Charles Krauthammer is a political writer. He was born in NYC to jewish parents whose citizenship was French. He attended McGill Univ in Montreal. Degree in Political Science, a commonwealth scholar he attended Havard Medical school. He was paralyzed in a diving accident in his Freshman year. He continued his medical training during his recovery in hospital. From 1975 to 78' he was a resident and then a Chief Resident in Psychiatry at Mass General, Boston. He has several accomplishments in the field of Psychiatry through 1980. He still maintains a Psychiatric practise. He is seen daily on Fox News with Brit Hume.

Krauthammer served as speech writer for Walter Mondale and as a consultant to Jimmy Carter. He joined the New Republic Magazine as a writer editor and a Pulizter Prize winning commentator for the Washington Post.

He recently wrote the following in the Washington Post about Barack Obama.
________________________________________________
The Perfect Stranger :

"""WASHINGTON.... Barack Obama is an immensley intelligent man whose talents have been largely devoted to crafting , and chronicalling , his own life. No things. Not Ideas. Not Institiutions. But Himself.

Nothing wrong with or even terribly odd about that, except that he is laying claim to the job of crafting the upcomming history of the United States. A leap of such audacity is odd. The air of unease a the Democratic Convention this week was not just a result of the Clinton Psychodrama. The deeper anxiety was that the Party was nominating a man of many gifts but precious few accomplishments bearing even fewer witnesses.

When John Kerry was introduced at his convention four years ago, an honor guard of a dozen mates from his Vietnam days surrounded him on the podium attesting to his character and readiness to lead. Such personal testimonies are the norm. The roster of fellow soldiers or fellow Senators who could from personal experience vouch for John McCain is rather long. At a less partisan date in the calendar, that Roster might even include Democrats Russ Feingold and Edward Kennedy, with whom John M<cCain has worked to fashion important legislation.

Eeirily missing at the Democratic Convention this year were people of the stature who were serously involved at some point in Obama's life satanding up to say; " I know Barack Obama. I've been with Barack Obama. We've toiled/endured together. You can trust him. I do.

Hillary Clinton could have said something like that. She and Obama, had , afterall engaged in a historic utterly compelling contest for the nomination. During her convention speech , you kept waiting for her to offer just on line of testimony; I have come to know this man, to admire this man, to see his character, his courage, his wisdom, his judgment. Whatever. Anything.

Instead, nothing. She of course endorsed him. But the endorsement was entirely programmatic :
Were all Democrats. He's a Democraat. he believes what you believe. So we must elect him---I am currently unavailable --to get Democratic things done. God Bless America.

Clinton's withholding this " Ive come to know this man" was vindictive and supremely self serving--But jarring, too, because realize that if she didnt do it, no one else would, not because of any inherent deficiency in Obama's character, but simply as a reflection of a young life with a biography remarkably thin by the standard of Presidential candidates.

Who was there to speak about he real Barack Obama? His Wife. She could tell you about Barack the Father, the Husband, the family man in a winning and perfectly sincere way. But that only takes you so far. It doesnt take you to the Public Man, the national leader.

Who is to testify to that? Hillary's husband on night three did aver that Obama is " ready to lead" . However, he did not offer one shred of evidence , let alone personal experience with Obama. And although he pulled it off charmingly, everyone knew that , having been suggesting precisely the opposite for months , he meant not a word of it.

Obama's vice presidential selection, Joe Biden, naturally advertised his patron's virtues, such as the fact the had " reached across party lines to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists". But securing loose Nukes is as bipartisan as motherhood and as uncontroversial as apple pie. the measure was so minimal that it passed by voice vote and recieved near zero media coverage.

Thought experiment. Assume that John McCain had retired from politics. Would he have testified to Obama's politcal courage in reaching across the aisle to work with him on ethics reform a collaboration Obama boasted about in the Saddleback debate? In fact reports the Annenberg Political Fact Check, the two worked together for barely a week, after which McCain accused Obama of partisan posturing and launched a volcanic missive charging him with double cross.

So where are the colleagues? The buddies? the political or spiritual soul mates? His most important spiritual advisor and mentor was Jerimiah Wright. But he is out. Then there is Wm. Ayers with whom he served on a board. He is out. Where are the others ?

