EVENING UPDATE, JANUARY 23, 2008

•   First, let me extend my sympathies to liberals all over America who are in grief tonight because the American economy hasn't collapsed.  I do understand.  I really do.  The anguish, the waiting, the dashed hopes as markets run by capitalist scum first decline and then rally - these things hurt.  When combined with progress in Iraq, the pain must be unendurable.  And I know how whole families must be affected by your personal suffering.  You know, it's always the families who bear the brunt.  If it becomes too much, there are agencies.

But be of good cheer.  November will come.  You may elect your candidate.  So there's always hope for catastrophe.

Bless you.  

•   This space has been skeptical of Barack Obama.  We will continue to be so.  We are talking about the American presidency, not the presidency of the senior class, and I have seen not a single compelling reason to favor Mr. Obama.  You ask why.  (You probably don't ask, but I want to write about it anyway.)  So, let me tell you.

First, he is not a "transformational" candidate.  I'm not even sure I know what the term means, given the way it's been twisted out of shape.  Does it mean he can speak to whites?  Is he the first?  Didn't Dr. King speak English?  He spoke it beautifully.  Does it mean he is "beyond race"?  In what way?  His voting record is to the left of Hillary's, and there's not a single position he's taken that marks a departure from traditional leftist, racially sensitive politics.  By the way, why aren't black Republicans like Michael Steele referred to as "beyond race"?  Need I ask.

Obama is, in fact, a fairly traditional minority politician with a magnetic personality, certainly high intelligence, and an appealing personality.  But transformational?  Show me.

Second, Obama's views, especially in foreign policy, are hardly the breakthroughs in the new thinking that he boasts about.  Obama seems to have been Carterized, and that ain't new.  A man who goes to George Soros for funding isn't 21st-century war on terror.  He's 20th-century "peace in our time," without the umbrella, or the British tailoring.  

Third, he's Triple A ball.  The presidency is the biggest of the big leagues.  Obama has neither handled a major crisis, nor even been involved in one.  And I fear a man with his rhetorical gifts collapsing in a conflict, giving away the store, then successfully convincing the public that he's done a brilliant thing the "old establishment" doesn't understand. 

I'll be writing more about this, but let me refer you to two disturbing articles on Obama that have just appeared.  The first, by Danny Ayalon, the former Israeli ambassador to the United States, is called, "Who Are You, Barack Obama?"  The title says it.  The key quote:

On the two occasions that I met with the Senator, he proved himself as a polite, inquisitive and energetic politician. Yet, I was left with the impression that he was not entirely forthright with his thinking.

Yeah, yeah, that's it, isn't it?  Isn't that what a lot of us are feeling?

The second piece is part of a series by Ed Lasky, at American Thinker.  He discusses the foreign-policy crowd around Obama.  After reading this, you may want to consider building the shelter.   Home Depot is here.

•   But enough of life and death.  We have a dilemma at Urgent Agenda.  Yesterday I referred to the well-known quote, always attributed to Charles DeGaulle, that the cemeteries of the world are filled with indispensable men.  But a reader in Zagreb - we're very international here - writes that it was actually spoken by Georges Clemenceau.  Reader Mathieu Dutour Sikiric gives the quote, as follows:

"Les cimetières sont pleins de gens irremplaçables, qui ont tous été
remplacés."
   - Georges Clemenceau

("Cemeteries are full of indispensable men, who all have been replaced.")

I turn to you, our own readers.  Do any of you know the history here?  Every reference I've checked says DeGaulle, but Mr. Sikiric has come up with an exact quote from Clemenceau.
Is that quote accurate, or did some writer make a mistake, and mislead the masses? If you can enlighten us, please e-mail at comments@urgentagenda.com

•   China's China Daily certainly tows the line.  It runs a fascinating piece about the discovery of a skull that may be 100,000 years old, then inserts this:

All the fossils from Beijing were lost during the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression (1937-45).

Fellas, it's over.  It was over 63 years ago.  Let's cool the rhetoric.  Get back to making the flat-screen TVs, run the Olympics and try calling it World War II. 

I hope that advances world peace.

•   Bill Clinton now says he, well, enjoys seeing Hillary and Barack go at it.  Here's the quote:

"I know you think it's crazy, but I kind of like to see Barack and Hillary fight," he said lightheartedly. "They're flesh-and-blood people and they have their differences - let 'em at it."

You know, if it were anyone else, I'd say, "Well, okay."  But maybe it isn't the wise thing for Bill Clinton to smile at the idea of his wife mixin' it up with another guy.  It kind of reminds...oh, never mind.

•   And, finally, let us not forget that people vote with their feet.  Kirk Semple reports in The New York Times on the exodus from Venezuela to America.  We have seen this scene before.  These newcomvers will make a contribution.  You can bet on that.

And we'll be back tomorrow.

Posted on January 23, 2008.