"What will I do if I can't watch this excitement from the comfort of my own home?" (Photo by Richard Drew/AP)

I just read that Obama — or, more accurately, his transition helper John Podesta — wants the digital TV conversion pushed back from its Feb. 17 start date.

This seems dumb to me for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that most every station has already made the transition… here in southcentral Kentucky (hardly the most advanced area of the nation), two of the three stations transmitting have already stopped sending out analog signals. But there’s a deeper reason that I think this “delay the transition” talk is counterproductive.

Podesta says:

The program to provide consumers with a coupon to defray the cost of the digital-to-analog converter necessary to analog TV’s to continue to work has run out of funds … As of today, over 1 million coupon requests sit on the wait list, unable to be fulfilled by the Department of Commerce. By early February, projections suggest that number could climb to over 5 million… With coupons insufficient, and the most vulnerable Americans exposed, I urge you to consider a change to the legislatively mandated analog change. [bold mine–R]

The most vulnerable Americans? Is this what we’ve come to, that one of our primary concerns in a faltering economy is to make sure “vulnerable” Americans have access to Dr. Phil and Grey’s Anatomy?

That our government — even in the so-called “conservative” phase when this transition idea was mandated in 2005 — thinks it needs to subsidize people’s ability to get a TV signal is absurd in decent economic times; I, for one, can think of a lot better ways for Uncle Sam to spend his cash than helping people buy converters for their extremely old TV sets.

Think about what this means, in practical terms: Taxpayers are being put into further debt so they can keep their access to network television. Network television that, while supposedly “public,” is almost one-third advertisement. Advertisement for Snuggies and foreign cars and newfangled mops and a million other things the viewer a.) doesn’t need and b.) CAN’T AFFORD. Oh, and there are ads, too, for credit cards and reverse mortgages and “low” financing — it’s a near-constant refrain to the already poorer-than-before taxpayer (whose tax money is itself simply paying off the interest on a huge national debt) to go spend money he doesn’t have on things he doesn’t need. He is not just tempted, he is literally seduced by these ads… don’t lie, you are constantly coming up with reasons the purchase of that on-sale flat panel TV makes more sense than ever.

If one wants to explore some of the factors behind our nation’s debt and a failing economy spurred by the housing bubble, she only needs to look at the way our leaders and representatives intend to help the “vulnerable” among us.

This post is meant to foster discussion. Please add your thoughts, disputes, etc. at bottom.

Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable…the art of the next best.

— Otto von Bismarck, 1867

Short Version: Barring any unforeseen revelations about his character, criminal history or secret policy positions, I will be voting for Barack Obama in November. I suggest you do too. However, unless you read the Long Version, which immediately follows, do not email, call or otherwise bug me and try to argue why I should vote otherwise.

Long Version: First things first. I’m a 27-year-old white male. My family lives near the technical poverty line, although you wouldn’t know it to look at us. We have nice vehicles, a nice house, cable, Internet access, etc. I have a pretty good job and my wife, Shelley, is fortunate to be able to stay home with our child (and soon to be children). I was raised in a somewhat Baptist household, and now belong to a Presbyterian (PCA) church. I’m college educated, though not quite a college grad.

In November, I will be voting for the Democratic nominee for president, Barack Obama.

Working in journalism, I’ve spent much of my time in the past few years keeping up with current events, and with a particular appetite for politics and a root word, policy. (I could, in fact, boast that I’ve read more contemporary history in these past few years than the average person will read in his/her entire lifetime—but my Moses-esque humility won’t allow it.) Through that reading, I’ve come to my current political leanings, which are as follows:

•Libertarian socially (let people do what they want if it doesn’t hurt me or my kids)
•Conservative fiscally (let me keep as much of my income as possible, to do with it what I wish)
•Hyperlocal bureaucratically (let the smallest possible group decide on its own what it wishes its piece of society to look like).
•Noninterventionist in foreign policy (stay out of other nations’ business when it does not directly harm national interests)

Sounds like a Ron Paul voter, no? But there one’s more crucial point:

•Pragmatic when necessary—and that moment is now.

