Here in Colorado, voters are being tasked with a large number of amendments and referenda, most dealing with fiscal policy, but one, Amendment 48, addresses one of the most fundamental questions of human existence, which is when it begins.  A simple, straightforward question that a high school biology student could answer in a flash, correct?  Would that it were that simple.

As with every issue that even tangentially brushes against the left's sacrosanct right to an abortion, this one has engendered widespread calumny, as well as a thicket of misinformation.  As the link above demonstrates, passing this amendment would merely establish what we all know is true--that human life begins at fertilization.  If it doesn't, when, pray tell, does it?

And, if it does, then isn't that newly formed life--a miracle of cells on it's inevitable way to birth--a "person"?  Well, not so fast.  A phalanx of liberals has mounted an attack, which amounts to a pre-emptive effort to deny person-hood to the unborn human--the "fetus" as they anonymously call it, as though none of them were ever in that state of development. 

Although it's a transparently specious counterargument, it's predictable, because once the pre-born is legally defined as a person, it will accrue the same panoply of rights that we all enjoy, and you know what that means--the liberals may have to stop slaughtering them in the womb.  That, according to the impenetrable coda of the left, is somehow an abridgment of their "rights."

The movement from the left's abstract characterization of the fetus as a mass of undefined cells to breath-taking ultrasound images of preborns sucking their thumbs has completely undermined their obtuse argument that a fetus isn't a human.  Indeed, the breezy way in which liberals de-humanize the preborn, transforming them into disposable medical waste, is nothing short of astonishing.  Since these are the same people who champion the defense of every animal, from the Snail Darter to the Spotted Owl, isn't there at least a hint of irony that they wouldn't extend the same courtesy to their own species?

Yet, in Colorado, and across the nation, the debate rages, with Obama in the vanguard, voting four times against a bill in the Illinois senate that would proscribe the barbarous act called live-birth abortion, and pledging that his first act as president will be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act.  The FCA would abrogate all state laws that limit abortion, allowing unrestricted access to all forms of abortion, including partial-birth abortion.

One day, in a distant future, there may be a new branch of social science called moral anthropology, which studies and catalogs the evolution of human morality.  If there is, it would be charged with the task of parsing the liberals' moral sensibility, in an effort to divine exactly how they felt justified in supporting the decimation of millions of unborn souls.

The primary problem with polls is not that they're inherently flawed--which they are--it's that they provide false confidence to supporters whose candidate is in the lead and they needlessly demoralize those whose candidate is trailing, which itself, can impact outcomes.  Writing in today's Wall Street Journal, political pundit Karl Rove makes the case for keeping our power dry, providing the recent history of prognostications based on skewed data that were gleefully transmitted by biased news announcers and which created serious problems on election day.

But beyond the pitfalls of election day follies is the very real impact of the daily drone of polling data that either elates or suffocates the electorate, depending upon their party affiliation.  When you consider that there are hundreds of polls, each with its unique assumptions and voter profile protocols that sift and filter preferences, it's no wonder they're no better at predicting outcomes than a roll of the dice.  But as Mr. Rove notes, the sheer number of polls this year is staggering and that can only bode poorly for grass roots democracy.

At the core of the problem is the over-hyped science that pollsters use which plays into our fervent desire for certainty during the fragile weeks in the run up to an election, when the candidates' movement in the polls is more fluid--read, unpredictable--than we would like.  The alternative, which makes nearly Herculean demands on our discipline, is to ignore the polls and continue working to elect the candidate of our choice. 

By eschewing the handicapping frenzy, the momentary ebb and flow, you not only avoid the quiet desperation that accompanies that fitful ride, you can more constructively focus your energy on supporting your candidate since you're no longer in the thrall of statistical gamesmanship.  Moreover, at least in public, the wisest candidates remain above the polling fray, refusing to celebrate positive polling data and avoiding despondency when their numbers are down.  That's not only because they don't want supporters in the case of the former to slack off or in the case of the latter, to stay home, it's truly a recognition that calling races that are as close as this one is simply not possible.

So, as we move into the final few days of this election, stay engaged, rally support for McCain, donate your time and money, and remember that the electoral maps we see on news programs or the Web are created based on polling data, and, as they say, there's no such thing as a sure thing.

