Obama gets my vote over Hillary any day for the Democratic nomination. He's real, he inhaled and is robust whereas Hillary is at once pompous, disingenuous, and brittle. Obama doesn't have to fake a southern accent, get shrill with his detractors, or pretend he's the king of the USA.

The problem with Keillor, is that he is a typical throwback of the 60's, still looking for youth and coolness, as if those qualities were a surefire bet for the White House. Obama is about exciting as, pardon the pun, vanilla ice cream. He has nothing to offer or much to say. Maybe America could elect a black man or a woman as President, but given our choices, I would not waste my vote on either of them.

I liked this editorial a lot better than last week's, which was really dreadful. But one I thing I have a problem with is the notion that the French have something or rather someone to be grateful for. This guy, Nick Sarcosy, is a bird of the same feather as the Current Occupant. Once again--as with his mindless cheerleading for dear old "Let's keep nuking Iran on the table" Obama last week--Garrison needs to adopt a more discriminating, critical, yea, verily, even rebellious approach to politics.

Barack the "Centered Outsider" knows how to use the media (as does his wife) to project this "above-it-all" charismatic image. There's a lot of form but not much substance. Al Gore and Hillary Clinton and, yes, Bill Clinton are truly genuine. No one seems to have noticed that Bill Clinton, not the "common man imposter" we have in the White House, actually accomplished the American Dream - he was born poor, put in the care of his grandparents by his single mother until she could support him, identified with and formed a lasting bond with the African American children he played with, dealt with an alcoholic stepfather, studied hard, graduated from an Ivy League school and became a Rhodes scholar. Hillary and Al Gore came from more privileged families but sought to make a difference and chose public service. These are people of vision - who feel a responsibility to the people of this country. Barack was raised in a rather privileged family, traveling around the world, and hasn't really done much to distinguish himself in Illinois or in the U.S. Senate. He talks a good game but so far as I can see hasn't really been a meaningful participant. I think the jury's still out on Barack.

I'm a big fan of Garrison's, but this latest Old Scout really takes the cake. To march on the beat, for Thoreau's time, meant support for slavery, for a slaveowner's government, and for war.

To march with the beat,today, means, apparently, supporting Baraka Obama: who supports the genuinely Strangelovian idea of not taking the nuclear option vis a vis Iran off the table.

Now I know that the Old Scout has mentioned that he himself does not like this prospect.

But he really should stop letting impressionism and, in Thoreau's words in that same essay, "expedience" be his guide.

Obama has many imposing obstacles to overcome if he has any hope of winning the Democratic Primary, and none seems more forbidding than the wall put up by those who claim his victory would only ensure another Republican presidency. Their cynical attitude is that Americans simply will not elect a Black man, since our racism runs way too deep. How sad, the way we're willing to smother a baby in its crib, ostensibly with the justification that the world awaiting is a mean and savage place.

To invoke another analogy, those very cynics-- those whose hopelessness seems to add substance to racism, though they themselves may not be racist-- also remind me of the allegory about the old elephant, tethered to a sapling by a tenuous rope. Never does he dare to stray beyond the tiny perimeter that the rope allows, never does he test the strength of the sapling. He learned, as a calf, the futility of trying.

Perhaps we should dare to hope. Let writers like GK provide the inspiration, the now murmurring drum beat (whether to a different drummer, or not) that will reach a crescendo as election time draws a bit closer. Beyond primitive faith, Obama, himself, will provide the substance!

Mark W

...that Rob Anderson only determines when someone jumps the shark for himself.

Whether it was Alan Ladd's "Shane" character or William Holden in "Picnic" or maybe just the plastic-faced maniac in "V For Vendetta", our nation has become, over a long period of time, one of almost nothing but "individuals" trying to take part in an atonal orchestra. Nothing is reliably "there" when needed, and Keilor is right: when everyone is hearing a different tune there can be no unity, no cohesion and no identity.

The responses to his article largely prove him right. It's not as though each individual is not in some way unique, but that as a nation we have nothing in common. It would seem there are at least two faces, one red, one blue, but even inside those two stagnant pools is so much self-delusional diversity (dear god! Did I just use "diversity" as a pejorative?) that even the two engines of national discord can agree on only some very basic things like demonizing each other.

The stupid hat at the prom is the new uniform of social anarchy. Jack Kerouac predicted this in 1959. He said the Beat phenomenon would wind up being nothing more than "a revolution in manners" and that people would start showing up in denim at formal events and think they'd done something important. It happened while he was still alive. It just keeps happening.

Barack Obama is the closest thing we've seen to a truly centered politician in decades. This is frightening to this narcisist nation. Can we not find any common ground, any convention, any unity that doesn't strike fear into the hearts of...oh. Hearts. That must be it. When they don't beat resolutely they eventually stop beating at all.

Dr. Obama, kindly remember to shout "Clear!" before you knock us back into rhythm. It's getting scary in here.