will not hesitate," he orated, "to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America." I must be missing the nuance, that distinguishes this statement from Bush's so-hated policies of the past five years. But I'm being disingenuous. The hesitation wouldn't be in the attack, it would be in determining what a "direct threat" might possibly be.

He imagines that Iran can be handled by "sustained and aggressive diplomacy" along with "tough" sanctions. The UN would be a major factor in such efforts. Hm. NoKo springs to mind, as to how this is a really uninformed and ill-considered and anti-realistic and pseudo-good idea. You know, where we get lied to a lot and the dicpotato gets everything he wants. If I'm gonna get screwed, I want a vagina somehow involved. He uses words like "tough," yet he criticizes Hillary's vote to classify the Iranian Quds Force as a terrorist organization: it could enable Bush to launch military action against Iran, y'see.

He is for a published schedule of US withdrawal from Iraq. On January 30, 2007, he introduced the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007 which called for capping the level of troops in Iraq at then-levels. In other words, he vigorously opposed the surge, which has worked to the point of reversing the problem. He called for "removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008" -- which is, like, uh, in a few weeks from now.

He has however called for a surge, or invasion, of two additional US brigades into Afghanistan. He claims there was "misreporting" of his comments to this effect, saying that "I never called for an invasion of Pakistan or Afghanistan." This seems to contradict his position, noted, that he would sent troops into Pakistan "even if the Pakistani government did not give approval..." You figure it out.

As for Israel, he supposes that "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people." Project your mind briefly over the geopolitical landscape of our troubled globe, and puzzle to yourself as to whether this is a statement entirely in full consonance with reality. As an aid to your cogitations, I'll just remind you of Burma and the Horn of Africa. What say we first care about peoples who do not resort to terrorism? 'Nuff said.

Obama says he "will not support any bill that does not provide [an] earned path to citizenship for the undocumented population." No nationalist, he. Come one, come all. How very generous of him. As we must expect. He's for the "Dream Act" -- which I seem to think pays for college for illegals. The American Dream becomes the Illegal-American Dream. The We Are the World Dream. One earns a path to citizenship by applying for legal entry from outside the country. He's talking about providing a stolen path to citizenship for the forged-documented population.

The Almanac of American Politics rates him as 0% conservative on Economic Policy. He's for the death tax -- work hard, invest, save, so that most of your estate can go to the government rather than to your children. He is "absolutely determined" to get Nationalized Health Care -- turning 17% of the economy into a government monopoly. Thus, consistently, he is against school vouchers.

Opposed to exploring ANWR. Totally buys into anthropogenic Global Warming. What "we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. ...we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe." He would cut "greenhouse gas emission" by 80% -- isn't that pre-Industrial Revolution levels? He'd be against burning buffalo chips.

As a state senator, the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council awarded him a 100% rating. They like him, they really like him. Same deal in the US Senate: 100% from the world's largest provider of abortion services, Planned Parenthood, and from the world's largest lobbyist group for abortion services, NARAL. He's all for partial-birth abortion. Against parental notification. He was one of the few state senators who voted against the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which requires medical care for aborted fetuses that survive the entirely legal and bioethical effort to medically terminate their metabolic activity. He supports embryonic stem cell research, and was co-sponsor of the 2005 Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. When Bush vetoed it, Obama said, "Conservative, pro-life Republicans want this bill to pass." Um, no?

He would sign the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. Being disabled doesn't give you special privileges. The world shouldn't have to conform to your needs anymore than you must conform to its. How is being disabled a handicap, if it's not a handicap? Yes, my reasoning is weak. But compassion is not a governmental function. Public facilities should accommodate the general population. Private facilities should operate according to the values of their owners. It's called the free market.

"I do not agree...that homosexuality is immoral." Neither do I. I do think that immoral conduct is immoral. He supposes the gay rights movement is "somewhat" like the civil rights movement. Yeah, the way sodomy is somewhat like sex. He's for including "sexual orientation" in anti-discrimination laws. Does that include necrophilia? (I almost wrote negrophilia. For reals.) He supports health benefits for gay civil partners. I don't know. If it's a contract, then why not? But I think we should be able to sell our kidneys. He has an 89% rating from the HRC -- "very pro-gay".

A 100% rating by the NAACP. Um, duh? Pro-affirmative-action. Double-duh. Them coloreds love that affirmative action. It's a requirement, to be authentic.

He has supported a national ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns. He voted against legislation protecting firearm manufacturers from liability. Voted against an exception for people charged with violating local weapons bans by using a gun in their home for self-defense. He's a board member of the Joyce Foundation, which funds and maintains several gun control organizations in the United States. He rates a grade of F from the NRA -- a "true enemy of gun owners’ rights". Guns aren't my thing, but we have to take sides, don't we.

Well, it goes on. Take a look for yourself. He's not an idiot. I agree with some of his positions, if not his reasoning, and if I don't agree, I'm neutral. Energy policy for example isn't about Global Warming!!! -- it's a matter of national security, and I don't care how in love someone is with their SUV. They should be taxed into oblivion, except for people who ACTUALLY NEED them. They are the pyramids of our civilization -- useless monumental tombs to vanity that will bankrupt our civilization. They might as well be giant statues facing the sea. We shouldn't have to fight wars over our opium addictions.

Politics is about compromise. It's tyranny that's about always getting your way. An Omaba presidency is highly unlikely to be more of a disaster than a Carter presidency, and we survived that, and it gave us a Reagan, who really was much better than you think. Presidents function on three levels -- rhetoric, small groups, and personal. Rhetoric is about speeches and public impressions -- what Bush sucks at. 

Obama is a genius at this. Small groups are where things get done -- twisting arms and doing deals. Johnson was a master at it. Bush is apparently impressive in intimate settings. The personal level is where mastery of issues, study, diligence, competence come into play. clinton and Carter over-managed the little things, which made them ineffective. Carter famously supervised the tennis court schedule of the White House. Where would Obama fit? He is vague, so very vague. We don't know.

In any case, we will survive. America is vast. Excess stimulates contraction. As William James once dreamed, everything is circular. But wisdom avoids a world of pain. For all that he may be elected, this is not Obama's time. If it is indeed "our" time, "our" does not include him. He is the wrong man.


J