This evening, Barack Obama will provide Americans with a thirty minute infomercial designed to close the deal on the presidential race.  According to the New York Times, which received a minute-long trailer, it's long on imagery intended to showcase the Illinois senator as the antidote to the alleged failures and shortcomings of the past eight years.

Emphasizing his presumably new way to solve our nation's problems, Obama states that “We’ve been talking about the same problems for decades and nothing is ever done to solve them."  Obama could use a bit of McCain's straight talk.  Perhaps he forgot about the Great Society, the program under President Johnson, that drained $6.7 trillion from tax payers to solve those very problems. 

However, Obama is correct in that nothing was, in fact, solved.  Rather, those decades witnessed the evolution of a welfare state that hobbled inner-city minorities by providing unlimited assistance for having children out of wedlock.  Indeed, it was Democrats, whose quixotic and misguided notions about helping those in need squandered trillions while creating the most reliable transfer of intergenerational poverty known to man. 

The video then goes on to profile four American families, highlighting their unique challenges and outlining the kinds of solutions Obama feels are indicated.  We can anticipate the multi-tiered set of programs that Obama will posit, all implicitly predicated on the incremental expansion of the legitimate role of government.  It's the corollary of his redistributive plan to "spread the wealth around," a kind of economic ponzi scheme for those he deems less capable of succeeding on their own.

All of this recalls the New Deal, which heralded the era of the Leviathan government, wherein new rights were minted out of ether and codified into law.  Although it was touted as a sterling age where government righted the wrongs of our capitalist system, as Michael Barone observes, the bevy of programs Roosevelt started did little to improve unemployment or mitigate poverty.  Rather, he single-handedly authored the wholesale intrusion of government into the economy, while providing a universal justification for confiscatory taxation to underwrite the effort.

Curiously, the eight years of the Bush Administration, which Obama and his ilk use as fodder to argue for change, was merely a kind of governmental and cultural proving ground, whose shameless spending provided the logical segue to an Obama presidency which, with a reanimated Democratic Congress, will effortlessly dwarf it.

In this intellectually incestuous universe, Obama himself resides at the center, assuring the electorate, without the slightest bit of evidence, that he'll solve our intractable problems--at a cost, of course, and not merely in terms of tax dollars.

There's a point at which optimism is undermined by inevitability, and the electoral math required for a McCain victory now seems nearly impossible to achieve, and that's the analysis from Karl Rove, whose acumem we might wish was less insightful his time around.  Although something cataclysmic could happen to change the political equation, with one week until the election, the odds are clearly against it.

We'll save the walk through the wreakage for after the election, the kind of introspective query that seeks to plumb the nation's thinking on weighty matters such as presidential elections.  But since the mainstream media is studiously remiss in its responsibility to define for voters what an Obama presidency will probably look like, we'll examine what a tripartite government under Obama, Reid, and Pelosi regime might bring us.

The first stop will be an across the board cut in military spending because we know who would win the proverbial 'guns or butter' debate.  Rep. Barney Frank is reportedly already at work on such a plan, with cuts as massive as 20 percent.  Universal health care will surely be at the top of the liberal agenda, with mandates at every level which will hobble employers and increase unemployment, not to mention corporate profits--which will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.

You may not have heard of the Freedom of Choice Act, but it's one Obama has championed for some time now.  It's a national law that, if enacted, would abrogate all state-level abortion restrictions, which will make that barbaric practice even more common than it already is.  The federal bench will be packed with activist judges guaranteed to legislate from the bench, and Supreme Court nominees will be quickly vetted for their fidelity to Roe v. Wade and a host of other issues they haven't been able to win legislatively, from racial quotas to immigration.

On taxes we can be assured of an increase in the marginal rates such that the top income earners--those would be the ones who produce jobs--will return to pre-Reagan rates.  And taxes on capital gains and corporations will surely rise, as will the death tax (because it's only for millionaires), and taxes on dividends--those will hit many of the 60 percent of Americans who currently invest in stock mutual funds.

Remember the "immigration" debate?  Yes, not the "illegal immigration" debate, because that debate never really happened.  But now with unfettered powers, we can be confident that the 12-20 million illegals will be granted full rights--ahead of those who've waited patiently for years.