The oddity of this ( Democratic ) Convention is that it's central figure is the ultimate self made man, a dazzling mysterious Gatsby.
The palpable apprehension is that the annointed' is a stranger---a deeply engaging, elegant, brilliant Stranger with whom the Democrats had a torrid affair. HAVING SLOWLY WOKEN UP, THEY SEE THE RING AND WONDER WHO EXACTLY *THEY* MARRIED LAST NIGHT.

( the more I read this, the more it gives me the creeps. Reminds me of an Edgar Allen Poe piece )

Charles Krauthammer is typically on the wrong side of the coin. I can assume this was written right after the convention? A month later and look how wrong he turned out to be. People know what they want and the polls are showing that.

The polls dont mean that Krauthammer is wrong !

That is kind of like saying that the German people were right electing Hitler to the Chancellory.

The people sometimes react to what they dont want( Geo Bush and a tanking economy ) take it out on another Republican and make another worse choice.

Charles Krauthammer's assertion when he wrote this is that people don't know Obama. Well, I say he's wrong, because as people have gotten to know Obama since the convention, the polls have shown him to move ahead. I think there is direct correlation between the polls and how comfortable people are with who Obama is.

Obama is not the worse choice.

We've been over and over this. If McCain is the better guy (and he just isn't), then it should be dead simple to just post that right up and see little disagreement over this.

I'm waiting:

[why McCain is the better choice goes here]

I'm not so sure about that...here's an email I got today, from Mr. M's boss/Very Successful Company Owner:
*********************************************

This is a matter of opinion and opinions are like. well, you know, everybody has one.

If after reading this email you disagree, Please, no need to reply back to me. Your opinion is yours and that's fine, just delete it.

A lot of Americans have become so insulated from reality that they imagine that America can suffer defeat without any inconvenience to themselves.

Pause a moment, reflect back.

These events are actual events from history..

They really happened!!!

Do you remember?

1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by a Muslim male extremist.

2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by Muslim male extremists.

3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by Muslim male extremists.

4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by Muslim male extremists.

5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by Muslim male extremists.

6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by Muslim male extremists.

7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by Muslim male extremists. (Remember the pilot of this flight was from Richmond, MO)

8. In 1988 , Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by Muslim male extremists.

9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by Muslim male extremists.

10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim male extremists.

11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take down the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by Muslim male extremists.

12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against Muslim male extremists.

13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by-- you guessed it-- Muslim male extremists.

No, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people... Absolutely No Profiling!

They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males alone lest they be guilty of profiling.

According to The Book of Revelations:

The Anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40's, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, he will destroy everything.

And Now:
For the award winning Act of Stupidity Of all times the People of America want to elect, to the most Powerful position on the face of the Planet -- The Presidency of the United states of America ... A Male of Muslim descent who is the most extremely liberal Senator in Congress (in other words an extremist) and in his 40's.

Have the American People completely lost their Minds, or just their Power of Reason ???

I'm sorry but I refuse to take a chance on the 'unknown' candidate Obama...

Let's send this to as many people as we can so that the Gloria Aldreds and other stupid attorneys along with Federal Justices that want to thwart common sense, feel ashamed of themselves -- if they have any such sense.

As the writer of the award winning story 'Forest Gump' so aptly put it,

'Stupid Is As Stupid Does'


Each opportunity that you have to send it to a friend or media outlet...do it!

Or again...just delete if you disagree

Not to be too dismissive about that article, but I would simply ask; Do you believe that Obama will attempt to do the things he says?

If your answer is " Yes. But I do not want the things he wants to attempt." Then I understand that. You have policy disagreements that are valid.

If your answer is " No." Then it is as simple as saying " I think he is lying. I do not trust him." Also perfectly valid. But I disagree. I believe that he is not lying about what he wants.

But if your point is that " He will not be able to accomplish anything because he doesn't know how " well, then, I would like to hear that explained more. WHY will he not be able to do it? Because he, what, doesn't know something that only McCain DOES know? Really. Spell it out. But to imply that Obama does not have a certain skill-set or the mental capacity is false.

