Go long on Obama-the-moderate futures

Gerald Seib and John Harwood of the Wall Street Journal wrote a front-page affront to logic.  The thesis is that John McCain and Barack Obama  “got ahead largely by arguing they have unique abilities to bring people together in Washington.”   They also added this:

Voters are pulling politicians toward the middle of the ideological spectrum by registering as independents and calling for centrist solutions. A new cast of political players — some young, most little-known to the nation — is emerging to show that there are ways to transcend gridlock by reaching across the aisle.

This may be valid for McCain; the part about reaching across the aisle certainly is.  Which explains why he is so much on the outs with some Republicans who claim ideological purity.  For Obama, there is no validity to any claim that he is “post-partisan” in any way, shape, or form.  His background contains no substantive examples of bipartisanship, and his voting is straight liberal and party line.

As for Obama “arguing” that he has unique abilities to bring people together, that’s all he’s got.  An argument; the gift of gab.  We’ve elected folks on this, and less.  But we can and should do better than that proverbial sack of sunshine promises.

Obama’s past (and current) associations with radicals such as Ayers and Wright have caused his true beliefs to come into a harsh light, and paint him as anything but moderate.  The best one might claim about Obama is that he has changed his ways and now is willing to work with moderates and conservatives.  This requires one to go long on Obama-the-moderate futures.  Risky business when we’re electing a commander-in-chief.

The Seib-Harwood article struck me as totally inconsistent with the reality of Barack Obama, liberal out-of-touch elitist.