Tort reform will be a pipe-dream, with the trial lawyers pushing for more class actions against corporations who legally manufacture such productss as guns.  Since Obama's a staunch opponent of the 2nd Amendment we can expect a reanimation of the sunsetted assault rifle ban and sharp increases in taxes for firearms and ammunition, as well as an attempt to eradciate concealed carry laws.

Of course, much of this depends upon exactly how many seats the Democrats pick up in the House and Senate, but predictions at this point are 14-18 in the former and 4-6 in the latter, not a veto-proof majority in the upper chamber, but nonetheless giving them the kind of clout that would make Louis XIV pleased.

Has America devolved so profoundly that it would support this kind of agenda?  Just look at the polls.

Editor's Note:  In reply to a front-page news story and editorial in Sunday's Colorado Springs Gazette, ClearCommentary's editor submitted the following letter.

As we’re all aware, in political campaigns there’s a dovetailed relationship between favorable media attention and donations, and the presidential race is a textbook example (“Obama Leads Area Donations,” 1A, and “The Death of Objectivity,” Our View, Oct. 26).

As the editorial confirms, even casual observers of our mainstream media understand that it’s in the uncontested control of liberals, and that this is the first election where its pretension of objectivity has been jettisoned.  Indeed, although the practitioners at our mainstream news outlets long ago recognized that most Americans understood their facade of impartiality was a charade, they brought remarkable skill and artifice to disguising it.

Beyond the disparate treatment in terms of the amount of favorable coverage, the emphasis and news-cycle duration given to the key topics is equally revealing.  To wit, although your editorial downplays the role of William Ayers, who “tried to terrorize his own country when Obama was 8,” do you think the media would have provided the same kind of uncritical  treatment had McCain had similar associations?  Or, with respect to the racist, anti-American, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, would McCain have received the same treatment if he had spent two decades attending the church of a fire-breathing white supremacist?  Of course not—McCain’s political career would be over; in contrast, due in part to the media’s journalistic malpractice, Obama is leading in the polls.

Therefore, although the media has chronically underreported and artfully disguised Obama’s history and his policy recommendations, before you cast your vote for him, you should bear in mind that this is a man who would meet without preconditions with the world’s despots, who would increase corporate and capital gains taxes during an economic downturn, who has professed an antagonism to fossil fuels and nuclear energy, who refused to vote against the abomination called live-birth abortion, and who is on record as being hostile to 2nd Amendment rights.  Is that truly your vision for America?

As the eulogies for McCain's candidacy are pre-emptively written and post-mortems drafted by our political pundits, it's timely to ask whether the Republican Party is, as so many commentators have argued, out of ideas.  However, in order to answer that question we'll have to control for the difference between ideas and their execution in the form of policy.

To wit, as we argued well before the 2006 elections, the Bush Administration has been an appalling example of fiscal conservatism, having vetoed not one spending bill in the first six years of his presidency.  Add to that his untoward support for the Medicare drug bill as well as a plethora of other immodest spending, his curious embrace of amnesty for illegal aliens, and a variety of other vexing proposals, and you have the picture of a party grinding its political gears to a halt.

But that pattern of inconstancy to conservative principles must be viewed in the broader context of a nation whose cultural compass and the values that undergird them, have shifted leftward, at times in unsightly ways.  Indeed, an unprecedented number of Americans now believe that the government should play a much stronger role in the design and delivery of our health care, that redistributing income and wealth is a legitimate charge of government, and that more--not smarter--regulation of our financial markets is called for.

The corollary of these arguments, that a lower government profile in our lives is more conducive to economic success up and down the income ladder, that regulation targeted to weed out illicit--versus merely aggressive--behavior in the markets is preferable, that a low tax structure is the most productive way of lifting people through the income quintiles, and that the health care 'crisis' can only be made worse by having the federal government control it, are losing intellectual currency with an electorate that is clearly in the thrall of expedited solutions sans sacrifice.

Wedded to these arguments is the quaint notion that most of our problems, at least the ones highlighted by politicians, are, traditionally speaking, no business of the government.  Since these problems are personal, be they job related or the result of making injudicious financial decisions, they're rightfully our own to solve.  But there's no question that we've experienced a kind of government bracket creep, as those problems have incrementally migrated into the public sphere where politicians shamelessly promise solutions to purchase support.

