The International House of Bacon

Yes, I know, you all want to kick me in the nuts at this point. Feel free (I did say I was essentially done, after all - I should really stop doing that), but I happened to find two pieces that I think at least show that I’m not just pulling this stuff out of thin air.

1) The first is a video. Yes, it’s from Hannity and Colmes, no I’m not a regular or even sometimes watcher/listener of Hannity, and no, I don’t 100% know the context of this piece, but I was encouraged by two separate people - one sympathetic to me and one not - to post it anyway. If it were any of you folk reading this who were on this panel, I’m sure you’d be up to the challenge, I’m not saying that you’re equivalent to the dozen or so on the tube. What I am saying is that this is a good example of the problem that Obama’s electorate is causing here:

The closest thing we get to an accomplishment is that he has strength as a “community leader,” which I suppose is somewhat specific. Maybe wonk doesn’t win elections, but is this really that forgivable? More to the point, is Obama willing to rectify this? My answer to both questions is likely no, which really doesn’t bode well.

2) My complaint about Obama’s campaign tactics are assailed as well, but The American Thinker blog really takes the next step in the discussion, and vocalizes what I’ve been trying and failing to say:

With Obama it appears at least in part to be a matter of strategy. His campaign persona is so vague, and slogans such as “the audacity of hope” and “the politics of unity” so generic that they could mean anything, which is exactly what they’ve been taken to mean.

Commentators, pundits, and voters look at Obama and see what they want see — a “healer”, an “agent of change”, the “new JFK” — a new persona each week. It follows directly that everyone also believes that Obama’s ideas on policy and the issues are the same as that of the beholder, that the issue dearest to the candidate’s heart happens to be the one that’s most important to the individual voter. No matter what the constituency or what their concern, no doubt exists that Obama will get straight to work on their particular issue as soon as his shoes hit the oval office carpet.

The second half of the piece goes into the race issue and identity politics, which have a place in the discussion but isn’t an issue I’m very compelled by (it’s tantamount to single-issue voting for me, which is a different problem not exclusive to any candidate), but the first half is what really got me, and why I’m so bothered by his campaign. Yes, I’m obsessed, but this guy could be President, and a lot of people could be in for a rude awakening.

3) Finally, some praise for Obama, as faint as it may be. The slow, infuriating march toward socialized health care continues, and Clinton is acting as the standard-bearer for the style of incrementalism that will need to occur in order to fool people into getting on board, but Obama gets the problem with Romney and Hillary-style care, and it has to do with a) choice, and b) essentially screwing the poor. Obama’s 100% correct when he notes that the Hillary version will ultimately make those who actually can’t afford health insurance have to deal with another compulsory expenditure, and, while he’s not actually addressing that problem, he is right in leaving that choice aspect open as well as trying to deal with more important issues with health care first. I don’t agree with his proposal at all, but the government consensus view at the moment is that health care for children is worth spending money on, and Obama’s proposal falls in line with that consensus. Kudos for him for, at the moment, standing up for the right thing.