If this were 1992, I’d be rooting for Pat Buchanan, or possibly crazy uncle Perot. If this year’s GOP nominee were Paul, Pat Buchanan, or possibly even Mike “The Huckster” Huckabee (one of the daring who, despite other inadequacies, supports The FairTax, which would make a huge difference to our economy and to small-business owners like myself), I’d likely vote for any of these.

Put another way, I don’t like Obama’s general policy stances on taxes, abortion, immigration, entitlements, government interference, and probably a host of other issues. That said, I don’t like John McCain’s stances on the war in Iraq—or war in general—or taxes, immigration, entitlements, government interference… but most disturbingly, his blazing globalism.

Not only does McCain support continuing the war in Iraq indefinitely, but he endorses the idea of a “League of Democracies,” a liberal position that even Obama does not hold. He mocks Obama for considering the diplomatic route in regards to Iran—despite the fact that this same diplomatic route, as practiced by conservative icon Ronald Reagan, is what won the Cold War. Nor do I appreciate the way George W. Bush’s “conservative” administration has spent and spent and spent our tax dollars, while cutting tax rates and allowing the American economy to fall into the gutter.

“Tax and spend liberal” has been a scare tactic used to great effect over the past 30 years… that and the newer claim that Democrats are “soft” on national security. Yet our nation is far less solvent since Bush took office, and our nation is certainly no more secure than it ever was.

Then there’s the issue of “free trade,” which is an Orwellian oxymoron. Anyone who will spend a bit of time reading Buchanan (or any host of other “paleoconservative” or “traditional conservative” authors) will find out that protectionism—the practice of imposing tariffs on imports and other measures designed to reward Americans for buying local and American industry for staying in America—was common course until the last 50 years, and America’s economy steadily rose during that time, making it far the most dominant the world has ever known. Contrast that with today, when so-called conservatives tout “free trade” as if it were a religion, neglecting to notice that American industry is quickly drying up, the Chinese economy is skyrocketing (and they hold the majority of our TRILLIONS in debt), and that other nations are taxing our exports to their countries, while giving manufacturers in their countries tax REBATES on their exports to us—meaning a double-edged punishment that makes buying Japanese cheap here and buying American nearly impossible there.

Obama? He’s spoken out against NAFTA and might possibly rework these disastrous trade policies. McCain? He’s a “Kool-Aid” drinker on free trade, and on the flawed notion of globalism in general.

“But,” you may say, “Obama is far to the left of Ted Kennedy!” I think that statement a bit much, but I won’t argue the point that Obama is going to be some miraculous “uniter”… his voting record is solidly left-leaning, and he has no practical evidence of being a “bridge-builder,” save for his smooth rhetoric.

Yet, practically speaking and using actual evidence, not rhetoric, as a standard, shows the lie. As a strongly conservative blogger recently noted,

“(The GOP voters’) grandstanding leaders never deliver, their fury mounts and mounts, and nevertheless they turn out every two years to return their right-wing heroes to office for a second, a third, or a twentieth try,” observed leftist Thomas Frank in What’s the Matter with Kansas? “The trick never ages; the illusion never wears off. Vote to stop abortion; receive a rollback in capital gains taxes.”

Republican appointees to federal courts far outnumber Democratic ones, yet the GOP continues to trot out “judicial reform” as the thing they’re going to aim for above all. It hasn’t fleshed out—the majority of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, which has no intention of overturning Roe, are GOP appointees; the judge who ruled California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional? Lifelong Republican.

And consider:

•The number of women undergoing abortions went DOWN overall during the Clinton administration, and UP dramatically throughout the Bush II years
•Unemployment went DOWN overall during Clinton years, UP overall during Bush II
•Real value of wages has gone steadily down during Bush II
•Federal funds went from surplus during Clinton to MASSIVE, RECORD DEFICITS during Bush II
•Federal government spending has gone WAY UP during Bush II

McCain shows no signs of changing many of these metrics… abortion rates have been shown to be very much linked to economics. So-called “conservative” GOP government has spent more than any Democratic administration ever did. And a globalist viewpoint, which looks at America as the biggest member of a global community, instead of looking at AMERICANS and their well-being as the crucial deciding factor in every single decision, has proven harsh over the short term and could likely prove fatal if allowed to go unchecked.