Therefore, the argument that the Republican Party is out of ideas is inappositely stated:  Rather, many, perhaps most politicians, whose first priority is re-election, faithfully fulfill their voters' wishes by compromising conservative principles.  Reanimating those principles will be a daunting task because they're hostile to our culture whose blind entitlement creates nearly limitless demands of government, apparently ignorant of the timeless truth that life's struggles are rendered meaningless when others relieve us of the responsibility to face them.

That's why the party seems to be politically listless, demoralized, and without direction.  It's far more challenging being a conservative than a liberal, as the latter's primary focus is doing more with other people's money, and with proffering collectivist solutions to individual problems, both of which register high on our convenience calculator, since they appear risk free and require neither sacrifice nor hard work.

Segueing from our theme of political revisionism in yesterday's post, today we'll examine how the free-floating change-mantra Obama has cultivated is capturing otherwise intelligent people, convincing them, without a scintilla of evidence, that, among other miracles, he'll remake America's global image.

We turn to a reliable liberal commentator, Nicholas D. Kristof, writing in today's New York Times, whose predicate is that an Obama presidency

...could change global perceptions of the United States, redefining the American “brand” to be less about Guantánamo and more about equality.  This change in perceptions would help rebuild American political capital in the way that the Marshall Plan did in the 1950s or that John Kennedy’s presidency did in the early 1960s.

Effortlessly demonstrating that grandiosity knows no limits, Kristof likens Obama's prospective influence to two major phenomena in American history, once again, without any hint of supporting evidence.  The two key themes in his editorial are the stock and trade of modern liberalism, race and equality.  In their view, the former is comprised of sins that are genetically imbued in America's legacy, and the latter is a goal second to none, including eternal salvation.

Kristof quotes former General Colin Powell, who averred that an Obama presdiency “will also not only electrify our country, I think it’ll electrify the world.”  Heady stuff, to be sure, but what, other than the prospect of being the first president with dark skin pigment--which, while obviously unprecedented, undermines the left's notion of being post-racial--does Powell et al believe Obama will do to electrify the world? 

And, more specifically, what exactly will Obama do to refurbish America's image in the world's eyes?  If Kristof has anything in mind, he seems mysteriously guarded about it.  However, speculation based upon Obama's thin political resume does yield some interesting possibilities.  Since, as many have observed, Obama is as much a citizen of the world as of America, he'll likely defer to transnational institutions, such as the ingeniously feckless United Nations, whose history of corruption would make a Mafia Don smile.

It's also inevitable that in Obama's first month international charges of terrorism will be lodged against the U.S. by any number of sources.  Based on his obtuse support of the sanctity of international law, as well as his scant support of American sovereignty, he'll surely throw himself--and America--at the mercy of the International Criminal Court, genuflecting at the alter of that hallowed higher authority, yet another one that's above his pay grade.

Since Kristof and his ilk are convinced that Obama can replace "Bush hatred" with "Obama-mania," and since our enemies won't disappear overnight, it's abundantly evident that this love-fest will be the result of ceding American sovereignty to a richly antagonistic amalgam of international organizations, all in the spirit of cooperation, a kind of secular ecumenism without boundaries.  We can hear al-Qaeda celebrating at the prospect.

Does anyone truly believe Obama would have the strength of character to deny these global demands?  There's certainly no evidence of it, which also means he has no incentive to resist the Pelosi-Reid team, which is intent upon a robust spending spree--to borrow Kristof's analogy--a kind of domestic Marshall Plan.

It's been observed that art takes a lifetime of practice, but political art is more instinctual.  Perhaps that's why so many liberals seem to have mastered the art of revisionism with respect to our war against radical Islam.  Whenever we need supporting evidence for such arguments, we turn to the Huffington Post, and, once again, they've graciously accommodated.

Prototypical of leftists, Jon Soltz argues that the war in Iraq was a powerful recruiting tool for al-Qaeda, and that "continuing in Iraq saps resources in the fight against al Qaeda, where they are based - the border region of Pakistan/Afghanistan."  This chicken and egg argument always seems to confound liberals, primarily because they don't accept the predicate of this, and arguably, most wars:  To wit, every war in history illustrates that they're inherently unpredictable, and managing them is a vexing and daunting task, with their outcomes virtually always uncertain; that's why the left prefers antiseptic wars, such as Clinton's in Bosnia, which was conducted from the air.  Indeed, the term "bogged down" gives liberals the chills, recalling nightmares from Viet Nam. 

