The divisiveness that gets one (or three) sent to "time-out".

The cotton candy candidate makes some roster cuts as “only the worshiper will get front-row seats to history."

B-Daddy has more, here.

For those of you scoring at home.

Old white guy at the head of a disorganized, dispirited, no-momentum campaign vs. young, hip, smooth-talkin’ black dude fronting a disciplined campaign team that hi-lites (all) his strength(s) without exposing his weaknesses. Bad election year for Republicans in Congress predicted and people can’t stand the President who happens to be a member of the old white guy’s party.

And even with all this including a shameless media in M.T. Suit’s back pocket, old white guy sits just outside the statistical error range in polls heading into the fall when the Republican candidates have traditionally gained momentum to close the gap if not overtake the Democratic candidate entirely with whom the public has had a summer fling.

If McCain pulls this off, it will have to go down as one of the great upsets in Presidential election history.

Story here.

Campaign '08: Like a day at the Fair

Now it’s the libs that are getting all uppity that the conservatives have been all uppity over the General Clark dust-up (we refuse to call it Wesley-gate as Clark apologist Gail Collins does here… similar to “throw under the bus” we need to move.on from these “divisive” and rendered-meaningless-through-repetition terms and “change” the current verbo-political landscape to seek-out new alternative forms of cheap, throw-away pop-terminology).

Liberals defending Clark for his assertions that doing hard time at the Hanoi Hilton, commanding a squadron during peace-time, flying a fighter jet and then getting shot down and not dropping bombs on Chinese embassies all do not in themselves qualify a person to be President. Sure. Whatever. This all misses the point, though and is an element that Republicans and McCain supporters don’t quite grasp regarding their counterparts.

In a vacuum, Clark’s comments may have some standing, however weak, but in the context of using them to question McCain while vouching for Obama, the comments become patently absurd. And its here where conservative indignation hits the brick wall of Democratic indifference: When Clark’s line of reasoning is turned on Obama, Republicans are hit square in the face with a collective Democratic shoulder-shrug. Yeah…? So what’s your point?

In for a dime, in for a dollar. To square the circle of “change” and eschewing the “old politics” as it relates to Obama one cannot merely tolerate inexperience but one must embrace this same inexperience along with the verbal gaffes, countless flip-flops and generally incoherent (nuanced?) policy positions because the “change” that Obama represents and whatever end-state that “change” will result, transcends any of the mundane and any of the minutiae of traditional presidential politics.

FISA, Iraq, the death penalty, public financing, 2nd amendment rights, gay marriage... Its ALL good.

Obama is the cotton candy candidate. Visually appealing as it looks like a load of fun on a summer day at the Fair. A big wispy cloud of airy, sugary-sweet nothingness that upon closer inspection, though, becomes a sticky mess and which remains ultimately unfulfilling.