As some of you may recall, I spent the day after the presidential election listening to Peggy Lee and wondering “is that all there is?” As I said at the time:

“I truly do feel like I just don’t care all that much. We get what we ask for, and apparently the majority of the country asked for a change that had never been clearly defined.

That’s fine. I’ll go along for the ride. I am, if nothing else, good at seeing the forest (while occasionally slamming into the trees), and love nothing more than to see people get EXACTLY what they asked for.”

In response, long-time Venomite Will Wallace made a prediction that halfway through Obama’s first 100 days his supporters would emit a collective gasp as they realized their Wunderkid was, indeed, just another politician full of hot air. But let’s hear it from Will in his own words:

I’m predicting that if you step outside about 10:16 am Eastern Time on March 18, 2009 and listen very closely you’ll be able to hear a multitude of Obama voters saying, in unison, “What the F***!?!?”

This election reminds me of the ‘none of the above’ polls that are so common early in primary races.

Candidate 1 gets 27% of the vote
Candidate 2 gets 19% of the vote
and “None of the Above” gets 54% of the vote

And while it appears on the surface to be a rejection of both candidates- if you forced the 54% to identify who they would vote for- it’s probably a mix of 70-100 people none of which would garner more than 8-10% support.

Obama- with the help of a criminally negligent press- was able to run as ‘none of the above’; or more accurately he was able to run as all things to all people.

And so while he won the election- whatever policies he enacts are sure to offend a portion of the people who supported him. By the time March rolls around and his supporters realize that:

• the fairness doctrine is much more likely to silence left wing radio than right wing radio (right wing is financially viable enough to go satellite or even off-shore while left wing struggles in most markets)
• that tax cut they’re hoping to see will disappear faster than a 747 on a David Copperfield special
• national security will be tested until we respond- and if there are three words that go together to form a triangle of inadequacy they are: liberal- military- quagmire
• being black is no more a qualification than it is a disqualification.
• the reason congress’ approval ratings are so low is because they’ve been trying to do many of the things that Obama champions.

Remember March 19- 10:16 am- take a moment- walk outside and listen as an entire block of young idealistic voters gets their grades back from their first political pop-quiz.

It’s a relatively soft lesson- traditionally zealots are the first to be lined up against a wall and shot- they’re just too hard to keep in line.

So, how’d Will do?

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

For everyone disappointed by the news that there will not be a second stimulus check coming this month, it’s probably tempting to take heart in Obama’s promised tax cut ($500 for individuals, $1000 for couples).

Except that a tax cut won’t make much of an impact on the nation’s economy, much less an individual’s wallet.

Over the year, this translates to an addition $44 each month, per person, or about $22 in the average paycheck.

Twenty-two dollars per month. Do you feel economically recovered now?

I’ll say this for President-elect Obama: he has balls. Ten official balls, at last count, where he’ll personally be on display. Who knows how many unofficial ones there will be?

But here’s the thing about Obama’s balls: they’re big. And while his staff claims he’s got the first-ever Neighborhood Ball, the neighborhood around the White House pretty much threw their own ball when they stormed the president’s house after Andrew Jackson was elected. (His balls were apparently too small for their liking.)

Of course, taxpayers need not fret: we’re not footing the bill for Obama’s big balls. That’s the job of the Presidential Inaugural Committee, which has been busily raising funds to fete Obama’s balls. Sure, actors and other artsy types are happy to fork over $10,000 per head for one of Obama’s balls — and Oprah hasn’t named her going rate yet — but even those steep prices don’t cover the entire expense associated with his balls.

Taxpayers will pay in part for Obama’s balls by footing the bill for House and Senate members to plan the inauguration and balls, by paying for the preparation of alternate locations in the event of inclement weather, by paying for the archiving of documents relating — however tangentially — to the inauguration itself. Oh, and we’ll also pay for the massive security force (Secret Service, Capitol Police, U.S. Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard) needed to not only secure D.C. and the various environs of Obama’s balls, but to also screen each and every individual who personally attends Obama’s balls.

Perhaps this is what Michelle Obama meant when she said Obama would make us work? Even though she may have warned us, it’s rather infuriating to realize we, too, are now tasked with the responsibility of supporting Obama’s balls although few of us can afford our own. And, meanwhile, we’re all getting the shaft.