But, back to Iraq:  Our mission necessarily evolved when WMD weren't found, but we did decapitate its leader, the barbaric Saddam Hussein, and his two henchmen sons.  It's at this point that Soltz and his liberal pals seem to forget that Osama bin Laden announced that Iraq is the front in their war against the West generally and America in particular, hence the name Al-Qaeda in Iraq.  Now, one can argue that our efforts there became an ideological magnet for al-Qaeda, drawing them from near and far, but since the salient goal of war is to win, we might ask them to explain why this is contrary to that goal?

But it's the left's corollary of that argument, that tacitly asserts that had we withdrawn from Iraq three years ago and lowered our international profile--which is what al-Qaeda demanded--the violence against America and her interests would have ceased.

Next, in this series of strategic non sequiturs, is their argument that we should have focused exclusively on Afghanistan.  They seem to have conveniently overlooked the fact that the reason the Afghanistan-Pakistan region is the new front in this battle is because we've prevailed in Iraq, which is to say the country is on a trajectory of ultimate stability in a region conspicuously hostile to democratic governance. 

Since reallocating precious assets based on tactical predictions of enemy force structures is fraught with uncertainty and never neatly comports with the situation on the ground, our realignment of assets to Afghanistan, and the western region of Pakistan was not ideal.  But where's the credit from Soltz and the liberal establishment for our obvious successes in Iraq?  Indeed, what would Iraq--and the region--look like had we withdrawn when they demanded?  It would have become a cauldron of extremism, with genocide throughout Iraq.  The admittedly inadvertent by-product of how the war in Iraq evolved is that it did become a recruiting mechanism for al-Qaeda, which greatly simplified the logistics of decimating them. 

A final Soltz irony is his obtuse handling of the assertion that al-Qadea wants McCain to win because he will continue the war in Iraq, what one Web site apparently called "the failing march of his predecessor, Bush."  He weds this with the equally inane contention that "There's no question that continuing the war in Iraq would prolong the strain that our military is facing, trying to fight a two-front war...Al Qaeda would be much worse off if the U.S. shifted priority from Iraq to going on the offense in Afghanistan, as Senator Obama has proposed."

Perhaps Soltz suffers from short-term memory loss, but we've been fighting a two-front war, and done so rather successfully.  Now that Iraq is being turned over to its own military, we've begun to realign our forces accordingly.   But it wasn't Obama who first proposed it, it was President Bush and General Petaeus.

It's remarkable that the left continues to fabricate its own unique narrative of our war against radical Islam, but it demonstrates, once again, that their political goals invariably trump reality, which means they'll continue to tactically revise the truth, in service to their broader political strategy.

If you've wondered, in idle moments, why the country is so divided and whether Obama-the-uniter is the universal antidote he claims to be, you should consider Robert Borosage's piece in today's Huffington Post.  It's a view from liberalism's intellectual hot-house where inbred ideas are meticulously nurtured and bloom in a pedigree faithful to the left's monochromatic paradigm, creating, to borrow a phrase from the poet William Butler Yeats, "Monuments to their own magnificence."

Linking to a Wall Street Journal editorial which warned of the political dangers of a White House and Congress dominated by one party, Borosage taps into his exquisitely designed unipolar world, observing that were Obama to win,

Voters will be registered.  Workers organized.  Banks regulated.  Health care provided for all. Government investment will drive a green revolution that generates millions of jobs.  The wealthy will pay more in taxes.  Guantanamo will be shut down; torture will end.  Net neutrality will be mandated.  Citizens may even be able to sue corporations that negligently do them harm.  And that doesn't even mention ending the war in Iraq.

As you let that vision for America sink in, it might remind you of one of those perfectly regulated nations such as Sweden, where decisions are made for you, from cradle to grave, where the only reason to create wealth is to support that junkie known as government, where abortion and euthanasia are the twin pillars of a morally bankrupt culture, and where conflict--much less war--has miraculously ceased to exist.

Peering beyond the window dressing of that argument, we find the underlying justification, which is the left's cynical belief that people--but especially their protected classes, minorities--can't be successful without government larges.  It's what President Bush correctly called the soft bigotry of low expectations, and for anyone not schooled in the left's curriculum of social engineering, it's patently insulting.