So let's hear it. Once and for all. What is it that McCain possesses, specifically ( not " he's been a POW or been in Washington longer " SPECIFIC traits that would be manifested and come to fruition during their administrations ) that out-matches Obama. Name them all. Name your top 3. Whatever. But name SOMETHING that is a priority to you.

And to pretend that a differently phrased endorsement by Clinton or anyone ( the others ) else would have made some kind of difference, is laughable. And if it DOES matter so much to be shown that he is supported by others, then I fully expect Charles Krauthammer to acknowledge that he has gotten the kind of support that is most important; From the PEOPLE.

This is a GREAT debate to have. I only hope that I get a FEW of my questions answered. And I'll answer as many as I can if anyone who leans towards the side of Charles Krauthammer's argument. But you gotta ask me. Flat out. Out loud. Right here.

Otherwise, you are just implying stuff and I'm not interested in chasing that moving target any longer. SAY it.

Yeah, I'm sure they just want to play that passive aggressive game.

This is nothing more than a broadcast for anybody in the club that might be missing out. You know, "just among friends" kind of dark, sleeze thing.

Won't work on anybody that matters.

Screw the delete thing. The last one of these I got from a family member got challenged, as in "are you fucking nuts?", "you listen to that shit?", "thought you knew better".

In this nation we don't have a religious test for public office. In this nation we don't discriminate against race, creed, color, gender, etc...

In this nation, Liberal is not a dirty word. Our founders were both radical and liberal. This is a part of why we are here able to discuss this in the open today.

Deleting the message lets them get their feel good, "did something for the cause" with out having to feel the heat that comes from being a goddamed tool.

Set them straight, then let them know you care and that you are there to help.

Nobody wants their friends to be tools.

Just "Delete"? "No need to reply"?

Are you f'in kidding me? Of course I had to "Reply All" with:

"No, I'm not going to "just delete if I disagree"
This might be the most racist and ridiculously stupid scary email I've ever seen.

The anti-Christ is already here.

It's Sarah Palin.

Just my opinion, of course."



(This was also after she sent me an email last week with a photo-shopped pix of Obama shining Palin's shoes at his stand on the sidewalk.)

Nice!!!

If you need a pile on, let me know

I'm known for piling on too!

Kennewickman, I agree that Charles Krauthammer is a very well known and widely read conservative.

The Washington Post first published "The Perfect Stranger" column on August 29, 2008.

The next week, Krauthammer wrote a follow-up editorial titled "Palin's Problem" and it was highly critical of the selection. Here are some excerpts:

"There are two questions we will never have to ask ourselves, 'Who is this man?' and 'Can we trust this man with the presidency?'"

-- Fred Thompson on John McCain, Sept. 2, 2008

This was the most effective line of the entire Republican convention: a ringing affirmation of John McCain's authenticity and a not-so-subtle indictment of Barack Obama's insubstantiality. What's left of this line of argument, however, after John McCain picks Sarah Palin for vice president?

Palin fatally undermines this entire line of attack. This is through no fault of her own. It is simply a function of her rookie status. The vice president's only constitutional duty of any significance is to become president at a moment's notice. Palin is not ready...

So why did McCain do it? He figured it's a Democratic year. The Republican brand is deeply tarnished. The opposition is running on "change" in a change election. So McCain gambled that he could steal the change issue for himself -- a crazy brave, characteristically reckless, inconceivably difficult maneuver -- by picking an authentically independent, tough-minded reformer. With Palin, he doubles down on change.

The problem is the inherent oddity of the incumbent party running on change. Here were Republicans -- the party that controlled the White House for eight years and both houses of Congress for five -- wildly cheering the promise to take on Washington. I don't mean to be impolite, but who's controlled Washington this decade?

The gamble is enormous. In a stroke, McCain gratuitously forfeited his most powerful argument against Obama. And this was even before Palin's inevitable liabilities began to pile up -- inevitable because any previously unvetted neophyte has "issues." The kid. The state trooper investigation. And worst, the paucity of any Palin record or expressed conviction on the major issues of our time."

Last Friday, Charles Krauthammer pulled few punches when he put his byline next to "Hail Mary vs. Cool Barry" in the Washington Post. This is a sampling:

"Krauthammer's Hail Mary Rule: You get only two per game. John McCain, unfortunately, has already thrown three. The first was his bet on the surge, a deep pass to David Petraeus who miraculously ran it all the way into the end zone.

