I agree with you, walls don't work. They are symbols of failed policy.

Unfortunately, Obama does not agree with us. He's not speaking of actual physical walls, but metaphysical constructs. Point to sentence in the speech which tells us which real walls he plans to tear down.

Maybe he's waiting for the walls to come down between Jupiter and Mars, and then we'll have mystic crystal revelations and the mind's true liberation.

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, we could use some leadership, President Moonbeam.

But both are failing, and I'm afraid.

Obama looks ever more remote from the Midwest.

His speeches should be sharpening into a framework of progressive action, but instead grow ever gauzier, full of butterflies and pretty words.

His rock star image may work for those in the Berlin mosh pit, but here its just noise from a concert you can't afford in the rich part of town. Looks like more of the same at INVESCO field.

The haze from his big lies and the fog of big money makes his promised new politics hard to identify or recall.

Obama in his dark shades, remote, cool, calculating, is the lasting mental image of this failed trip abroad.

I've long wanted the rules changed to encourage more receivers and relieve that static nature of the game. I'm very impressed that they worked out an approach within the high school rules. My thoughts always ran to a total team weight limit, removing protection rules for QB, and making everyone eligible.

This new football stratetegy reminds me of the new approach to basketball worked out by a college team somewhere in Iowa--they substitute the whole lineup (like hockey), play fast, and shoot the basket (particularly three-pointers) every few seconds.

Now, what to do about boring baseball...

He continues to deliver a Team of Traitors.

Obama is failing to connect in the Midwest because he has (1) failed to deliver a detailed, substantive, and UNDERSTANDABLE economic program and (2) failed to differentiate himself from the foreign and domestic policies of the present administration.

The "brilliance" Walsh hears in Obama's speeches sounds vague and deceptive to hardened voters who note the lack of specifics and testable promises, and Obama's willingness to trade principles for corporate cash.

Obama has magic, but refuses to condescend to substance.

Do people want another charlatan in the White House, even a "brilliant" one? I think elite Democrats are misunderstanding what many people mean by change and continuity. Old fart McCain is starting to look like the reality-based candidate, unlike Bush or Obama. Obama seems to be running for goodwill ambassador to the UN or maybe the EU. Good morning, starshine!

It would utterly unbelievable if Democrats blow this lopsided contest. But, cripes, if it starts to get close stop blaming voters and start holding Obama accountable for his magical mystery tour of a campaign.

Much has been made about how "different" the Obama campaign was during the primaries. But his campaign no longer so different than Democratic campaigns of elections past.

Clinton WON his campaigns by minimizing differences between his opponents, particularly on defense, but also on hot issues like welfare reform. He then emphasized a narrow platform of flashy difference and a pretty face and smartypants speeches. His campaign focused on winning small, identifiable segments of the population that could be swayed by tailored promises and (when he was President) handouts. Rather than try to win big (hit a homerun in sports analogy talk), Clinton opted for a narrower, but safe victory (took a single). He relied heavily on seeking segments of corporate support, particularly the rising IT sector.

The cost of narrow presidential margins, though were good for Clinton, but catastrophic for the Democratic party. On issues the party lost again and again. Their margins narrowed in Congress, until finally losing both houses. Finally, many of the "Democrats" elected were just Republicans on a lark.

Ever after, the Democrat presidential campagins have followed the same pattern, but it no longer worked, even to elect a President. Gore may have won, but the margin was too narrow to survive Republican lawyers. Kerry lost outright.

Obama has capitulated to the Clinton model. The triangulation on campaign finance reform and FISA and other issues. The reliance on charisma. The narrowing of differences with his opponent. He's hired the same old consultants who are searching for the same nebulous "soccer moms" and other micro components of the population. He's turned his back on small donor revolution (takes it for granted) and shills for the same corporate supporters.

I believe that if Obama had stayed with the "change" message and sought a landslide, he would gotten it. If he hadn't sold his core principles he would have seen a dramatic uptick in the polls. Now his campaign is in deep contradiction with itself: it encompasses change rhetoric vs. triangulation, new-thinking campaigners from the primary and old losers from previous prez campaigns, a fifty state strategy vs targeting micro-voting blocs.

There is no clarity for voters. If Obama wins on a "safe" little margin, he will have no mandate for progressive change. If he doesn't sell his policies now from the pulpit, he'll never be able to put them through a fractured congress--even with Democratic majorities.

Stop blaming voters for not "getting" Obama. Start blaming his utterly crappy campaign.