Mr. Smooth-Talk Express is at it again!

The media, especially blogs, are all abuzz today with the content of an interview Barack Obama had with George Stephanopoulos over the weekend. Chief among the observations was that Obama slipped up and inadvertently claimed to be Muslim. I can completely understand how someone like Obama faced with the kind of good journalism Stephanopoulos presented in that interview could slip up. I could happen to anyone. Some people I have spoken to have not been as forgiving, and think that this Freudian slip reveals some hidden truth about him.

What the clip now on YouTube shows in all its glory is how badly Obama handles himself in that setting. It seems "change" and "hope" are not Obama's ethereal words of choice after all. His favorites can actually seen to be "um" and "uh."

Robert Bellah, of whom I have usually been a fan, said of Barack Obama: "I believe that speaking well and thinking well usually go together, and vice versa, as the incumbent president so vividly illustrates." Low blow and not nearly a certainty even if the idea itself is expressed nicely (oh, the irony!).

So speaking of speaking well, let's parse a portion of that interview where Obama, after having time to recalibrate his response, answers the question of when a human person begins to have rights:

Original Answer: "Answering that question with specificity, um, you know is, uh, above my pay grade."

New And Improved Answer: "What I intended to say is, uh, that as a Christian, uh, I have, uh, I have a lot of humility about, uh, when does the soul enter into [the body].

AND Later, as a Summary: "All I meant to communicate was I don't presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions. What I do know is that abortion is a moral issue, that it's one that families struggle with all the time, and that, uh, in wrestling with those issues, I don't think that the government criminalizing choices that families make is the best answer for reducing abortions."

So, let's break that down:

1.) "Abortion is a moral issue." That is a true and very vague statement. Imagine Obama equivocating! Yes, it is a moral issue, but in his relativistic mind, he should easily forgive those who see it as taking a life. And if there is any uncertainty about what abortion is, shouldn't we preserve life as much as possible unless we know for certain that what we have ended in an abortion is not human life?

2.) Abortion is a moral issue "that families struggle with all the time." Here's another great blanket statement for you! Here's another: Lots of people struggle with lots of things all the time, and sometimes they make the wrong decision....sometimes this decision is not only wrong, it's illegal! So what does this statement add? Nothing.

3.) Therefore, "government criminalizing [the] choices that families make is [not] the best answer." If you have already read the last two statements thoroughly, you'll see this is something of "straw man" argument. Like saying: "McCain want's to make criminals of families that make everyday choices." The rule of law is itself evidence that government make decisions on values all the time, and abortion be treated the same, not differently, because it affects many lives.

McCain is the True Bipartisan Powerhouse

It seems that the phrase "reaching across the aisle" is very in vogue with both parties' candidates.  How can we take Obama seriously when he claims that he and his running mate will do that, that they are truly great leaders who will listen to everyone.  After all, didn't Biden extol the virtues of compromise (likely on the part of conservatives) when accepting his place on the ticket?

Obama's camp can't have it both ways: trying to stress McCain's lack of conservative support (and therefore proving him not convervative) AND painting him as a Bush clone (and therefore calling him an arch conservative) which is a completely ridiculous idea as anyone who pays any attention to politics knows.

Isn't it McCain who is pals with former Dem-turned-Independent Liebeman, who championed campaign finance reform alongside Russ Feingold, who broke step with Republicans on immigration (a Bush idea which I am sure Obama would never mention every time he says McCain voted with Bush "95% of the time!"), and who asked Sarah Palin to be his running mate?  And isn't it Sarah Palin who overtook the Alaska Republican party politics and who has gotten in trouble for stepping out of line by praising Democrats and inviting them and Independents to participate in goverment?  Who's Lincoln now, Obama?

The following is an article from today's New York Daily News regarding the Kennedy legacy and bipartisanship in this year's elections:

John McCain, not Obama, is following in the Kennedy family footsteps

BY BARTLE BULL

Party loyalty, nostalgia and the allure of a glamorous, slender figure promising a better world to a roaring crowd might mislead us into confusing the magic of Barack Obama with the reality of the two Kennedy brothers we have lost. Denver's theatrical staging enhanced this evocation, presenting a groundbreaking youthful candidacy passing the generational torch and completing the American Dream.

But if substance guides us rather than style, if character is more important than audacious ambition, then we should recognize that this time the mantle of genuine American leadership rests on a truly bipartisan figure: John McCain.

Like Jack Kennedy, McCain is grounded by heroic service as a naval officer. His patriotism requires no parsing. Like JFK, McCain understands that you cannot conduct foreign policy without understanding history. No person of that background could suggest a unilateral strike on Pakistan, as Obama did last year, apparently forgetting that this United States ally has nuclear weapons. Calling Obama's threat to Pakistan "misguided" at the time, Sen. Joe Biden also said the freshman Illinois lawmaker was unprepared to lead America. Calling McCain "my hero," Biden has stated that he would be delighted to share a ticket with the Arizona senator, whom he has suddenly begun to denounce.

Click here to read more...

It's Sarah Palin!

With America still in the shadow of Obama's acceptance speech with its Führer-esque quality, the McCain campaign stole the show the very next day by pulling off a true surprise VP pick in Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

This selection has sent eh Democrats' heads spinning, and every barb they've sent flying at Palin has come right back to sting them:

From Obama, the man who HAD to speedily travel the world and take on almost McCain-like, white-haired, long-time Washington insider Joe Biden to even make himself look reputable:  Palin has no foreign policy experience? Really?  It could be worse, she could be RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!

