John McCain effectively stated the dark side of Obama's popular image in Orlando on Friday:

“If there’s one thing he always delivers, it’s a great speech,” McCain said. “But I hope you’ll listen carefully, because his ideas are not always as impressive as his rhetoric.”

We wonder just how McCain must feel, running against an opponent whose greatest "merits" are youth and good speaking ability.

In and of themselves, these are hardly solid qualifications for a US president, and they're a little more along the lines of what one would expect from some sort of promising revolutionary-turned autocrat (one minute, it's "change we can believe in," the next it's "change we will conform to for the good of the motherland," or something along those lines).

The fact is that Obama's image is not that of a politician at all. It is the image of a celebrity, who is expected to look good, speak well, and do little else. Obama's supporters seem to grow continually more enamored in the style of teenage semi-obsessed Hollywood heartthrob fans. With regard to the media, he gets the same divine status as the actor who donates some spare change to a charity or actually demonstrates the knowledge that the capital is in Washington, D.C. In short, Obama would make a fine head of state - just not much of a head of government.

Barry Rubin, of the Global Research in International Affairs Center (GLORIA) posted an interesting article online earlier this month. His belief as to the nuclear aspirations of Iran is straightforward:


"The simplest and cheapest--therefore very popular--idea is to talk Iran out of making nuclear weapons. This is silly. The regime wants them, laughs at Western threats not backed by strength, and awaits the next American president (no prizes for guessing who it prefers) hoping he'll follow a surrender strategy.

Iran won't be bought off, it merely seeks to buy time."


And his mention of the undermining of diplomatic pressure and sanctions by ever-extensive trade with various members of the EU, which is unashamedly Iran's largest trading partner, reminds us of the fact that the states of Europe can't even devote themselves to their own positions, let alone the fostering of stability abroad.

But most interesting is his assertion that Obama's current policy on Iran would be disastrous for everyone who cringes at the thought of missiles at Iranian command - meaning everyone except for the winners who happen to rule the Islamic Republic. He writes, quite simply, that Obama would, by holding unconditional talks with Ahmadinejad, validate the Iranian president's shrewd policy of "scream psychotically enough from your prison cell and they'll move you to posh quarters in the nuthouse." A friendly dialogue with Iran would give the impression that the United States has been wrong in its position against Iran's nuclear program, eroding American status abroad and, frighteningly, making diplomatic pressure against the radical policies of the Iranian government even less effective. To hold the sort of talks Obama proposes is to automatically put the US on the defensive with regard to its foreign policy,which is exactly the sort of provocation a volatile and aggressive state like Iran needs to carry out its agenda.

According to an action poll on Congress.org, 65% of respondents agree with John McCain's policy on an Iraq withdrawal timetable -- namely, that there shouldn't be one. On the other hand, 35% of respondents agree with the plan Barack Obama discussed with our pal Nuri (aka captain independent). Now, we're hardly under the impression that those who frequent Congress.org constitute a majority of voters, but it is interesting -- by which we mean COMPLETELY UNSURPRISING -- that people who care enough about politics to wade through stats on key congressional votes and who know the power ratings of the foreign relations committee also tend to agree with McCain on this foreign policy issue.