Recently a “pundit” columnist referred to Barack Obama supporters while trying to make some point not relevant to anything. But, as is often the case with such commentary, an interesting point was bypassed in the attempt. In this case, the writer was seeking some profundity in the obvious that the appeal Barrack has to young, politically virginal voters results from to his charm, cologne, novelty, “hopefulness” or some such formless smoke. The writer was quick to note, though, that he was not—most certainly not— referring to the Semi-American senator’s legions of older, mature enthusiasts who support his candidacy for “other reasons”. There we shoot past gold bars in the hunt for aluminum foil. Forget the kids, the elders have “other” reasons for their Obamania. Really? And what might those be?

The plain fact is that there are no “other reasons” than those attributed to the political novices to support BO for president. Unless you are an Axelrod, or some other political professional who stands to gain personally from an Obama Administration, you have nothing. This is not a controversial thing to say. Supports of the Senator are themselves famously and embarrassingly unable to articulate any substantive accomplishments of the Rev. Wright’s most notable congregant. His policy positions are identical to those of Hillary. Again, not a controversial observation. So, he is Hillary without any executive experience and the political naivety to threaten invasion of US allies and a damn-the-consequences evacuation of Iraq. Hillary in a more “likable” package, if you prefer your immeasurable egos in lanky black male bodies instead of a broadbeamed pale ones. And like your words of unimaginable presumptuousness in mellifluous but boyish tones instead of ensconced in the sounds of where the nails meet the blackboard.

It is no wonder, of course, that Hillary is so frustrated. Here she is, after all of her spells, amchinations and plotting, lacking only credible real experience and she gets sacked by a someone with even less experience than she has. And no substance at all, save what he’s borrowed an mimicked from others. Yet
she's losing the childrens'support-- and psychological children are the rank-and-file of the Democrat Party today. Those who hate Bush because he's mean. Those who like speeches that are nearly Seussian and say nice-feeling things. Speeches, in fact, that could be plagiarized from Barney. Children of all ages. So don’t pick on the young and uninitiated for voting for the Leader of the Free World the same way they would vote Chad for class president. Their elders, who should know better, are doing the exact same thing and have no excuse of callowness or lack oppportunity to view the real world. But, as someone recently said, if Democrats were smart, they would be Republicans. Let’s hope they don’t pick heart surgeons and airplane pilots the same way they pick their candidates for high office. If a Barrak supporter can come up with a solid reason they think he should be in the Oval Office-- even if that reason is silly liberal ideology-- them please tell the Senator. He sure hasn't mentioned it.