Then, seeking a game-changer after the Democratic convention, McCain threw blind into the end zone to a waiting Sarah Palin. She caught the ball. Her subsequent fumbles have taken the sheen off of that play, but she nonetheless invaluably solidifies his Republican base.

When the financial crisis hit, McCain went razzle-dazzle again, suspending his campaign and declaring that he'd stay away from the first presidential debate until the financial crisis was solved.

He tempted fate one time too many. After climbing up on his high horse, McCain had to climb down. The crisis unresolved, he showed up at the debate regardless, rather abjectly conceding Obama's mocking retort that presidential candidates should be able to do "more than one thing at once."

You can't blame McCain. In an election in which all the fundamentals are working for the opposition, he feels he has to keep throwing long in order to keep hope alive. Nonetheless, his frenetic improvisation has perversely (for him) framed the rookie challenger favorably as calm, steady and cool.

In the primary campaign, Obama was cool as in hip. Now Obama is cool as in collected. He has the discipline to let slow and steady carry him to victory. He understands that this election, like the election of 1980, demands only one thing of the challenger: Make yourself acceptable. Once Ronald Reagan convinced America that he was not menacing, he won in a landslide. If Obama convinces the electorate that he is not too exotic or green or unprepared, he wins as well.

When after the Republican convention Obama's poll numbers momentarily slipped behind McCain's, panicked Democrats urged him to get mad. He did precisely the opposite. He got calm. He repositioned himself as ordinary, becoming the earnest factory-floor, coffee-shop, union-hall candidate.

Obama understood that the magic was wearing off and the audacity of hope wearing thin. Hence the self-denial perfectly personified in his acceptance speech in Denver. He could have had 80,000 people in rapture. Instead, he made himself prosaic, even pedestrian, going right to the general election audience to project himself as one of them.

He's been moderate in policy and temper ever since. His one goal: Pass the Reagan '80 threshold. Be acceptable, be cool, be reassuring.

Part of reassurance is intellectual. Like Palin, he's a rookie, but in his 19 months on the national stage he has achieved fluency in areas in which he has no experience. In the foreign policy debate with McCain, as in his July news conference with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Obama held his own -- fluid, familiar and therefore plausibly presidential.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. famously said of Franklin Roosevelt that he had a "second-class intellect, but a first-class temperament." Obama has shown that he is a man of limited experience... Nonetheless, he's got both a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament. That will likely be enough to make him president."

I do not often agree with Charles Krauthammer, but his attitudes, opinions and concerns reflect a sizable number of Republicans. A great deal has happened since the article you cited hit the presses. Palin has dragged down the ticket, and now, even Mr. Krauthammer concedes that Obama could be President. The G.O.P. is very disappointed in their candidates and unhappy about their chances in this election.

Oh I never doubted that Krauthammer believes that Obama could be elected President. He has said so many times , even before Sept 29th.

And I have read the Palin ariticle he wrote. I do agree with much of what he had to say about her as well. What I continue to believe is his basic premise regarding Obama in his article " The Perfect Stranger". And that basic premise is regarding Obama's " historical personal and public credentials " based upon what is generally considered normal for a person running for President of the United States of America.

You know many people made negative assertions about John Kennedy's "fit for the Presidency" about a half century ago now. However, JFK , as proffered in his Book " Profiles in Courage" illustrated exactly the " historical personal and public demeanor" that Krauthammer was refering to regarding the lack thereof in Obama's past.

I like that aspect.

There isn't gonna be change from within the status quo. Too many established relationships, too much money changing hands.

Obama saw enough to see it was broken and ran from there. It's the right move, IMHO. He's been honest about that and it's a very American thing to do.

I know absolutely what McCain is gonna do. Republicans in general are a known quantity as well.

That's not cool and it's known not cool.

Obama represents a smart wager. There is a significant chance we will see some good change and progress in better directions.

I'm gonna take the wager.

Ok, fair enough.

And looking at the latest polls, the state by state, which counts in the end, many people seem to be in your sway' at least for the moment. Things change very very fast these days, with 4 to 8 hour news cycles , the internet and the like. We will all be watching carefully , I am sure.