From a man who wants the votes of small town, middle-America:  that she started off as only a mayor of a town of 9,000?  Don't they matter?  Aren't they Americans too?  Besides, isn't that just a fact, not liability.

From Mr. Change himself:  "That's not the change we need, it's just more of the same."  What change do we need, then, Sen. Obama?  I guess you're just the guy to TELL us what we need.

Sarah Palin is:

• all executive experience
• true blue collar, middle American roots
• a real powerhouse of change

Which means: Be very afraid, Sen. Obama!

Join the Revolution!

Devil's In The Details

For law students, the law review comes as both a coveted achievement and an endless mayhem of editing, reading, cite-checking, and analyzing.  While regarded as a tremendous honor and responsibility, law review is, admittedly, a burden.  Senator Obama, former president of the Harvard Law Review, undoubtedly agrees.

 

On the one hand, you work and slave on your "note" in attempts to make it to law review.  Once accepted, you work and slave on various "comments" for the review.  These unpublished comments by second year law students generally go unnoticed as drafts and precursors to formal writings to be included in the publication.  When asked if Senator Obama ever wrote anything for the Harvard Law Review, the answer was, "As the president of the Law Review, Obama didn't write articles, he edited and reviewed them."  It seems odd that the esteemed Harvard would allow an inexperienced, unpublished student assume the responsibilities of president of the heralded Law Review.

 

In fact, the Politico thought so, too, and consequently unearthed a "case comment" written by Senator Obama called "Tort Law - Prenatal Injuries - Supreme Court of Illinois Refuses to Recognize Cause of Action Brought by Fetus Against its Mother for Unintentional Infliction of Prenatal Injuries."

 

At first glance, one might understand why it is that Obama chose to hide this unusual comment.  Obviously a fetus cannot sue its own mother, as he/she is yet unborn.  In the case of Stallman v. Youngquist, however, such a situation did occur.  Stallman, a pregnant mother, was involved in a collision with Youngquist while driving.  This collision resulted in numerous injuries of the unborn child, Lindsay, and Stallman's husband, on behalf of the unborn Lindsay, sued both his wife and Youngquist for the negligent damages brought upon his unborn daughter.

The opinion handed down from the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that an unborn child, even through the action of a parent, cannot sue his/her mother because allowing this would enable an unborn child to be a legal adversary from the moment of conception.  In other words, the Court did not want to acknowledge the personhood of an unborn person. 

Interesting case choice for comment, Senator Obama.

 

Actually, didn't the aforementioned quote say that, as president, Senator Obama didn't write articles, only edit and review them?  Right, well... This piece of literary scholarship was published a month before Obama became president and has been tucked away in Volume 103 of the Harvard Law Review since then.  Details, details.

 

Why would a law student want to hide their own achievements, especially within something as prestigious as the Harvard Law Review?  Obama and the radical left wants the obfuscate the issue of personhood in the matter of abortion and frame the issue in terms of equal rights for women.  That is the power behind their words: choice, change, and hope. 

 

Senator Obama concluded his case comment by saying, "Expanded access to prenatal education and health care facilities will far more likely serve the very real state interest in preventing increasing numbers of children from being born in lives of pain and despair."  That's right, in addition to denying unborn children personhood, Senator Obama also plays God by determining a death sentence on an estimated quality of life.  Could an unborn child born into a life of pain and despair rise above a painful and desperate situation and become, for example, a Senator or even President of the United States?  Not under his watch.

 

So much for choice.  So much for change.  So much for hope.

Compromise Over Courage

This is a television commercial Joe Biden put out during his 1988 bid for the presidency. Almost all these words could be spoken by Obama today. So much for change...what's different? What's not different is that Biden, then as now, believes that the White house is not the place to gain foreign policy experience as he in enabling his running mate to do today.

What is most striking is the line about "put[ting] courage over compromise" in a line of thought expressing how America ought to be prepared even for war when defending against "repression, brutality, violence, [and] the abuse of human dignity around the world." Courage over compromise, huh? Those are brave words. Imagine telling people the opposite, like telling them that "if they make compromises they can make things better." We don't have to imagine these words being spoken...Biden did it earlier today when he accepted Obama's invitation to join the Democratic ticket. That's the power of change--the power to prioritize compromise over courage.

This is the transcript of the commercial:

The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, and the economic future of the next generation. A president has got to know the territory. Joe Biden sees the presidency as a pulpit from which America sets an example for the world. He believes that developing nations once saw America as more than a place. They saw us as an idea, a goal to reach for. He knows they lost confidence in us, that he they see us losing our way, our resolve, our ideals. Joe Biden thinks it's time to remind the world of what America stands for: freedom, equality, justice, opportunity. He thinks it's time to put courage over compromise. Time to express America's outrage once again towards repression, brutality, violence, the abuse of human dignity around the world. If the sparks fly, so be it.

Obama Needs A Little of That McCain Magic

It must be a true comfort for Democrats that Obama chose as his running mate an outspoken, white-haired, older Senator with years of experience in government and a son in the military......Wait, did Obama choose John McCain?  Oops!  Sorry, he chose Joe Biden.

Now, I wonder which Joe Biden the Obama campaign will want to sell us: the one who doesn't "recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic" during their time together in the U.S. Senate, or the one who was just made his running mate today and contradicted himself by saying that Obama "made his mark literally from day one...there's something about Barack Obama."