My latest column, Michelle Obama and the New Face of Feminism is up at Pajamas Media.

When Obama’s campaign made such a big deal over John McCain’s inexperience with email, Republicans swiftly responded that such things aren’t relevant when it comes to being presidential material. Of course, the libs refused to believe it, but it turns out the Right was right.

In addition to concerns about e-mail security, he faces the Presidential Records Act, which puts his correspondence in the official record and ultimately up for public review, and the threat of subpoenas. A decision has not been made on whether he could become the first e-mailing president, but aides said that seemed doubtful. (Source: NY Times)

I suspect that in the days to come we’re going to find out the Right was right about a lot more, too.

My latest column, Sarah Palin: The GOP’s Best Hope in 2012, is up at Pajamas Media.

Update: And, evidently, it has earned me yet another title: “It’s Katherine Berry! PJM’s! most! controversial! voice!” Yep, it’s true: some days it’s just downright fun to be me.

All across the country, businesses are trying to turn voters into customers tomorrow. Whether you’re in the mood for a little meat, or playing with your own, there’s some company somewhere with something for you… if you vote.

• Get a free chicken tender meal at Shane’s Rib Shack in Columbia, SC.
• Visit Wilco’s website and pledge to vote for a free Bob Dylan mp3.
• Log in to RockTheVote.com and get a free Sheryl Crow download.
• Southern California residents can stop by Zov’s with their “I Voted” sticker and get a free spice of apple pie.
• That same “I Voted” sticker will get you a free doughnut at Krispy Kreme tomorrow.
• You don’t even need a sticker to get a free cone at Ben & Jerry’s.
• Food not your thing? No worries. You can get a free sex toy at Babeland’s adult stores in NY, LA and Seattle.

Michael Novak’s column today at National Review Online focuses on Sarah Palin’s folksy diction, and the knee-jerk assumption of ignorance it leads some to make.

I wonder if most of the people who are today dissing Sarah Palin, at least among a few conservatives I greatly admire, are more accustomed to debating highly educated liberals. Could it be that they understand the diction of journalism and the academy better than they understand the speech of most of America? They understand the maturity, sophistication, and rationalization of their own world better than the simpler but truer instincts of most of America. [...]

I remember how shocked H. L. Mencken was when he arrived in tiny Dayton, Tennessee, for the Scopes trial, only to find copies of his own publication The American Mercury on sale in the local drug store, and to meet several people in town who subscribed. He actually thought the yokels and the yahoos read nothing. That was the tone Sarah Palin picked up in Katie Couric, who demanded that Sarah produce a reading list. Sarah was too insulted to care to reply.

It’s an interesting premise, that pundits (both conservative and liberal alike) hear phrases like “you betcha” and assume they’re shorthand for an intellectual shortcoming, rather than a reflection of someone confident enough in her own intellectual abilities that she doesn’t have to trot out big words to prove herself smart. To be honest, that’s something I’ve always liked about Palin: she speaks like many of the people I know. Hell, she speaks like me, although without the potty mouth.

If there’s one thing this election has made painfully clear it’s just how easily American voters are swayed by images. Of last night’s Obamathon informercial, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow said “He had me at the waving wheat.” Throughout McCain’s candidacy, the image of him as an old man — reinforced for pop culture by SNL’s description of his crippled arms, gnarled fingers making air quotes and, yes, even the unbleached teeth — have persisted despite the fact that McCain is a vigorous individual, seventy-something years old or not. And, of course, let’s not forget the brouhaha over Palin’s wardrobe, a damned-if-she-did (to the tune of $150,000… some of which is my money and I consider it well spent) and damned-if-she-didn’t (as in, you just know the style mags would take her to task over wearing a $30 coat from Tar-jay).

Oh, we like to think we’re long on substance but, fact is, most of us base our opinions on sound bites, headlines and what our friends will think. (Answer: if they’re really your friends they already knew your leanings and accepted you because of them.)

With respect to Sarah Palin, that tendency to superficially summarize and dismiss is made even more evident by her foes’ swift reversal in opinion after meeting her. As Fred Barnes wrote in The Weekly Standard: to know her is to respect her.