On a personal note and with a " knee jerk reaction" on my part, I find a Presidential Candidate with a ' Logo " depicting in my mind the American flag stripes over a world and framed in a round O ( bama ) shape is very ingenious, but in my mind eerie and unsettling for a Presidential Candidate.

It smacks of something akin to a multi National corporation or Public Entity. That disturbs me to no end, and has from the first time I saw the thing on the tail fin of his Jet.

Yeah, that's a bit different isn't it? In general I like the branding efforts. Solid and friendly. Maybe that's the unsettling part?

One other thing that really hammered it home for me was his strong desire to raise funds in small amounts, from the people.

Who they get their money from is who they owe. Obama has also been quite frank about who he wants to work for and that's us in the aggragate, not a few powerful interests.

So far he's walked the line on that. Given this and the growing influence of the Internet on politics, I see the start of a new movement toward more direct people involvement possible now, not so possible 5-10 years ago.

I want to see that dynamic play out. Last cycle, it was very interesting and encouraging to see efforts, like those seen on Kos, to get new blood elected. Jim Webb was one of those and he drove the GI bill home.

More of that, on all sides, would be really good for us as the threat of the vote from the people would once again pack enough of a punch to maybe keep them a bit more honest!

The Conservatives, Fox News, Krauthammer, Mr. M's boss, and some of the posters are all running scared.

The politics of fear worked for Bush's operatives.

It won't work any more.

Ba bye, GOP. You will get what you deserve, a big fat loss in the elections across the board.

I hope Gordon Smith gets defeated as well.

McCain is old, entering senility, and has nothing to offer. If he does, he's keeping it secret. Maybe he can't remember what his string pullers tell him for more than a minute.

Trying to tie Obama to the crimes of Muslim radicals is not only desperate, but has no legitimate basis. Period. There is no reason to parse it out. We've seen this kind of crap before.

Yep.

If I were Mr M, I'd be looking for another job. That was one of the most disgraceful, racist, emails I've ever seen. And to think a business owner would send that out to employees? My lord, she may be successful, but she's a fucking idiot.

Kennewickman: Do you find the "Country First" jingle equally offensive?

No, I dont find it offensive or disquieting particularly.

I have some issues with electing a 'LOGO' for President. Futureshock here...Presidential elections become corporate elections. And how would that differ from 'party elections"? Fewer people involved weilding more power. Sounds like Russia. Corporate Socialism. Socialistic Stock Market?

Not my idea of a fun ride !

Hey, did you know that Kennedy's secretary was named Lincoln and Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy?

WOW! Definitive evidence for sure!

What a load of claptrap that email was.
See: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/antichrist.asp

With his involvement in the Keating S&L scandal, Iran Contra ties, and who knows what else, the McSame tactic of personal attacks is now going to come around and further diminish any chance he might have had to overtake Obama in the race.

So Kennewickman, you have an issue with a logo but not a slogan? They're both marketing gimmicks. And, what about McCain's logo?

http://shopmccain.com/catalog/images/192.gif

Clearly, his logo is meant to have a military look to it.

That looks like a yard sign. We have been looking at those for decades.

Obama's is clearly meant to be taken as a world wise corporate symbol of his Candidacy.

Most of us on this board know about marketing gimmicks. Obama's approach is different this time IMHO. I think we are seeing something new with respect to political campaigns and their candidates in America at this time in history.

Obama's Logo is symbolic. Totally. No written or pictoral reference to him or his running mate on that Logo.

When you see a Swastica what do you think of? I think of Adolph Hitler first and formost, the Nazi Party in Germany in the early 20th century a distant second.

And I am not equating Obama or his Logo with Adolph Hilter or the Nazis , lest anyone get a big idea about hammering me over that one.

Now, when I see the Obama campaign Logo, I think of Barack. I dont think of the Democrat Party. You see it really is ALL ABOUT BARACK isnt it?

So given the choice between " All about Barack " and " Country First " whose image would I choose?

You must be looking at a different yard sign than the one I'm looking at. Look closer. McCain's logo is a star with long triangles on each side. It's clearly meant to be associated with the military. In fact, it looks like some decoration on a military outfit.