So Borosage predictably, if inartfully concludes that the liberals' charge is

...to organize engaged citizens to hold Democrats accountable to the promises that have been made and the agenda the country needs.  If we do that well, just maybe we can deepen the Wall Street Journal's lamentations.  Cut the military budget.  Forge a national strategy for the global economy.

It's clear that we've come full circle since the savage and unprovoked attacks of 9/11, because the hard left, with Obama in the vanguard, wants to cut the military budget.  And, it wouldn't be a true liberal pageant without their dream of prostrating America's economy before the global community, euphemistically described as a "national strategy for the global economy." 

As we've argued--at times with cheerful optimism, more recently, in the penumbra of desperation when McCain seemed unaware that his campaign was Lethe-bound--this is a center-right nation, one that bridles against the Statist dreams of Western Europe.  As the election draws near and the afterglow of the last debate recedes in voters' minds, we can only pray that Independents and conservative Democrats understand that an Obama administration would be grossly unhealthy for this nation, economically, morally, and in the vital realm of national security.

If you're somewhat despondent about Senator McCain's performance in last evening's debate, count yourself among millions of Republicans who sat in stunned silence as the presidential hopeful peppered his opponent with jabs but was unable to fell him.  There were so many missed opportunities and unclosed loops that it became frustrating to watch.  But before we become too immersed in self-pity, let's look to the mastermind of political strategy, Karl Rove, for some encouragement.

Writing in today's Wall Street Journal, Mr. Rove provides the context necessary to calm our jittery nerves, noting that the most reliable poll, from Investor's Business Daily, says this is a three-point race.  And, although Obama is outspending McCain nearly two-to-one, Rove reminds us that Senator Kerry outspent President Bush in 2004 by $121 million and still lost.  Moreover, the Washington Post/ABC poll found that a remarkable 45 percent of voters still don't feel Obama is qualified to be president.

You can absorb Rove's arguments and his electoral math seems sound, but this will ultimately come down to trust and confidence.  Last night probably reassured Democratic voters that Obama has a presidential persona, one that's credible if short on the depth of experience that brings a bona fide gravitas to his aura.  But, the question is where the undecided voters are, and there are millions of them.  They tend to fall into the Independent category and they traditionally lean rightward, in particular in times when the economy is weak or issues of national security are paramount.  In this election, of course, both weigh heavily on voters' minds.

In presidential battles, voters are drawn towards candidates with a coherent narrative, one that exudes confidence and predictability.  They're looking for reassurance and strong leadership, someone who will not only reflect their views but who will stand up for American values.  Comparing McCain and Obama, it's difficult to argue that the latter would satisfies that criteria, and when we superimpose our challenges, from the economy to a belligerent Iran and wavering Russia, one can argue that McCain's experience and judgment is superior.

But, underlying the electorate's preferences are powerful emotions concerning the more intuitive and image-based notions of the candidates.  These variables are arguably more potent in the calculus of decision-making, because they're the ones that personalize our decision, which bring our deepest values to the forefront.  Those are under constant bombardment from a multitude of sources, from television ads to editorials, to the debates.  For undecided voters, it's a matter of which variables and values are most prominent in the architecture of their political thinking.

McCain's challenge is to reconfigure that hardwiring in the undecideds, to convince them that not only is Obama unprepared for the presidency, that he'll raise taxes and chat up our enemies, but that the risks of an Obama in the White House far outweigh the benefits. 

Although it's certainly possible, his task is both monumental and daunting--but it can be done.

We all know the axiom that character matters and that principles are what animates them.  Yet, as the race for the White House moves into its final chapter, there's clear evidence that politics trumps character, that, as Shelby Steele once wrote about Bill Clinton, for many, perhaps most Americans, if your politics are correct, character flaws and questionable judgment are forgiven.

And, the truth is that Obama's glib rhetoric and deft polemics resonate with a nation fatigued by war and a president many feel has overstayed his welcome.  Never mind the fact that Obama spent two decades listening to the sermons of an anti-American racist, that he consorted with an unrepentant domestic terrorist, in whose living room he launched his campaign for the Illinois legislature, or that he benefited from land deals facilitated by a convicted felon.

When the media is so thoroughly complicit in journalistic malpractice, as it surely is with respect to its utter failure to vet Obama, and when our culture, whose primary feature is an studied indolence concerning matters of morality and character, a man with a checkered past but a mandarin tongue can propel himself to the White House. 