The millions we’re spending PER DAY in Iraq—a nation which did not attack us, had no capacity to attack us, and was NOT a state sponsor of terrorism—would be better spent here. The lives we’re losing won’t spread democracy across the globe—and no one asked us to do it in the first place! As most honest brokers understand, al-Qaida (and all radical Islamists) don’t hate us for who we are, but for what we do, which is meddle in the affairs of the Middle East.

Four years ago, I listened to Obama speak at the Democratic National Convention—and here I promise, no exaggeration—and after hearing him, I told Shelley, “This guy will be the first black president.” It is increasingly looking like I was right.

What was in that speech were some things I hadn’t heard from any politician before… seemingly genuine talk of faith, genuine talk of an America that didn’t want to hear about hot-button issues, but who shared more than they disagreed on… the signature mood of “Hope” (has he trademarked that word yet?) was there on display.

Once Obama is president—and that’s not a sure thing, by any means—I will be as critical of him as I have been of pretty much every politician I’ve ever heard. One thing I know is that politicians are flawed just as politics are flawed, and the American people are often not well served by either party.

But what it ultimately comes down to, to me, is the war. I don’t support it because it wasn’t right; I don’t support it because it was far from necessary. Saddam was a bad guy—but there are 50 others the world over, in Sudan and Shanghai and Minsk and Moscow. This war has destroyed our credibility, left thousands of our troops (and tens of thousands of Iraqis, if you care) dead, obliterated our nation’s wallet and left us digging deeper and deeper into debt with China, a nation we should truly be scared of in this new cold war—waged with economic weapons.

I don’t know that I want nationalized health care… but my company’s plan isn’t so hot. I don’t know that government should force carmakers to make what they want… but I do know $4 a gallon for stuff we rely on our “enemies” for isn’t working. I don’t know what Obama’s education cabinet or health cabinet will look like… but I’m frightened of a hothead like McCain, who (it’s been widely reported) rips the heads off of those who disagree with him. Our country’s had enough of a president that “goes with his gut”—I think we’re ready to elect someone who will surround himself with intelligent people, not ideologues, and then listen to those people. (This is how most presidents govern—Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, all surrounded themselves with experts, not ideologues.)

If I were to stand on principle, I’d probably vote Libertarian. Their party stances, though far from perfect, are far closer to my own than either Democratic or Republican platforms. But this is not a time for hollow principle… this is, in my judgment, a time for pragmatism. And my pragmatic side tells me that, hands down, in THIS MOMENT, an Obama presidency (as contrasted with a McCain presidency) is the best choice we have. My vote may not make a difference; of all 50-some primaries, Obama got by far the fewest votes in Kentucky (carried only two counties, and got mere double-digit individual vote totals in many in the eastern part of the state), so I’m pretty sure McCain’s a lock for our electoral votes. But maybe this post will raise some questions, not only on who to vote for, but on what exactly voting is meant to accomplish in the first place.

Check out this apt little tidbit from the bloggers at American Conservative, a paleoconservative blog:

Lisa Schiffren paraphrases Bill Kristol, (from Fox News, I think) thusly: “If the election is about speeches, Obama wins. If it’s about a record of service, McCain wins.”

But, who wins the election if the big issue is not blowing up the world? [emphasis mine]

UPDATE | 12:30 p.m.: AP now reporting Obama has clinched nomination based on tally of convention delegates. Hillary camp says AP story is wrong, but campaign co-chair says she will congratulate Obama on the nomination when he gets the magic number—which AP now says he has.

9:17 a.m.: AP now reporting Hillary Clinton will concede the nomination tonight during speech… though her campaign won’t “officially” end, staffers will not be paid after June 15. Full story available in a couple hours at bgdailynews.com, as well as a million other places.