Lorne Michaels is the longtime executive producer of Saturday Night Live. Sarah Palin appeared on SNL in mid-October, after which Michaels noted, “Her politics aren’t my politics.” But that wasn’t all he said. “I think Palin will continue to be underestimated,” Michaels told EW.com. “I watched the way she connected with people, and you can see that she’s a very powerful, very disciplined, incredibly gracious woman. This was her first time out and she’s had a huge impact. People connect to her.”

Many of Palin’s supporters say, as Rammer said so eloquently in the comments here: “I speak what I believe. I avoid cynicism and irony. I am Sarah Palin, except that she works harder than me.”

Therein lies the backhand of the “out of touch” allegations that have flown throughout this election. For decades we have elected politicians with the assumption they should somehow be morally superior to us, more educated, better traveled and more deeply read. Then, as Clinton and Edwards’ and even Dubya’s own checkered past have proven, we grow outraged when we discover that, like us, they have feet of clay.

One constant theme among the Obamaniacs? That he’s just like them. Except, unless they went to an exclusive private high school and had an Ivy League education, he’s not. But Sarah Palin? You betcha. She’s just like so many of us.

Maybe that’s why the elitists, who’ve spent their lives trying to overcompensate for their own perceived shortcomings, tear her down. And maybe it’s why so many of us, who’ve come to accept our own limitations, finally see in her the chance to realize the American dream our mothers promised: study hard and one day you, too, may be President.

Writing about a “Reverse-Bradley effect“, Kathleen Parker explains in today’s WaPo that many Republicans, who’ve grown disgusted with McCain’s campaign, are secretly planning to vote for Obama instead.

I’ve received too many e-mails and had too many conversations that began, “Just between you and me,” and ended with, “I wouldn’t want anyone at work to know,” to believe that this is an insignificant trend.

Indeed, it’s a definite possibility. I know. I’ve found myself on more than one occasion wondering just what McCain’s offering, what kind of message he’s trying to send with his snap-decisions to suspend his campaign one day and pussyfooting around the financial crisis the next.

I’ve even toyed with the idea, suggested by Will Wallace here, to stay home on election day to punish the Republican party for having chosen McCain as their candidate. But I like to bitch, and unless I cast my vote I don’t see that I’ve got much right to do so. Still, the idea is a tempting one, given the pitiful campaign that John McCain has run after having miraculously been named his party’s nominee.

And by “miraculous”, I mean that: just over four years ago, after scoring the Democratic presidential nomination, John Kerry had one name at the top of his list of prospective running mates: Arizona Senator John McCain. McCain has consistently denied such overtures were made, much less considered.

Yet the rumor’s persistence points to one of the greatest weaknesses in McCain’s bid for the White House: he is too liberal to be a conservative, and too conservative to be a liberal. This, he contends, is part of what makes him a Maverick. Yet his downfall may stem from his inability to craft and convey a message that appeals to either side.

With 26 years of Washington experience, John McCain also has a record that does not sit well with his own party’s primary base. Between his positions on illegal immigration, Roe v. Wade and his opposition to the Bush Administration’s treatment of terrorist detainees, few top conservatives favored him as the nominee.

As a result, John McCain has had to run a campaign in which he’s wooing not only undecided and independent voters, but voters from within the Republican party, too. Yet he appears to be failing in both regards. McCain’s 8 point mid-October poll deficit (which now may be as high as 10 points) has only been overcome by one candidate in the past 50 years: Ronald Reagan. But John McCain is no Ronald Reagan: he lacks the charisma, the personality and, most importantly, the support of the religious right.

For a time, it appeared as if Sarah Palin’s nomination as Vice President would address McCain’s shortcomings. As a Bible-thumping, pro-life Mom in favor of gun ownership, Palin not only appealed to the far right within the Republican party, but to disenfranchised Hillary Clinton supporters as well.

With McCain’s failure to address the issues of concern to many Americans (hint: it’s about the economy, stupid), he’s frittered away the post-convention bump in the polls she delivered. Top conservative pundits, already fleeing the GOP after Palin’s nomination, are now being joined by Florida seniors and blue-collar white women, both previously considered solid voting blocs for McCain.