In our age, where evil is downgraded to a misdemeanor, where despots are given freedom-fighter status, and where totalitarian states are granted a diplomatic seat at the civilized table, Obama's appeal is trans-national.  An uncritical supporter of the United Nations (our modern day thugocracry), the International Criminal Court, which would undermine American sovereignty, and a strong supporter of the corrupt World Bank, Obama is perfectly positioned to become not merely president of the U.S., but of the free world.

As we've argued, there's still time for McCain to change the dynamics of the race, but it's a tall order at this point in the game.  His campaign is among the worst in modern history, halting, stammering, and nearly incoherent, it lacks an overarching theme to capture the public's imagination.  McCain's best hope is to hammer away at the fact that Obama is just too liberal for America, that ours is a right-of-center nation, not a nation that could support his socialist policies.

Tonight he'll have his final chance to make his case to the voters--we hope and pray he truly understands what's at stake.

It appears as though Senator McCain is finally awakening from his electoral slumber.  For reasons that defy common sense he's been reticent to level the charge that Obama is an arch liberal, far more liberal than Sens. Gore and Kerry.  The more voters hear about the socialist underpinnings of his economic plans the more concerned they'll be.  Yesterday in Toledo he was quoted as saying that "spreading around the wealth is good for everyone."  That's nothing less than a paraphrase of Marx, yet you won't see it on the evening news or on the pages of our mainstream press.

With gas prices plummeting and the stock market showing clear signs of recovery, voters' attention can be subtly redirected.  McCain should continue to highlight the stark differences between Obama's rhetoric and his record, noting that this 'uniter' has never crossed party lines on a significant piece of legislation, at the state or national level. 

And, although his questionable associations with the likes of Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, William Ayers et al, are legitimate issues, they probably won't sway conservative Democrats and Independents who tend to be compelled by fiscal matters as well as national security.  If surrogates want to pursue those attack lines they're certainly free to do so, but the future commander-in-chief should focus on his vision for America and that of his opponent, who has pledged to raise taxes, but only on the 'rich,' of course.

David Brooks, the studiously centrist columnist for the New York Times, has already capitulated the race and is welcoming--apparently, not bracing for--the coming wave of Keynesian spending compliments of the Democrats who, in his view, will have complete control over Washington.  It will be a kind of political Armageddon in which the liberals will be feasting at the public trough as never before, with an endless list of remedies for our economic ills, all featuring more tax dollars.

Sadly, Brooks' analysis may not be far off the mark, if, that is Obama wins.  However, as we've argued in these columns, although the nation has clearly lurched leftward, it's difficult to see mainstream voters supporting a candidate who makes George McGovern look moderate.  Here in Colorado, the race is exceedingly close and the liberals are drowning the state in advertising, most of highly negative--unlike McCain, who seems perfectly content to unilaterally disarm, they certainly haven't.  For a candid look at the 'horrors' of negative campaigning, see Thomas Sowell's piece at RealClearPolitics.com.

Although McCain can still win, the only election in modern history where a presidential candidate has prevailed when being this far behind this late in the game was Ronald Reagan

Although McCain can still win, the only election in modern history where a presidential candidate has prevailed when being this far behind this late in the game was Ronald Reagan, but if he continues to fight as hard as he is today, we have cause for optimism.

Returning to Colorado after a two-thousand mile pilgrimage through the prairie states and across America's heartland, it appears as though the electoral momentum is redounding to Barack Obama.  But, that's the conventional wisdom, gleaned from newspapers and mainstream television reporting which are force-fed a diet rich in polling data designed to reinforce the seeming inevitability of an Obama victory.

However, before we offer our analysis, we'll let Patrick Buchanan weigh in with a balanced and insightful analysis that hits the electoral high and low notes just right, underscoring the opportunities and pitfalls that await McCain.

Deeply embedded in virtually every editorial, newspaper article or television report we glimpsed were bleak prognostications and sorrowful lamentations concerning our financial markets, which are invariably larded with an anecdotal storyline calculated to wed the entire debacle to the Bush presidency, which is ineluctably tied to Senator John McCain.  Indeed, the somber tone of every radio announcer or television anchor or article is one of purposeful resignation, and it's only Obama's studied timidity on the subject that gives us any hope for a McCain victory next month.  He's convinced he can coast to victory and that is McCain's best hope to turn this around.

