It is a position that, by skill and experience, he has shown himself utterly unworthy, but on looks, image and name – all “multicultural” in nature – he finds himself in serious contention even as more qualified and experienced “candidates” have fallen by the wayside. He now has the top prize – America’s top prize – clearly within his sights.

At this point it is impossible – literally impossible – to know if I’m talking about Barack Obama, the novice United States Senator seeking the Democratic Party’s nomination for president, or Sanjaya Malakar, one of nine finalists for the title of this year’s “American Idol.”

Clearly, neither Obama nor Malakar are qualified for such high honor. In speech after speech, the senator continues to espouse stale platitudes – does anyone know what he stands for other than “hope”? – that are the equivalent of Sanjaya’s amateurish vocals. Are Americans so deliberately tone deaf that they are willing to elevate style over substance? Apparently, yes.

Since John F. Kennedy was elected president in 1960, Democrats have placed a far higher value on style than substance. Today, a Democratic candidate must have “rock star” status to be considered a viable candidate. In fact, that is what the top three Democrats for the 2008 nomination – Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Obama – have all been called at one time or another.

Yet, cumulatively, they have served a a little over a whopping 14 years in the United States Senate. Indeed, in Democrat circles, far more qualified candidates, like Bill Richardson (current Governor of New Mexico, former U.S. Representative, Ambassador to the United Nations, U.S. Secretary of Energy, chairman of the 2004 Democratic National Convention as well as Chairman of the Democratic Governors Association in 2005 and 2006), won’t be having fundraisers thrown for them by the likes of David Geffen or Steven Spielberg because they’re just not “hip” enough.

The same criteria that has skyrocketed Senator Obama to the heights of the Democratic Party are exactly the standards that teens and preteens use to determine who will be America’s newest idol. Of course, when style over substance prevails in the “American Idol” contest, the worst that happens is that some bad music is produced. But when a U.S. president is chosen by this measure, the results can be disastrous. Considering the complicated world we live in, we don’t need someone who is a “rock star” we need someone who is rock solid.

This is in response to Barry's post below:

"Well, we tried experience and look what happened. We're in two wars--about to start a third, al-qaeda is successfully bankrupting our country which is what they did to the Soviet Union, gas is approaching $4.00 a gallon so everything else will follow suit. This is the party you support?"

The wars are necessary to fight radical Islam, not run from it like Democrats did (under Bill Clinton) and would have done (under Al Gore or John Kerry). Evil must be responded to with force or it will make for much worse evil. if Hitler had been stopped in 1938, perhaps over 52 million human beings wouldn't have lost their lives. But, the world "hoped", right along with Neville Chamberlain -- the Obama-Kerry-Gore of his day, that the evil Hitler didn't want anything more than a return of the Sudetenland.

We're winning in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will take time until they are fully functioning democracies (with tens of millions of human beings living in freedom). Freedom, something the left used to be FOR and now, regularly takes for granted, will make people of that troubled region less likely to become jihadis. In fact, the "surge" has been so successful because Iraqis who once opposed our presence there, have joined us and are fighting al Qaeda and their like. In short, Iraq and Afghanistan becoming democratic is a very large blow to the forces of radical Islam.

Finally, to the point of your first sentence, you would rather elect someone who has 0 experience? Apparently "yes", because the two candidates of the left, Obama and Clinton, are so devastatingly weak on experience and judgement, that you've scored a double-hit with your wish for candidates that stand for nothing but "change".

"Republicans have ruined our country and made us look like fools in the eyes of the world."

Really? More foreign students come to our schools than ever; more countries take our money than ever; more investors invest their money in our markets than ever -- which countries do you refer to? Myself, if a foreigner derides our country and the heavy lifting the U.S. is doing to counteract radical Islam, I tell them very quickly where they can take a flying you-know-what.

"Tell me how can someone who writes such cool songs and flash the peace sign can support a party so full of finacially and morally corrupt morons?"

Easily: the left offers nothing but silly bromides like "Yes We Can". The right offers real solutions to real problems, first and foremost, combating radical Islam (something the left refuses to acknowledge even exists).

Well, we tried experience and look what happened. We're in two wars--about to start a third, al-qaeda is successfully bankrupting our country which is what they did to the Soviet Union, gas is approaching $4.00 a gallon so everything else will follow suit. This is the party you support? Republicans have ruined our country and made us look like fools in the eyes of the world. Tell me how can someone who writes such cool songs and flash the peace sign can support a party so full of finacially and morally corrupt morons?