Meanwhile, McCain’s messy message has failed to appeal to independent and undecided voters. In fact, his dogged insistence on attacking Obama actually played into Democrats hands, providing the Senator from Illinois an opportunity to score with voters as he pointed out what McCain’s own campaign just doesn’t get:

“With the economy in turmoil and the American Dream at risk, the American people don’t want to hear politicians attack each other… You want to hear about how we’re going to attack the challenges facing the middle class each and every day.”

While there are plenty of reasons to attack Obama — his ties to an unrepentant racist, to an unrepentant domestic terrorist, and to unrepentant racketeer and felon come to mind, as does his posturing as a working class stiff when he’s anything but one. Yet the time for those attacks had long since passed. Still, even as voters turned against McCain, his campaign remained in the “attack, attack, attack” mode described by Joe Biden.

Ignoring his slip in the polls like the “Maverick” he claims to be, McCain continues to run those very ads, most recently trotting out — at long last — the “Blind Ambition” ad tying Obama with William Ayers… an ad which nevertheless ignores Obama’s ties to Ayers’ wife, the likely head of the terrorist group The Weather Underground. But that move may have only reinforced McCain’s biggest weakness among independent and undecided voters: his image as a petty, mean-spirited man - a character depiction that has haunted McCain throughout this race.

For all its virulence, McCain’s attack strategy did nothing to take advantage of his post-convention bump, nor has it since done anything to distinguish the candidate from President Bush, whom a majority of Americans — from both parties — blame for the economy’s troubles.

“Either McCain wins the argument over the economy or he loses,” said Newt Gingrich, the former Republican Speaker of the House. “When the economy is this central to everybody’s life, when everybody is as worried as they are now, then when you are not talking about the economy you are not winning.”

For every opportunity he has to talk about the economy in solid, clear-cut terms, McCain backs off, hesitating to go for the knockout with a clearly honed explanation of the pitfalls behind Obama’s “share the wealth” plan. Nor has he made much effort to elaborate on why Obama cannot keep his promise to cut taxes and implement his costly policies, and the obvious conclusion: one of those promises must be a lie.

Meanwhile, McCain’s choices have cost him the media’s attention as well. Until recently he’d continued an inexplicable and self-indulgent policy of taking entire weekends off. As a result, in the five weeks leading up to the final debate, team Obama (consisting of the candidate, his wife, and vice-presidential nominee Joe Biden), separately appeared at 95 political events in battleground states.

During that same period, McCain’s camp made a mere 55 stops. The result somewhat accounts for the imbalance in media reporting: more newsworthy events get more press coverage. Add to that the increased exposure Obama’s TV ads that are outnumbering McCain’s 3 to 1 — not including his recent purchase of a half-hour of prime time television on Oct. 29 — and it’s easy to understand why McCain has now decided to cast himself as the underdog.

But if he is an underdog, it’s due to his own campaign choices. Why continue to focus on Obama’s curious and questionable friends and alliances when it’s obviously not playing well with voters? Why hammer on the message of dangerous inexperience when the polls clearly show people are more interested in policy? Is McCain so disengaged with his own party’s platform that he can’t portray himself otherwise — too conservative to be a liberal, and too liberal to be a conservative?

Yes, I’ll be casting a vote for McCain but by doing so I’m not so much voting for him as I’m voting against Obama. And just as WaPo’s Kathleen Parker advises Obama that he shouldn’t take a victory on his part as a mandate so much as a vote against McCain, I’d hope McCain realizes the reverse is true, too. If he wins it won’t be on the basis of a well-run campaign; it will simply be because he’s not that one.

From Baldilocks on Obama and his “friends”:

If I had asserted in one of my autobiographies that I chose my friends and associates carefully and people began to examine the character of my friends and found nothing but thieves, terrorists and racist demagogues, I might be tempted to disclaim them also.

Two Indiana congressional challengers agreed to be hooked up to a polygraph during their political debate. Not surprisingly, the incumbent candidate has declined.

“Polygraphs have their use in law enforcement, but I don’t see them fitting in a political debate,” (9th District Democratic Chairman Mike) Jones said. “There are plenty of avenues for finding out each candidate’s true position.”

Personally, I rather like the idea, although I don’t think its really necessary. We can all tell when a politician’s lying: his lips are moving.

My latest column, Maybe Some Of It Is About Race, After All is up at Pajamas Media.

