Big stink, that doesn't stick; not Teflon but just as effective (affective works in a sense too).
Defenders in the media describe it as finish line scrambling of a campaign reaching for any means out of the relentless quicksand. Cries of "as the Byrd flew, so did McCain" glaringly miss the point though.
Following the recent "townhall" "debate" this typist oddly walked away from it with a sense of optimism; not based upon a performance, but of the words actually spoken by the "anointed one."
Barack Obama possesses a skill in communication no small part developed and honed in admiration of Reverend Wright (spiritual mentor and vocal coach). Not unlike the acoustic pianos touch sensitivity of 1 to infinity, the Senator hits the notes as they should be regardless of whether the human ear picks up on it or not. Like any musician, being off-key happens, but with the audience goodwill and appreciation of skill; the er, um, ahs of improvisation are accepted.
How you write the music down is another story entirely. Political rhetoric, too often what politics is about (all sides mind you) is not reality. It's quick, immediate, and doesn't offer answers or results (how), but dang what a ditty!
The Democrat Left has made a heyday of pointing out the easy and obvious over recent years in example; numbers of dead, the mayhem and destruction inherent in war allows for the effortless application of negative "conclusions" on the war. Like the reflexive emotion hate or anger, it is far simpler to attain than love or respect.
Following the debate, a realization that Obama plays with the sensitivity more appropriate to the many musical keyboards 1 to 7 levels versus 1 to infinity of a real piano. The 1 to 7 may still be indiscernible to the untrained ear, but we're not really talking about music now are we?
The media would appear to prefer the election held today, as with the daily poll reminders of "if held today," but the election has not yet taken place and VDH has an argument containing glimpses of optimism grounded in a "common" sense the media does not posses. The Ayers et al relationship that is taken as "mudslinging" by so many is simply put within the essay. One does not have to agree with it, however it is disingenuous to simply lay at the feet of "changing the subject." It's a subject and a concern to many and not at all frivolous.
From "Not Over Yet" at NRO by Victor Davis Hanson (read the whole thing):
"The Ayers controversy is cited by the in-the-tank media as signs of McCain’s desperation. Perhaps. But amid the tsk-tsking, there are also certain deer-in-the-headlights moments among Obama’s handlers.Follow in its entirety here too...
Why? There are simply too many ACORNs, Ayers, Khalidis, Pflegers, Wrights, et al. not to suggest a pattern unbecoming of a future President of the United States. Obama’s past statements about his relationship with Ayers (and others) simply cannot be reconciled with the factual circumstances of their long association. McCain must focus on Ayers between 2001–2005. Then in the climate of national worry following 9/11, Ayers was on recent record as lamenting that he had not set off enough bombs, and yet until 2005 still in contact with Obama — about what and why, voters might wish to know."