Thanks TL for your impassioned support of Barack Obama. Let me go through some of your points:

....Hi Seth, Love your music....

Thanks!

....I think you are way off on Obama. Experience is certainly an important metric, but it pales in comparison to judgement...

Judgement comes from experience. Better judgement comes from more experience. Obama has very little experience, everyone would agree -- certainly not the kind of experience needed to run the...world.

....Obama was the only major candidate to have the good sense to stand against the invasion of Iraq...

Iraq was the right move and the one who deserves the credit --which he will get in the future, is President Bush. When Harry Truman took us into Korea in 1950, it was hugely unpopular. But, it was the right move. His poll numbers were at 22 per cent --the lowest EVER recorded for a sitting president. Bush like truman knows that being right is more important than being liked. The left is transfixed on doing what is popular, NOT what is right, in the big picture. Iraq is right -- if 9/11 taught us anything is that we had to instill hope in that region. Democracy/Freedom is the only thing that does that. Freedom inspires people NOT to blow up buildings. It inspires people to start businesses, buy homes, send children to school, create an environment of fairness for women and minorities, etc. When other Arabs, now living not very differently than Arabs lived 1000 years ago (in short, NOT FREE), they will want freedom. What a great thing to want! A future for your children free of the fascism theyve been living under. Only George W. Bush had the courage and wisdom to make the battleground in this war of civilizations, the middle east itself.

...when it was considered traitorous to do otherwise...

Am I supposed to feel sorry for those poor, poor democrats? They were elected, they had a vote, they chose to vote to dismantle Saddam's evil regime in favor of a peaceful one. Just when the going gets tough, the democrats changed their minds..talk about weak!

...and his legislative record shows a continuous pattern of similarly good judgement...

I have no idea what he's done. neither does 99 per cent of the country.

...I'm sure you already know that Obama's level of experience is equal to Lincoln's when he was elected - that has been the boiler plate response when the subject has been brought up in most quarters. He is also not far off JFK's resume. There is precedent for an Obama Presidency...at least as far as experience goes...

He is ranked #1 for his liberal votes on all the major issues. THAT will never, ever get him elected. He is not even close to where this country is -- middle, right. If he was the democratic nominee, he would get completely annhilated -- a McGovern-type landslide.

...Ultimately where your analogy falls, is that Sanjaya really couldn't cut the mustard. By contrast, Obama has been remarkably effective as a freshman Senator, coaxing Republicans like Richard Lugar and Tom Coburn to work across the aisle with him on substantive (though not sexy) legislation amidst one of the most toxic partisan atmosphere's in recent memory...

What Obama is, is smooth. He does what democrats do best: throws up a lot of "smart" sounding "ideas"-- AKA, platitudes -- like..."hope" and "we can do better" that go nowhere and answer no question. Zero. In this sense, he;'s exactly like Sanjaya --all facade,no beef. I love listening to Obama --he talks and talks and he says nothing. Listen to his ideas on what he'd do about Iraq. he says he'd pull out by March of '08 --an arbitrary date. And what then, when an orgy of gore erupts in the entire region? He doesn't answer that one

...If you prefer Richardson - that's fine. He is a good man and certainly would make an excellent President...

I don't prefer Richardson. I don't prefer a single democrat at any time, ever. Democrats have at their core one mission: to appease people who want to bring harm to us and our allies in the HOPE that they will stop. That's what Neville Chamberlain thought he had achieved at the Munich conference in 1938 with Hitler --Just give Herr Hitler the Sudetenland and he won't make war. 61 million lives later...

...Meanwhile we've got Obama, a guy who at least has the potential to be something pretty special. If you aren't comfortable with him, that's fine. But why minimize the impressive level of real substance the guy clearly does possess?...

When I see something substantive, I will applaud it. But when I see a charlatan, like I do with Obama, I will shine a light on it. Did you know that Obama said the Palestinians are the most oppressed people on the Earth? That would make their oppressors the Israelis -- yes, the same Israeli's that cleaned arms and legs of teenagers off of disco and pizzeria walls for six years, vicitms of suicide attacks from Palestinains that don't want peace, that don't want a two state solution, they want ISRAEL. But, Obama backs the killers, not our close and trusted democratic allies. The man's a Jimmy Carter-like, leftist fool.

