Hill's got Barack's number

Is that all you got, Larry? Sheesh.

Well, maybe it's my inability to understand the Democrat thang at all, but I just watched Hillary's little victory celebration in Columbus with Jones, Strickland & Mr. Aging Astronaut on CNN and I'm currently watching Barack's latest dog & pony. Hillary's looked spontaneous and natural even with her raspy near-monotone, while Obama's comes off as totally choreographed. He kisses his wife on cue -- they looked 100% Fred & Wilma. They he went into the lofty "giving people a new reason to live" schlock. I don't get it. People who vote for him are the types who will be into the latest video game in November.

My reaction? It sure is different. Reminds me of a boring Presbyterian sermon. Obviously the Hillary stuff made me wince, but this Obama stuff is more purely vomit-inducing.

Anyway, no smart person is going to think this dude is a Muslim. (That doesn't mean that Bill Cunningham isn't a 'tard -- he is.) But honestly, no Muslim would let his wife open her mouth and let the angry crap come out that "reveals the secret" as Spengler notes.

Pauli

Obama's entire campaign is built on an endless litany of platitudes -- there is no beef. To paraphrase Limbaugh's parody of an Obama ad: "If you believe in hope, and you believe in change, if you think change brings hope, and hope will bring change...if you hope we can change, then we can change, and that change will bring hope...if this is what you believe, then vote for Barack Obama. For change...for hope...and for the hope of change!"

With this in mind, I don't see why we should expect substantive answers from him on ANY issues.

Here are a few thoughts on yesterday's outcome:

(1) The recent humbling of Hillary (12 straight losses) has made her, oddly, more attractive to voters. It wasn't till her back was against the wall that she "deigned" to go on SNL and do some of the other celebrity shows. I don't care for her political views, but who can't appreciate her scrappiness?

(2) The best line in her speech last night was the opening: "For all those who have stumbled in life but stood straight back up, etc., etc. ... this one is for you." Back in the 1950s, an obscure, wealthy Ivy-League lawyer named William Proxmire entered Wisconsin politics and lost a series of election fights (for Governor, Congress, Senate, etc.). He decided to make one last try (for the US Senate) in 1958. He launched his (ultimately successful) campaign with a theme that ran along these lines: "If you've ever lost at love, or known failure, or suffered illness, or had money troubles ... then I'm your candidate."

(3) Obama's speech: The staging was awful. No adoring crowds behind or flanking him, speaking alone in front of some old building. The lights from the back of the arena kept throwing shadows toward the front and it looked eerie. And he just droned on, the same platitudes we've heard before. This guy's act is starting to get stale. I went to bed before he finished -- that's how boring it was.

(4) Just another pol: It was odd that Obama focused last night on the delegate count. It reminded me of Romney following the NH primary, when he was technically leading (in delegates and aggregate votes) but "going south" in every other aspect. It's never attractive when candidates focus on "inside baseball" and the horse-race aspect of campaigns when voters prefer to hear other things. Obama is turning into "just another pol." The halo is gone.

Barack Obama has, at present count, three skeletons in his closet, any one of which would raise suspicions in the minds of moderate voters that Obama is not something other than the uniter-not-a-divider that he wishes to seem, and which, taken together, reveal him to be, most likely, a very conventional "Old Democrat" left-liberal instead -- indeed an embodiment of many of the things that give moderates pause about the Democratic Party, the left, and liberals, more generally.

Skeleton#1: Jeremiah Wright. Obama claims to be beyond racial partisanship, but he learned "the audacity of hope" from someone whom it's fair to describe as a kinder, gentler Louis Farrakhan.

Skeleton #2: William Ayers. Obama claims to be beyond the rancor and the radicalism of the 1960's, but he has kept company with an unrepentant member of a terrorist group which engaged in violent sedition against its own country in a time of war.

Skeleton #3: Antoin Rezko. Obama claims be be above the ethical muck of the political machine, but he bought his own backyard from a seedy backroom bagman whom one wouldn't be surprised to see on *The Untouchables* or in an old film noir.

Rod, I really, really hope you read Glenn Greenwald today. He touches on the kind of 'sleeze' you're discussing.

What I've always been unable to understand (really, I'm not kidding), is why the sleeze factor seems to be so important to those on the right. It's as though guilt-by-association and innuendo is automatically accepted as important to the discussion -- on a public level...anything can be important for a given individual.

George Lakoff's writings point to a differing concepts of essence (aka 'character') between the left and right.

FWIW, this whole discussion is making me consider the thought that Clinton WOULD be the better candidate (more likely to win) simply because the public believes it knows her well enough (pro or con) that she would be able to focus more on issues than addressing arguments that in the genre of 'where there's smoke there's fire'.

You do have me reconsidering, though.