Obama's logo is symbolic in that it's an "O" which stands for "O"bama and the color scheme is red white and blue, which is symbolic of our country's colors. I don't see how his logo equates to "ALL ABOUT BARACK".

As for your choice between "all about Barack" and "Country first", that's a false choice.

W

I think this logo bit is a bit overblown.

Obama absolutely knows how to establish a brand and communicate a message. The circle is friendly, balanced, symbol of unity, continuity, etc...

He has not pushed the Democratic party as much as others do. Honestly, I don't think it's in his best interests to do so.

Again, things cannot change from within the same mold. So he's a Dem. No question. His platform is Democratic, his approach within that is fairly populist, but not completely so.

The font used is balanced as well. It's not tall and skinny, nor is it fat and it does not have serifs either. It's plain and elegant and serious.

It's not threatening either.

I think what we are seeing here is better message control and discipline applied to what is usually a more messy affair.

Obama has stated many times that he is going to lead and make people work together. Now everybody knows he really can't make them do anything, but he can empower them to do that and he can set the expectation that they are to do that and he can leverage the power of the people to compel them to do that.

That's what Presidents do. We've been living with a cheap ass king. Cheap ass in that secrecy is used to cover up lack of discipline and failure to embrace the rule of law.

Oh, the circle means open too. That's another big deal, if you think about it.

Government is very closed right now. That's not American at all. We have the TSA enforcing laws and rules we cannot see. At some level that's not something the consititution permits.

"All about Barack" is one way to take it. On the other hand, where does the vision live? In Obama, of course. He is the one that sees things broken, he is the one that made the case for that and he is running on changing it.

That makes who he is, how he thinks and what he believes pretty damn important.

"Country First" means what? We are Americans first? Well ok. I like that. But where is the vision for what "Country First"? What core principles do we have on record?

With Obama those are clear and very focused on making government work better, empowering people (ordinary people and legislators), etc...

With McCain, it's a great slogan, but looking past that, we've still got Bush 2.0 and that's not cool. The corruption is there, big money interests are still there, old school.

Rather than either or, why not consider the messaging at all levels instead of just "man, that's kind of a corporate logo".

What is a false choice? Define that in any other context than : IMHO on your part. Which then still becomes ' a choice '. Not a false one.

We have seen stars and stripes and whatnot in bannered regailia for decades on candidates yard signs from President to county commissioners. That was my point.

And " W " is a movie. Bush's family have called him W since he was a baby. That is not a logo, it is a nickname to distinguish him from his father in the everyday conversation of his family as he was growing up.

Here is a brief backstory about the design of the Obama logo.

Kennewickman, I appreciate your insight and opinions in this election. We may not always agree, but I definitely value your perspective.

"So given the choice between " All about Barack " and " Country First " whose image would I choose?"

You have given us a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options, such as "change" vs "country first". It's a technique designed to manipulate favor to one choice over the other.

And as for "W", that's as much of a logo as the Obama "O". It's an attempt to brand George W. Bush, just the same as the "O" is Obama's branding. That's why there were millions of bumper stickers printed up that just said "W 04".

We are not electing a logo for President. That is a ridiculous argument. And it is one that holds no merit and can be shot down with ease.

Kennewick, I'm not singling you, as a person, out. I'm only saying that if you think we are electing a logo, ( actually, what you are implying is; We are being sold a bad product; Obama ) then you are having to reach way too far for me to follow you down that path. It's not that I can't. It's that I won't. Because I do not believe that YOU believe it either.

It just feels good to say. And I'm sick of that.

Speaking of conservatives, here is a bit of what columnist David Brooks had to say to Jeffrey Goldberg on Monday at The Atlantic luncheon:

[Sarah Palin] represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party. When I first started in journalism, I worked at the National Review for Bill Buckley. And Buckley famously said he'd rather be ruled by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. But he didn't think those were the only two options. He thought it was important to have people on the conservative side who celebrated ideas, who celebrated learning. And his whole life was based on that, and that was also true for a lot of the other conservatives in the Reagan era. Reagan had an immense faith in the power of ideas. But there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas but to scorn ideas entirely. And I'm afraid that Sarah Palin has those prejudices. I think President Bush has those prejudices.

