Who can say no to Obama?

Let's see, 65,000 people heard the presumptive presidential nominee of the Democrat Party say the following:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.

And, this:

"I want everybody to be absolutely clear about this because George Bush and McCain have suggested that me being willing to sit down with our adversaries is a sign of weakness and sign of appeasement,"

Yet none of them ran for the exits like they were being chased by Bigfoot?

Granted, it was in Portland, Oregon not Charleston, West Virginia. And granted, it's not hard to understand why they might have applauded as the factually challenged Obama distorted Bush's recent Knesset speech on the dangers of appeasing terrorists and such. Yet apparently they remained as the messiah chastised them personally for having the audacity to eat and climate control their own homes.

Change is indeed coming, the only question is whether a older man of limited charisma and oratory skills can convince an impatient, war-weary electorate he's a better choice over a younger, more vibrant, more cutting edge and history-making figure full of populist idealism--especially after eight years of Bush administration missteps and press distortions thereof, and especially since that same press will be overtly pulling for the rookie. The bets are on.

ROCKEM SOCKEM ROBOTS 5/19/08

The Obama versus McCain dust up about Iran is really exposing Obama's inner policy zen:

"Thanks to George Bush's policy, Iran is the greatest threat to the United States and Israel and the Middle East for a generation. John McCain wants to double down on that failed policy."

There's so much wrong with this statement. It's worth it's own post but in the interest of not doing another prophet post right after the last one, how is that not the same as saying "this war is lost"? How is it not admitting that Iran IS a threat after all, and a generational one at that? For instance, who would care if we emboldened Turkey or Kuwait for a generation. And isn't it admitting that a hasty retreat from Iraq would make things far worse for America down the road a generation?

Supporters might suggest Obama was blaming Bush for creating the monster in Iran by invading its neighbor. But that would suggest he's clueless as to the history of terrorism since the 70s, and since he's not, it can only mean he once again derailed himself by hastily replying to a charge before thinking it through.