The Democrats are all about the boogeyman this election cycle. The boogeyman of “swift boating”, which was nothing more than men that served with John Kerry disagreeing with the stated ‘history’ Kerry had put out as part of his resume from the Vietnam War. Others came out and agreed with Kerry. So what? It happens all the time. But because the charges against Kerry were so in conflict with Kerry’s biography, the liberal segment of the mainstream media dubbed it “swiftboating” in order to denigrate the story of those that were against Kerry. The fact remains that Kerry never addressed the accusations and none of the charges were ever proved false. This is just like what all you libs out there said about the forged documents of George W. Bush’s guard service.  Then there is the boogeyman of the mythical "third Bush term".  Talk about fear-mongering on the left.  Can it get any more ridiculous than trying to link McCain with Bush?  Yes, McCain is pro-Iraq War.  He fought during Vietnam and saw first hand the aftermath of failure to achieve victory after he was released from the Hanoi Hilton.  (By the way, since McCain served in Vietnam and is in favor of the Iraq War, doesn't that diminish the whole 'chickenhawk' label on Bush and Cheney?  Doesn't that validate the Bush-Cheney point of view?).  Yes, McCain supports extending the Bush tax cuts.  McCain is smart enough to know you cannot tax your way out of a recession.  Yes, McCain sponsored the Immigration Bill that would have given amnesty to 20 million illegal aliens and Bush supported it.  But that is where the similarities end.  McCain wants the Warner-Leibermann global warming bill passed; Bush refused to sign Kyoto.  McCain slammed Bush on the Katrina response.  The list goes on an don.  It is very simplistic to do the "McBush" label or the McCain-Bush/ Bush-McCain" label, exactly as simplistic it was to label the three Republican front-runners as "Rudy McRomney" as if they were all the same guy.  But simple is the thing Democrats do best.

Now about Obama. There has not been anything said about Obama that is patently false. It is a fact that Obama has been endorsed by the leader of Hamas. It is a fact that Obama’s minister of 20 years said “Goddamn America” and that America was deserving of 9/11, etc, etc. It is a fact that Obama is at most friends with or at least acquainted with a Robert Ayers, a 1960’s domestic terrorist. It is a fact that Obama said that he would engage in unilateral, leader to leader, direct negotiations with the worst terrorist leaders and state sponsors of terrorism in the world. It is a fact that Obama said that he would invade Pakistan to get at Taliban and al Qaida terrorists hiding in that sovereign ally of United States. It is a fact that Obama dismissed the ravings of his minister as part of the black church experience and would not disown him or disavow what was said but cringed when his own frail elderly flesh and blood grandmother who is white told him she was nervous when she saw a black man walk past her on the street. It is a fact that Obama’s wife has harbored some resentment against America that has kept her from fully experiencing pride in this nation until just recently. It is a fact that Obama has a perfect 100% liberal voting record despite his claim of being a uniter. It is a fact that he said that rural Pennsylvania voters cling to God and guns when times get tough behind the closed doors of a liberal elite dinner in the liberal Mecca of San Francisco. It is also a fact that Obama wants the United States out of Iraq in 16 to 18 months regardless of what the generals on the ground feel about the situation there. Those are facts. What is undefined is what all of these facts really say about Obama as a man, a candidate and potential president and what do they mean to Mr. and Mrs. America that will be voting in November. The final decision rests with them.

As for Obama as a candidate, he is the far, far weaker of the two Democrat candidates. Obama truly is a lightweight of the first order. He is a brilliant speech reader, but when he goes off script, he stutters and stammers and has serious issues with speaking extemporaneously, much in the same way Bush has been criticized. All of the passion that Obama exhibits when he reads the prepared text disappears when he has to speak off the cuff. I am also struck with how easy he is tripped up by someone who is prepared with facts. Obama is an inch wide and an inch deep on almost every subject of importance and will lose horribly when he has to extemporaneously respond to John McCain in the give and take of a debate. 

But all that does not matter because a) Obama is the new anointed and b) because he is black and to say anything that might even reference that fact brands you a racist. Geraldine Ferraro was drummed out of the Clinton Campaign because she dare speak the truth about Obama. What she said was that if Obama was a white man with his vacuous non-substantive rhetoric and sophistry, then he would have already dropped out of the race and Clinton would already be the nominee. She speaks ‘truth to power’ and got crucified by both Clinton and Obama campaigns. But when you are anointed, everything is about you. Take the Bush speech at the Knesset, for instance. Bush did not directly refer to Obama and the senator he referenced in his speech was a Republican senator. But the anointed feel that all senators are Obama whenever speaking about senators that appease terrorists. Obama dimes himself out as an appeaser by getting all upset about someone talking about senators that wish to appease terrorists. Also, I think that Obama purposely made this connection so as to re-inject Bush into the presidential race. Now McCain was the one that said that Obama wants to appease terrorists. But that is beside the point to someone who is anointed; the anointed get to frame all debates.

Sadly for Democrats, they are going to anoint Obama their savior from the evil that is Bush and lose the election in the process. Hillary Clinton is far and away the better of the two candidates. She has a better machine. She has the first black president in Bill Clinton to support her. And she had name recognition that far outstripped Obama. Unfortunately for her, though, Howard Dean and the DNC have created this Greek tragedy of a nomination process where Democratic primaries and cauci are decided on a proportional basis instead of the Republican winner take-all-way. If delegates were winner-take-all, Hillary would be the democrat nominee with wins in California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Texas; all the states Democrat nominees needed to win to get to the White House. Bush won Ohio in 2004 and won re-election. There are two other acts in the Greek tragedy. The second act is the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan Democrat voters as punishment for thwarting the DNC dictates. Republicans didn’t disenfranchise MI and FL voters, why should the Dems? The third act is the incredibly Orwellian construct of the Super Delegates that, in this tight race, can actually overturn the will of the people by selecting the candidate that did not get the most popular votes. Since neither candidate will get the popular votes needed to get to 2025, Hillary’s voters will have to be disenfranchised in order for the Super Delegates put Obama over the top.  It is just too bad for Democrats that Hillary chose this year to try to put her female identity politics up against the black identity politics. It is obvious to me that the DNC is much more concerned about keeping the black vote than the woman vote. If Clinton were allowed to win, because she is really the stronger candidate, the DNC knows that they will lose the black vote as a part of their base of a generation. This is the calculus that the Democrat elite use when they select their presidential candidate.