Part I
Part II

The reason I am bitching about the Obama logo is because I am afraid of succumbing to draconcian and dismal societies that have been depicted in some famous books and other stories, films of various sorts over the last century or so... And a Presidential Candidate with a prominent and , I admit , a rather attractive and hypnotically intelligent Logo is making me a bit nervous.

Its that 'Big Brother' Animal Farm' Brave New World' attitude that pulls at the back of my mind. I got the same panicy impulse when Geo Bush 41' refered to the " New World Order". Its not just because ' I can say it'...at least not in this case.

I felt the same way in 1984. Those of us who were alive in that dark year do not recall the happy world this ad campaign described, but Reagan won anyway. He won in part because the Democrats had a lousy cynical insider and an unvetted token woman on the ticket. So, with history repeating itself, I feel your pain. I also sympathize with women who felt that they deserved a far better pioneering candidate, both then and now.

The following, to be honest, ended up helping me work through a few issues. Sorry in advance for the length - I didn't expect to have it come out like this. You can skip over it. I wouldn't blame any of you, one bit.

Kennewick, I TOTALLY get that. This whole process ( heck, even the very outcome ) can smack of things like those literary references you cited. And guarding against being one who actually promotes it ( and is ultimately responsible for having it come to fruition ), is something deep and intangible for me. It's like you have to say " Gee, I want to ignore how it makes me feel when I gaze upon a logo and how it looks...but I cannot deny that there is something that is triggered by seeing it. So I am saying so."

I get that. In fact, I get that to a degree that I could NEVER fully articulate here. Most of that has to do with " If I say how I feel about that logo, it may make me sound like a nut-job." Maybe you are a nut-job. I have VERY conflicting emotions when it comes to electing ANY President. If that makes me a nut-job too, then so be it, eh?

So if the following sounds like I am being defensive, blind or a self-fulfilling prophecy, I am at peace with that;

I am voting for the guy who at least SAYS he wants to change the world and has a world view as similar to mine as I can find. If I am somehow being fooled and Obama ACTUALLY has a sinister plan to do great harm to America ( and I mean intentional ) then I will admit it and fight to do whatever I can to rectify it. I cannot KNOW how he would handle any given crisis that is unforseen or unexpected. But if I am willing to admit that I want to try and guard against getting surprised in a negative way during Obama's administration, I have to also admit that my instinct and research and just plan gut-feeling tells me that Obama will not do that. One thing that helps me guard against an Obama administration becoming New World Order, etc, is the fact that he has empowered the populace to take control of as much as they can. If he fucks it up, he will have created the perfect monster and he will not win that battle. He'd best not squander this responsibility for selfish gains. He has shown us what is possible and claims that he will respond in kind. he's got his work cut out for him. But for the first time in many years, I am willing to meet him halfway.

Being able to separate logic and emotion has proven a challenge for me this election season. Some do it a lot easier than I. But I am 40 years old and I can only do my best. I have done the absolute best job of it that I could. If you ever are near me when I am watching a debate or a stump speech, you'll hear me call-out Obama or Biden, out loud, to the television, on things that are half-truths or spin 10 times more than I do when McCain speaks. ( But to be honest, nto more than Palin - it just is what it is, with her ). But I do that with Obama because I want to hold him to a higher standard. I COULD do it with McCain, but McCain represents too many of the ideas that I already know I don't want to be put into action...

...ok, I'm rambling...

My point is that I am not oblivious to the subtle nor the overt psychological things that each candidate exudes. But I have to make a decision. And choosing McCain would go against not only the things that are known, but I would have to ignore those feelings and lie to myself about voting for him. With Obama, I have worked as hard as I can to give everything I can it's proper weight. And I have paid attention to as much of my own ability to discern truth between the candidates. So in my world and in my life and in my home and for a million other reasons that I cannot even BEGIN to anticipate, Obama wins.

And finally, not to somehow cause my clutzy argument above to be dismissed, but to be honest, McCain's choice in Palin REALLY helped me decide. I will risk being lied to from Obama over the deeper fear of what Palin would do.

The prospect of "President Palin" makes me panicky.