PS: Stay tuned for an in-depth post about my endorsement for president later in the week. I’m sure it will make waves.

UPDATE | 12:30 p.m.: AP now reporting Obama has clinched nomination based on tally of convention delegates. Hillary camp says AP story is wrong, but campaign co-chair says she will congratulate Obama on the nomination when he gets the magic number—which AP now says he has.

9:17 a.m.: AP now reporting Hillary Clinton will concede the nomination tonight during speech… though her campaign won’t “officially” end, staffers will not be paid after June 15. Full story available in a couple hours at bgdailynews.com, as well as a million other places.

PS: Stay tuned for an in-depth post about my endorsement for president later in the week. I’m sure it will make waves.

This, from the Washington Post’s Andrés Martinez, in response to a reader’s question on McCain’s health:

The less-familiar Section 4 of the amendment allows the vice president and “a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide” to declare the president unfit. In which case they would thus allow the vice president to take over the office — until and unless the president says, “Hey, guys, I’m okay!” In which case he gets to move back into the Oval Office — until and unless the vice president and his gang go to Congress within four days to insist that the president has to go. In which case Congress then has to sort it all out. Got all that?

So add Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the many reasons why Barack Obama should not pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate. Imagine what would happen the first time he caught a cold.

Though I remember it only vaguely, in the late ’80s/early ’90s, Vice President Quayle was the butt of many, many jokes, all based around his perceived stupidity. This stupidity, meanwhile, was based on a few choice “gaffes”… But was that characterization fair? Yes, sez I… but what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. So, via a right-wing talking head whose opinions I’ve generally despised, is this important piece that shows Saint Barack might not be as pearly white as the gates he’ll surely enter long after all the ballots — supers, caucai, etc. — are cast

By Michelle Malkin

All it takes is one gaffe to taint a Republican for life. The political establishment never let Dan Quayle live down his fateful misspelling of “potatoe.” The New York Times distorted and misreported the first President Bush’s questions about new scanner technology at a grocers’ convention to brand him permanently as out of touch.

But what about Barack Obama? The guy’s a perpetual gaffe machine. Let us count the ways, large and small, that his tongue has betrayed him throughout the campaign:

Last May, he claimed that tornadoes in Kansas killed a whopping 10,000 people: “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll: 12.

Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

Last week, in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, S.D., audience, Obama exulted: “Thank you, Sioux City. … I said it wrong. I’ve been in Iowa for too long. I’m sorry.”

Explaining last week why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, Obama again botched basic geography: “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.” On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois?

Obama has as much trouble with numbers as he has with maps. Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Ala., he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement: “There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Ala., because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.”

Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. His spokesman, Bill Burton, later explained that Obama was “speaking metaphorically about the civil-rights movement as a whole.”

Earlier this month in Cape Girardeau, Mo., Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by homing in on a lack of translators: “We only have a certain number of them, and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.” The real reason it’s “harder for us to use them” in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other non-Arabic languages.

Over the weekend in Oregon, Obama pleaded ignorance of the decades-old, multibillion-dollar massive Hanford nuclear-waste cleanup: “Here’s something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I’m not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I don’t know exactly what’s going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said that, I promise you I’ll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport.”

I assume on that ride, a staffer reminded him that he’s voted on at least one defense-authorization bill that addressed the “costs, schedules, and technical issues” dealing with the nation’s most contaminated nuclear-waste site.

Last March, the Chicago Tribune reported this little-noticed nugget about a fake autobiographical detail in Obama’s Dreams from My Father: “Then, there’s the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don’t exist, say the magazine’s own historians.”

And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn’t “pose a serious threat to us” — cluelessly arguing that “tiny countries” with small defense budgets can’t do us harm — and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.”

Barack Obama — promoted by the Left and the media as an all-knowing, articulate, transcendent Messiah — is a walking, talking gaffe machine. How many more passes does he get? How many more can we afford?