But, therein lies the quandary:  With the political walls crumbling all around him and the enemy at the gate, anyone else would be at daggers drawn, understanding that his electoral lifeblood is slowly being drained--except for McCain, whose lack of urgency either belies a deeper and more aggressive strategy that he has yet to unleash or betrays an astonishing lack of understanding of the political battlefield.

Indeed, in every city or town we visited, from the quiet hamlets in south-west Minnesota to Rapid City to the frontier town of Cheyenne and across Nebraska, the talk from regular Republicans in restaurants and on the editorial pages was bewilderment at McCain's stunning indifference to the grim fact that we're in the eleventh hour of his campaign and rather than doffing his gloves he's wearing a smoking jacket, nodding out in his corner.

It's all the more astounding because Obama's candidacy is such a target-rich environment, which is to say it would be nearly impossible to find a more liberal Democrat, barring even a clone of George McGovern.  We've heard endless stories about Bush fatigue, the economy, and the war, but that dwarfs when compared with a political strategy that begins by listing Obama's top ten liberal positions.

In a coordinated attack with the RNC, McCain should compile such a list and hammer each of them in a national campaign that forces them into the evening news cycle and onto the front pages of mainstream papers, each time succinctly concluding that Obama is just too extreme, whether it's on foreign policy, taxes, abortion, or guns, and linking them all to his associations with extremists from Reverend Wright to William Ayers.

It's all there, just waiting for McCain to exploit.  In twenty-four days we'll either be waking up to the prospect of four years of President Obama or President McCain.  If the thought of higher taxes and lower security makes you cringe, do everything you can in the interim to make the case to McCain directly and in letters to the editor, that this is still winnable, that it matters, and that there is a crucial difference between the ad hominen attacks he correctly eschews and highlighting character flaws and chronic lapses in judgment, which are completely legitimate, and which he has failed to exploit.

Editor's note:  We're on a road trip, from Colorado to the mid-west, taking the sights and sounds of the nation's heartland, as well as guaging it's political temperature.  Tarrying now in a quiet hamlet in south-western Minnesota, we perused an article in the Twin Cities' oracle of liberal wisdom, the Star Tribune, which has an uncanny ability to meld its reporting with its editorial proclivities. 

A front-page article in Sunday's paper quotes it's own poll, which are notoriously biased and therefore quaranteened from the likes of Gallup and Rasmussen, that concluded that Obama is 18 points ahead of McCain.  Citing voters' belief that Obama is better able to deal with our economic crisis and his performance in the first presidential debate, the article makes the predictable conclusion that he is well positioned to win in November.

That prompted our letter to the editor of the Star Trib:

For many, it's a comforting, if unfounded axiom of politics in Minnesota that Democrats generally and Obama specifically, are better able to resolve our economic problems ("Obama leaps ahead of McCain," Oct. 5).  Indeed, the conventional wisdom wending it way through the mainstream media is that the Republican anti-regulatory instinct is responsible for the debacle in our capital markets.

For an antidote, we turn to Senate bill 190, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, would have mandated unprecedented levels of regulatory oversight for the mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and would have become law except for the fact that senate Democrats voted against it, on a party-line vote in committee; in contrast, Senator McCain was one of three co-sponsors for the bill.  Another carefully guarded secret is that Sens. Obama, Clinton, and Dodd led the charge to run interference in support of Mae and Mac.  Not surprising, all three have received tens of thousands of dollars from these mortgage cash machines.

Among other things, the bill would have significantly limited the financial exposure of these entities by redefining the levels of acceptable risk and recalibrating their debt-equity ratio requirements.  However, senate Democrats, whose intransigence directly contributed to the debacle we're facing, voted their financial and political conscience, not their ethical conscience, effectively socializing the risk while privatizing the profits.

The media's shameful portrayal of these failures as attributable to Republicans is hardly surprising because they and their Democrat chums in Congress are deft historical revisionists practiced at the art of political opportunism.  So, as the Democrats become incandescent, gloating that Republican greed is to blame for our financial sector woes, we would do well to remind them that political self-interest is a bipartisan disease, and that Obama's plan to tax his way out of our crisis is hardly change we can believe in.