1) I am not suggesting that Obama and Palin are similarly experienced. Obama has been on the mainstage of American politics for four years while Ms. Palin got her introduction yesterday. Yes, she has chief executive experience governing a state the size of Washington DC for the last 1.5 years but she is new to primetime. Obama has overseen the largest campaign organization in our nation’s history, defeated the Clinton’s, and been the junior Senator of the fifth largest state in the US where he has had around five years to educate himself on issues surrounding international security and diplomacy. He is not new to the game. A President or VP should be ready on day one to make decisions of the gravest significance to our safety and I don’t think giving Palin three months to educate herself about the complexities of international affairs suffices to do the job. This is especially true because she was chosen for this position, not elected through a democratic primary process involving almost 40 million Americans like Senator Obama.

2) McCain has practically tied up this election by repeatedly arguing that Obama is not “prepared for duty” and lacks the gravitas to meet the global challenges to international security which are arising and demanding American leadership. This strikes me as a fruitful line of political attack.The choice of Palin portends a major shift in McCain’s justification for the Presidency. I am surprised that he has done such a dramatic pivot on the importance of experience for the Presidency when it seemed to be working fairly well. Choosing Palin demonstrates that this line of attack has been abandoned for a different kind of “change” candidacy. Palin’s first speech was filled with references to her independence, reform instincts, tackling corruption and cronyism, etc. The decision of the McCain campaign to go with Palin suggests that this election will be about “Washington big spending liberals” vs. “Reformist, small government conservatives.” I expect a shift away from McCain’s previous focus on terrorism and international security to issues around the economy, wasteful spending, and the like. This kind of campaign might have worked well in 2000 when Bush ran on similar themes however in 2008 the message of experience and security during troubled times would really have played to McCain’s advantage. As an Obama supporter, I feel like we have been given a huge gift through the forfeiture of that line of attack.

Moving on, now, to what is a roughly argued (a sketch) observation.

Here’s my thesis: If sin is taken seriously, Americans are the issue - not ‘Washington’; for what is Washington if not Americans susceptible to the power of sin? Thus, to the degree Obama’s campaign is about the people v. Washington, the Obama campaign is a liberal fantasy.

In the speech last night, in Obama’s speech introducing Joe Biden, and throughout Obama’s campaign - statements like: ‘change is not coming from Washington, but to Washington’; ‘Washington did not change him [Joe Biden]; he changed Washintgon’ are important. The message, it seems, is something stinky resides in Washington - the American people, or those new to Washington, or those with a real moral backbone are the solution. Washington = bad. American people = good.

If there is one thing that I think is really, truly different about Obama’s campaign, it is the overwhelming number of people who come to hear him and to be close to him (84,000 last night at the stadium and 34 million on TV); Obama has, no doubt, energized the political process. And that is really exciting (if even an exhausting reality). However, when one takes time to get a grip on this, what emerges? Well, I think a liberal fantasy emerges.

Obama’s run for the highest office exhibits all the signs of liberalism, as I understand the term. What makes a liberal a liberal (and disagreeable)?

1) A liberal excels at demeaning those they do not understand or those with whom they disagree. I think the ‘bitter comments’ are the best example. Liberals don’t understand homegrown religion, guns, etc…so people who like these things must be poor, therefore, dumb, or crazy, or easily duped. In other words, the people with whom the liberal disagrees are post-rational or pre-rational - but not rational. The liberal is one who obeys the so-called dictates of (their) reason.

This liberalism comes out in yet another way. Some Obama supporters - trying to cope with the fact that Obama is Clintonian (not a bad thing in my book, but it is in theirs) - are beginning to admit that Obama has been a politician all along. Those, especially in the primary, who flocked to him because they believed he would be a standard bearer or thought, in some sense , he was outside of or above politics as usual - these folk were…naive. The argument may go, ‘Well, people who thought he was not a politician must not have been involved in politics before - certainly not involved in a campaign, as IIIII have.’ Again, the people who disagree with liberals don’t have access to the knowledge they need - or they would agree with the liberal.

2) Liberals believe evil is always somewhere else - for instance, ‘Washington’. Human beings (or human communities, a post-liberal perspective) are good; if human beings do something bad, they just didn’t have the knowledge they needed to do the good. Once they have the knowledge, human beings do the good. As Obama said, McCain does stupid things not because he is stupid - but because he just doesn’t know what’s going on; he does not have the almighty perspective and knowledge needed to lead. Ultimately, however, human beings are good and will, provided they know what’s what, work for the good. Note, evil does not reside in (liberal) human beings, evil resides in ‘Washington’ - out there.

The above two pillars of the almighty (post-)liberals are two very big reasons I am not a liberal and why I, on the whole, find liberals to be out of touch. They always have their noses in the air.

The second pillar, while dependent on the first, is what interests me most about the Obama campaign. The energy expended trying to put evil in ‘Washington’ and to protect those Washington people close to the Obama campaign from being thought as corrupted by Washington (’He changed Washington, Washington did not change him) is vital to the O campaign - cuz at the core of the Obama campaign is an overblown optimism about human beings and, therefore, an attempt to suggest evil resides in Washington - and NOT the American people.

Cutting across this fantasy is the Christian Gospel. Human beings running around in their denial of God and embracing radical self-sufficiency - sinful, if you will, human beings are the problem - not some fictional ‘Washington’ or ignorance of the good. The very people Obama says this campaign is about are the problem. Going to Washington and coming out of Washington are sinful human beings. And this is the ultimate problem with the Obama campaign: people. Simply because Obama is relatively new to Washington does not mean he, himself, is not a sinner. He has admitted the temptation to think too highly of himself (and so, too, Edwards), and that is the problem. And sin is what Jesus, not Obama, conquers.

What the primary campaign taught us, however, is Obama is well suited to deal in this environment of sinfulness. In order to pass his agenda, he will need a strategy that ultimately compels (e.g., If you don’t agree with me, you will get ‘primaried’ or will be hated by millions of Americans), humiliates (e.g., you’re racist), or fools (e.g., duping the rural folk) those who disagree with him (because people, believe it or not, do disagree with him…and he can’t change that). What other options does he have?

Anyway, fueling the fires of human pride, that is, the fires of ‘absolute humanity,’ will lead to celebrity. For we as human beings like nothing more than to be reminded that we don’t need God - we can do it; yes we can!