It’s taken some time for MSM to catch on to what the rest of us on the Right already suspected: Obama’s plan to go with completely private campaign financing wasn’t the noble undertaking he wanted us to believe.

On Saturday, Newsweek broke the story of “Doodad Pro” and “Good Will”, private — and completely fictitious — donors who’d sent Obama over $28k in donations. (This, after Obama’s camp had to return $33k in donations from a pair of brothers in Gaza whose donations violated the proscription against foreign national funding in presidential elections.)

Now, as my ol’ buddy Mike at Cold Fury points out, Obama’s Chicago-style take on campaign financing laws isn’t nearly as surprising as the fact that MSM is finally noticing it.

Maybe Misha is right and we’re approaching the end of times?

Dear Senator McCain,

Considering your now-infamous admission that you don’t know how to use a computer, it might seem foolish for me to post this online. I like to think that even if you don’t spend much time reading blogs, perhaps your staff does. Goodness knows, with your insistence on taking off every weekend throughout the campaign they’ve probably had more time on their hands than any election staff in history.

As for tonight’s debate, I’m sure you’ve already memorized your talking points, and perhaps you’ve even brushed up on some of the snarkier jabs you plan to take at Senator Obama. Given tonight’s town hall format, a style at which you ordinarily excel, perhaps you’re concentrating on stress-reduction ahead of the event, maybe with a latte from Starbucks, one of the beers you didn’t veto, or perhaps just a nice facial.

But know this, Senator: you’re slipping. No, let me phrase that more accurately: you’re plunging, and you’re doing it so rapidly that the sucking sound left in your wake is drowning out whatever message you think you’re delivering.

That’s the thing, Senator: right now you don’t seem to actually have a message. Oh, we hear plenty of attacks on Obama, about his ties to domestic terrorist William Ayers…although, inexplicably, you haven’t said much about his link with corrupt financier Tony Rezko. You’ve inundated us for months with ads and speeches calling Obama dishonorable and questioning whether Obama lacks the judgment to lead. If the election went to the best character assassin, you’d win by a landslide.

But we both know that’s not what it takes to win. Or at least, I do. Lately, I’m starting to wonder if that’s true of you, Senator McCain. And, truth be told, after the last 8 years of living with a president whose head was so firmly buried up his ass (or Cheney’s or Rumsfeld’s… hard to say), there are plenty of people, including registered Republicans like me, who are starting to wonder whether you’re paying attention to what’s happening outside the confines of your campaign bus.

To quote Bill Clinton, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

It sucks — every day brings more dire news about the Dow plunging and the Fed having to take radical steps to stimulate the credit market. Yet just three weeks ago you were assuring us that the economy’s doing fine. Oh, I know you wish you could take that back now, but you can’t unring a bell. The problem is, Senator, ever since that gaffe you seem determined to avoid addressing the country’s economic problems at all.

That, Sir, is precisely what you must do tonight: tell us how you’re going to fix it.

Tell us why you’re not part of the problem.

Tell us how you are different than George W. Bush, and lay out for us in specific terms how your policies would work. Don’t give us more unspecific talk about being a “maverick” - at this stage in the campaign, with both you and Sen. O on the attack — you could prove yourself a true maverick by offering clear solutions, not simply more finger-pointing and sound bytes.

Tell us how you’re going to put more money into our pockets with tax cuts, how you’re going to turn the country’s economic situation around, and how you’ll keep us from ever getting into this kind of mess again.

Don’t tell us what Obama can’t do, Senator. Tell us what you will do. Anything less is just a waste of our time.

Warm regards,
VK

Michele and Beth Donovan have cooked up a rather ingenious plan: sending teabags to the douche bags in Congress who voted for what Michelle calls the “No Banker Left Behind” bill.

You know, the one that also includes payments to loggers hurt by federal timber restrictions, tax credits for employers of people who ride bikes to work, and an incongruously folded-in mental health parity bill which is quite likely to lead to insurance rate hikes.

The very one which just passed in the Senate 74-25 (proving that not a damn person in Congress actually read Thomas Malthus in college). Now it heads to the House, which is expected to vote on the bill Friday.

Hence the teabags because, as Michele puts it: “The people spoke. The House responded. The Senate ignored the people. What are the chances the House will stand up for us again?” (Answer: slim to none. They don’t call it a “whore House” for nothing.)