NOT EVIL, NOT "GOOD-BAD" JUST A ROOKIE

Still haven't seen it but have now read enough about it in the mainstream media, left-wing media, and on the blogs, and come away with a different point of view on both Edwards and Obama.

As the great blog commentors all over the internts reminded Kelso, Edwards not only pretzeled himself up on the wars but continues to do so on anything that even hints that "gay" is another variant of "normal." If that's the case, why should we believe his anti-war and pro-worker position now? We had our doubts about him. Now, if Kelso had a primary franchise, he would not consider voting for him. To be fair, we would have voted for Kucinich no matter what. Kelso can almost believe that Ann Coulter had a point when she said to Elizabeth Edwards, "why isn't your husband making this call?" Actually, why? Because he's scared to death of Ann Coulter is why.. He is still a DLC-man at heart, albeit blowing with a different tail-wind these days.

This entire gay-marriage issue seems very silly to Kelso because in Kelso’s adopted country, gay marriage is legal and even the right-wing opposition party has no problem with that. Problems with gay marriage are, to quote the philosopher George W. Bush, “uniquely American.”

Kelso was first turned off by Obama's FATHER COUGHLIN speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and nothing he's done since has changed that point of view -- with Bush on bankruptcy, with Bush on coal emissions, with Bush on Terry Schiavo, with James Dobson on everything, a war and health plan strikingly similar to Bush's, homophobic speeches in the black churches, wishy-washy on everything, taking Lieberman on as his Senate mentor, showing up Tom Harkin at Harkin's own event, that ridiculous "book" he "wrote"...we could go one, but you get the idea. Last night's decent idea of his, inartfully expressed as it was, half-assedly retracted as it was, shows us that we was a bit off-base in thinking there was something particularly malign about Obama. Probably some campaign “expert” told Obama that he was losing Liberal and Black votes and had to take a stand. So, he takes about the single most ill-advised “stand,” he could have.

How Kelso didn’t apply Ockham's Razor here is a mystery. We should have chalked all of this up to the simplest explanation: his inexperience. Obama is no more prepared to be president that Bush was. If anything, he's less prepared because as a salesman for the debssement of the USA., Bush has been non-pareil. Bush doesn't sound bright but he's sort of a quick study and has a resoluteness that is 180 degrees from Obama's flaccidity.

The Kelso impression is that Obama has been trying on various suits: DLC-man, actual Republican, Christian Crazy, Black Nationalist, "Conciliator," Stagger Lee, and now European-style Diplomat. As there is no touchstone for him, all of these personae fit him ss well as those suits do. What we are witnessing with Obama is a Picasso or Braque version of Wesley Clark's campaign. In other words, he's a ROOKIE, a rookie who got lucky no doubt: Liberals fantasizing about Martin Luther King, Jr., Conservatives fantasizing about their H-N right there in the White House (geddit?), and David Geffen getting into a cat-fight with Ron Burkle over Bill Clinton's attention, which led to all the money.

Kelso’s take is that, like Edwards, Obama’s default position is standard DLC, both hawks, both homophobes, with Edwards a little more populist.

Obama made a perfectly adaquate Illinois State Senator. He should have stayed right there. Jesse Jackson, Jr., should have run for Senate instead of PLANNING a run for Mayor of Chicago. Of course, Obama's going to fall at the first hurdle. He'll come 3rd in Iowa or maybe 4th behind Richardson even and then school is out.

It sez here Clinton/Richardson versus Romney/FD Thompson with the former winning a landslide, and only keeping the two wars running and not going to the 4 or 5 the Republicans are planning.

Kelso's Nuts love you.