I still fail to see any redeeming qualities in Boy Obama. Of course, I failed to see why Howard Dean was such a success for a while. That goes for Pat Buchanan as well. I could understand McCain’s life story as a something attractive, but I could also see his flash of anger and is sometimes wild positions. But Obama is right there in the “I don’t get it” group. The media is trying to create this movement around this blank slate, like they did with Dean and thought they did with Clinton. Truth is Clinton is a very smart man, and confident (too confident actually). He could pretend enough to be what people wanted to get by. But the truth is Clinton was the last of any party who could be created by the media. Their attempts to hoist their standard bearer (Gore, Dean, Kerry) have all been abysmal failures. As is Boy Obama. His career ending comment about the ‘waste’ of our military heroes is just one of many examples we have seen (and will see more of) that experience is much more important than being telegenic and articulate.

And this is where the media always falls down on its face. Sorry folks, but the ability to read a teleprompter while looking good is not the key trait of a good leader. Yes, leaders need to know that basic skill, but they need to know so much more. So the ‘looking good’ part can take a back seat to having strong convictions, an understanding of the threats against this country, a balanced view of the private vs public sector roles and benefits, etc. I find most reporters feel it is not important to have depth of knowledge (ironic projection given their views of Bush). Their eyes glaze over when you have to delve into the critical details that drive results. Sorry, again, but if you don’t understand science you don’t understand a lot of what is around us. Wolf Blitzer looked really idiotic trying to comment on the new terraflop chips coming out. These people couldn’t find the graphics card to save their skins.

And I am not saying Bush can either. But some people respect the wisdom of specializing and how specialists and generalists (not vagueists) are needed to solve this country’s incredibly complex problems. Bush, being a CEO President, was masterful in building a team and leading it. But he went for the top talent, he was not afraid of being overshadowed (like a recent Democrat we all know well).

Which brings me back to Boy Obama. His comments about wasted lives in Iraq was horrific, insensitive and insulting. His attempt at weaseling out of them was even worse. Contemporaneous speaking exposes the thoughts of the person. Crafted responses are just PR facades. We learned from Clinton to pay attention to the nuances. The nuances around Obama are not pretty. He is desparate for the office and is pandering wildly. He is calling for our surrender when, in fact, we are not actually losing yet (Iraqis are, that is for sure). Demonstrating a will to win this is really all that is needed to win this. Show resolve and people will stop throwing their lives away in a hope one more death will break our spirit. Indicate the futility of bombing innocent Arabs and the Arabs will get sick of dying for nothing. They are a proud people. They will die for a good cause. They will not die uselessly. This ain’t rocket science. We need a President ready to take on our enemies and win. And Obama is so far from that person it makes you wonder.