$40 Million for What?

It appears that MoveOn.org and Media Matters (both George Soros organizations) will spend $40 million to smear John McCain. Unless he has some awfully big skeletons buried in a closet somewhere, how can they possibly smear a war hero? He's a man of integrity and honesty. He always tries to do the right thing, although Republicans may disagree. I was against his campaign finance reform bill and the immigration bill, but I know that he doesn't waver when opinion is against him. He's never changed his stance based on which way the wind is blowing. And he's bucked his own party numerous time so he can't be tagged as a far right ideologue.

What will George Soros get for his money? I bet there will be lots of well-placed rumors and innuendos published in the NY Times and other MSM, but I'm sure they will be of no substance. When the Times published the innuendo about McCain's relationship with a lobbyist, McCain has a news conference and answered every question. I believe he is exactly who he says he is and has nothing to hide.

Revealing Obama

I hope you watched the ABC News debate the other night. I expected the same-ole same-ole from the MSM, but I was so wrong. I thought Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos did a fine, fine job. In fact my opinion is that it was the best debate of this election year. Instead of throwing softballs at Obama and Clinton and getting touchy-feely answers, Gibson and Stephanopoulos asked pointed and substantive questions with excellent follow up.

What did I learn? For one thing Hillary Clinton wiped the floor with Barack. He appeared flustered at times and struggled with some answers. Case in point - when he was asked about his relationship with Bill Ayers, an admitted and unrepentent Weather Underground terrorist, he was obviously uncomfortable as he stammered his answer, which was mostly a deflection as he compared Ayers with Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). As though it was about disagreeing with their opinions. I was amazed that he didn't have a better response given that his campaign knew that this and other personal questions would be asked. He was remarkedly unprepared to handle them. I noticed that Senator Obama deflected this question along with questions about Reverend Wright and his "bitter" comment by saying he's already answered those questions and we needed to focus on the future and change.

Now why do these questions matter? Yesterday I heard Mark Steyn give the best answer I've heard. It matters because Obama's record is so thin. We don't really know him because he's not actually done anything other than win two elections to the Illinois state Senate and one to the US Senate. Consider this from Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Opinion Journal Online:

It is his youth, his relative untriedness, the fact that he has not suffered, been seasoned, been beat about the head by life and left struggling back, as happens to most adults by a
certain time. This is what I hear from older people, who vote in great numbers. They are not hostile to his race, they are skeptical of his inexperience."

And this:

Sen. Obama seems honestly surprised by the furor his the-poor-cling-to-God-and-guns remarks elicited, and if one considers his background—intense marginalization followed by the establishment's embrace—this is understandable. He was only caught speaking the secret language of America's elite, and what he said was not meant as a putdown. It was an explanation aimed at ameliorating the elites' anger toward and impatience with normal people. It's a way of explaining them, of saying, "You have to remember they're not comfortable and educated like us, they're vulnerable and so we must try to understand them and feel sympathy for and solidarity with them." You could say this at any high-class dinner party in America and not cause a ruffle. But America is not a high-class dinner party.

I think she says it all. He needs time to show us who he is and what he stands for, other than hope and "a change we can believe in." He needs a legislative record rather than promises. He may sound good, but that's just it - he sounds good. I believe his record will show that he is exactly who we speculated he was.

Now regarding Hillary's performance. I said I thought she wiped the floor with him and was glad to see that the pundits had the same opinion. Still, is it too late for her? I thought her answer to each of Senator Obama's answers on those personal matters were well done. Obviously well-rehearsed. To me she came across as authoritive and strong. The only blip on her screen was her handling of the "sniper fire" lie she was caught in. Other than that I thought she did an excellent job.

Who knows what will happen in the end? I think Obama has shown that he has alot of vulnerabilites and not much substance. Whether Democrats will think twice about nominating him remains to be seen.