...He's got two books that ought to put the Sanjaya comparison to rest...

Hitler wrote a book too --lots of people "write" books. The writing of a book doesn't make one smart or special. Moreover, Obama's second book was one long and boring policy speech, probably not written by him (at least that's the rumor but who cares).

...He didn't get into the positon he is in simply by being an empty vessel - he is a legitimate political heavyweight...

By every single standard, he's a political lightweight that would be extremely lucky if he was the Vice Presidential nominee. He has not written a single important article -- he hasn't made a single important speech, and no one is calling his books "important".

...I'm not asking you to support him...

I support people who haven't made shady business transactions, as Obama clearly has. But his disciples look past it. I look for centered, grounded, moral people who have had success running big states, like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. I look for people who aren't afraid to articulate a vision. Obama's vision is..."hope". Wow, I'm really impressed. Not.

...I'm simply asking you to really look at the guy before dismissing him so casually...

Obama makes it easy when you listen to his speeches and walk away NOT knowing his plan. It usually means someone doesn't have one.

...perhaps at least oppose him on more substantive grounds...

See above.

...Me? I'm obviously an unabashed supporter. I think he might possibly turn out to be a transformative figure in our politics, and I want to be part of that. Does that make me blinded by his rock star aura?...

Yes. Definitely. You're probably young and taken in by the same old, same old --democratic nonsense of "peace love and understanding." That would be nice if Iran wasn't threatening to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons or Al Qaeda wasn't planning to annhilate tens of thousands if not millions of Americans with dirty bombs. George W. Bush didn't provoke them: Muslims have been blowing up people, places and things for decades now. It's not time to be using phoney words like "transformative figure" when we're been made war on. The left doesn't want to acknowledge that fact. But, it remains a fact. And while it remains a fact, I want our next president to be someone who will take no prisoners, who will fight to WIN in Iraq and Afghanistan at all costs. Global Warming and all the other hoaxes championed by the left should be ignored: we are at war for the survival of western civilization and just because you have a multicultural name doesn't make you a legitimate candidate for the presidency during these difficult, but not insurmountable times.

Peace to you and thanks for your well-written piece.

Hi Seth,

Love your music.

I think you are way off on Obama. Experience is certainly an important metric, but it pales in comparison to judgement. Obama was the only major candidate to have the good sense to stand against the invasion of Iraq when it was considered traitorous to do otherwise, and his legislative record shows a continuous pattern of similarly good judgement.

I'm sure you already know that Obama's level of experience is equal to Lincoln's when he was elected - that has been the boiler plate response when the subject has been brought up in most quarters. He is also not far off JFK's resume. There is precedent for an Obama Presidency...at least as far as experience goes.

Ultimately where your analogy falls, is that Sanjaya really couldn't cut the mustard. By contrast, Obama has been remarkably effective as a freshman Senator, coaxing Republicans like Richard Lugar and Tom Coburn to work across the aisle with him on substantive (though not sexy) legislation amidst one of the most toxic partisan atmosphere's in recent memory.

If you prefer Richardson - that's fine. He is a good man and certainly would make an excellent President. But the reality is he isn't going to win. Meanwhile we've got Obama, a guy who at least has the potential to be something pretty special. If you aren't comfortable with him, that's fine. But why minimize the impressive level of real substance the guy clearly does possess?

He's got two books that ought to put the Sanjaya comparison to rest, and he has a legistlative track record that ought to at least partially assuage your fears about his experience. He didn't get into the positon he is in simply by being an empty vessel - he is a legitimate political heavyweight.

I'm not asking you to support him. I'm simply asking you to really look at the guy before dismissing him so casually - perhaps at least oppose him on more substantive grounds.

Me? I'm obviously an unabashed supporter. I think he might possibly turn out to be a transformative figure in our politics, and I want to be part of that. Does that make me blinded by his rock star aura?

Here's a few links to articles that might give you a better picture of his plus side:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/05/07/070507fa_fact_macfarquhar

Anyhow - sorry for the gentle scolding. Keep writing great songs!

TL

Yeah, it's a good thing Repiglicans don't go for style over substance - or they might elect a worthless chimp who'd lead us into a pointless war and hire 150 goobers from Pat Robertson's law school.

Seth - a most clever observation/comparison and brilliantly articulated. Thanks for sharing it.